Construction Program Management
Basic Required Capabili1es
of the Program Management Team
•
Extensive Experience in the Architectural and
Engineering Design Process
•
Solid Experience in all types of Design Contracts and
Construc1on Contracts
•
Extensive Experience in Construc1on Procurements
•
Good muddy boots Construc1on Field Experience
•
Extensive Experience in General Project Management
•
Extensive Knowledge of Cost Es1ma1ng Process
•
Extensive Knowledge of Scheduling Design and Construc1on
•
Good Skills in Computer Based Scheduling and Repor1ng
1
2
3
4
5
6
1. Predesign Planning and Programming
2.
Design Services Procurement
3. Design Phases
4. Pricing and Award of Main Construc1on
Contract(s)
5. Construc1on
6. Close-‐out
1
2
3
4
5
6
Program Management Information
System – Provides detailed
tracking, analysis, reporting and
recommendations throughout
PMIS
Quick Update reports for Owner s Senior Management
Periodic dynamic database-generated reports
on all aspects of the construction program
1
2
3
4
5
6
2. Design Services Procurement
A Frequently Overlooked and
1
2
3
4
5
6
Design Phase services include, among many other management ac1ons, careful
tracking of the cost and close review of the work of the architect and engineers.
System illustrated is for a large project.
1
2
3
4
5
6
The Program Manager s skills in buying construc1on, analyzing
proposals and nego1a1ng are oZen very much needed at this
point in order to protect the interests of the Owner and Users.
1
2
3
4
5
6
•
OZen one (or more) people working on the site full 1me.
•
PM con1nues to coordinate the services of the AE.
•
PM con1nues to coordinate the services of other consultants.
•
All RFIs pass through the PM.
The owner's posture
for purchasing construc1on
Compe11on
•
The only project delivery method that obtains a highly dependable
total construc>on contract award price at only about halfway
through the design phases with only a liAle over half of the design
cost incurred
•
Reduces Owner s cost for a fully equivalent end product.
•
Reduces Owner s exposure to contractor ini>ated changes orders
•
The construc>on goes faster and smoother than in other methods
•
Reduces Owner s exposure to claims
•
Reduces costs/delays/disputes in fixing ever present bugs
discovered aGer occupancy
Georgia Tech Savannah
Georgia Tech Savannah
Program Management and Owner s Design Consultant
Original Budget (Budgeted early 2002) for the Construc9on
Contract Award Price (CCAP):
$21,155,860
Amount of CCAP (Awarded late 2002):
$19,643,685
Project Delivery Method:
Bridging
Status:
Complete
Number of Contractor-‐ini9ated Change Orders:
0
Total Cost of Contractor-‐ini9ated Change Orders:
$0
Number of claims against the College/University:
0
Post-‐Occupancy Costs to the College/University due to “bugs”:
$0
Owner’s Design Consultant (“Bridging Architect”):
Brookwood Group
Contractor:
Hardin Construc9on
Scien1fic Atlanta/Cisco Systems – Juarez, Mexico
Program Management and Owner s Design Consultant
Original Budget (Budgeted early 2000):
for the Construc-on Contract Award Price (CCAP)
$8,000,000
Amount of CCAP (Awarded late 2000):
$7,346,800
Project Delivery Method:
Compe--ve bids were received for a Bridging type Design-‐Build contract
Bridging
Status:
Cost includes all site development. First 50,000 sf of the 100,000 sf total space was completed and occupied (7) calendar months aGer Brookwood, as Development Manager and Design Architect was authorized to proceed with site search,
programming and design. Full facility completed and occupied three (3) months later
Complete
Number of Contractor-‐ini9ated Change Orders: 1
Total Cost of Contractor-‐ini9ated Change Orders: $38,310
Number of claims against the College/University: 0
Post-‐Occupancy Costs to the College/University due to “bugs”: $0
Owner’s Development Manager: Brookwood Group
Owner’s Design Consultant (“Bridging Architect”): Brookwood Group
Contractor: Constructora Lintel S.A.
Poly Canyon Village
Original Budget (Budgeted 2004):
for the Construc-on Contract Award Price (CCAP) $239,000,000
Amount of CCAP (Awarded late 2004):
The award price included several “best value” extras as LEED™ cer-fica-on $239,000,000
Project Delivery Method:
Compe--ve bids were received for a Bridging type Design-‐Build contract Bridging
Status:
Which includes all site development, all non-‐housing elements, and 2,634 beds of housing. First phase was completed one month ahead of schedule. Second and final phase was completed three months ahead of schedule
Complete
Number of Contractor-‐ini9ated Change Orders: 11
Total Cost of Contractor-‐ini9ated Change Orders: $684,099
Number of claims against the College/University: 0
Post-‐Occupancy Costs to the College/University due to “bugs”: $0
Owner’s Program Manager: Brookwood Group
Owner’s Design Consultant (“Bridging Architect”): McLarand Vasquez Emsiek & Partners
Contractor: Clark Design/Build of California
1.
Logical and orderly process, well understood throughout the industry.
2.
Easily meets all procurement procedure requirements.
3.
There is the direct professional rela1onship between the Architect and
Engineers with the client (User and/or Owner).
4.
Contract price can be set by either compe11ve bidding or nego1a1on prior to
the Owner commicng to the construc1on phase.
ADVANTAGES
1. It takes too long and costs too much to get to the point of the Owner being protected with a
total construc1on contract price that can be reasonably expected to hold up within a few percentage points.
2. Virtually all construc1on contracts are predicated on the drawings and specifica1ons being
free of errors and omissions. Yet that is humanly impossible.
3. The method assumes that architects and engineers have the best knowledge of construc1on
technology and cost effec1ve construc1on methods. Yet that is not true.
4. AZer comple1on, there can be a frustra1ng and costly situa1on for the Owner with no clear
single responsibility for the correc1on of post construc1on problems.
4 SERIOUS FLAWS
ADVANTAGES:
DISADVANTAGES:
• Poten1al for beger integra1on of construc1on know how into design process.
• Single responsibility for all aspects of design & construc1on.
Typical Design-‐Build Methods
• Conflict of interest between the Architect/Engineers and the Owner.
• Early loss of leverage for the Owner.
CM-‐at-‐Risk Method
ADVANTAGES
•
Brings CM (Contractor) in early to advise on costs, schedule, materials,
methods, and logis1cs.
•
CM provides periodic cost updates and Guaranteed Maximum Price
statements from around mid-‐point through comple1on of Contract
Documents.
CM-‐at-‐Risk Method
DISADVANTAGES
•
GMP issued on less than 100% Contract Documents are not readily
enforceable.
•
Has same finger poin1ng problem as in Design-‐Bid-‐Build.
•
CM may have conflict with respect to same subs used at same 1me on
1. The Owner's Design Consultant (ODC), also referred to as Design Architect or Bridging
Architect, carries out Schema1c Design (SD) in the tradi1onal manner.
1. The Owner's Design Consultant (ODC), also referred to as Design Architect or Bridging Architect, carries out Schema1c Design (SD) in the tradi1onal manner.
2. The ODC and Owner's Program Manager prepare Bridging Contract Documents (BCD).
3. Proposals received for lump sum fixed price for a design-‐build form of contract; contract
award; CD authoriza1on.
4. Contractor's architect/engineers prepare final Construc1on Documents (CDs) which the ODC
and Owner's Program Manager review for compliance with the ODC's design and performance specifica1ons.
5. The Owner has the right to terminate without cause. If the Owner chooses, construc1on is
authorized.
6. The ODC carries out observa1on of the work. Owner's Program Manager administers the
