The discussion on risk allocation and project contingency versus design-builder contingency has been well documented in several previous blogs. The WDBC Water and Wastewater Design-Build Handbook also provides excellent guidance on best practices for risk allocation. However, my recent experiences on current projects have led me to believe that, far too often, a project’s price, contingency, and schedule are adversely impacted by not addressing project risks with the right team members at the right time, and this topic is worthy of further discussion.
So you are putting out a project and plan to use progressive design-build.You have been working with your procurement department and an owner’s agent who suggests a two-step procurement process following industry best practices, but the process seems like it takes forever.
The growing popularity of progressive design-build (PDB) delivery over the last decade has been celebrated by owners, contractors, and designers alike throughout the water/wastewater industry. The delivery method has proven beneficial in reducing procurement time and costs, allowing owners to work with a single point of accountability throughout design and construction, and driving innovative and creative technical and design solutions without the limitation of the singularly developed, prescribed solution presented in an RFP.
When choosing a project delivery method for a water or wastewater project, it is imperative for the owner to understand the concept of the Spearin Doctrine and which party is accountable for the project design.
With an ever-growing list of urgent water and wastewater infrastructure projects, the industry’s demand for expedited project delivery has increased, and project procurement is often overlooked as a way to get your job started—and finished— faster. Early collaboration enables “quick start” procurement that contributes to achieving an owner’s schedule and cost commitment, with both the owner and design-builder reaping benefits.
Value engineering (VE) is a creative, systematic approach to providing the essential functions of a project at the best value. Successful VE results are achieved through an open, collaborative review of the project that considers life cycle costs, performance, quality, reliability, and safety. VE is one of the many benefits that collaborative delivery methods such as CMAR, design-build, and progressive design-build offer to project owners.
Are you a “hands-on” owner who prefers to work collaboratively through the design and construction of your project? Do you like to maintain control over all project phases? If so, construction management at-risk (CMAR) may be the best delivery method to achieve your project goals.
Triple Bottom Line (TBL) success involves a team commitment to balancing not only the economic (financial) components of a project, but also that of social responsibility and environmental stewardship. Projects that seek this achievement must focus equally on each of these goals.
At the end of the day, a successful design-build project comes down to working alongside people you can trust as true partners. Whether considering technical innovations, nailing down costs, or exploring creative delivery solutions, it’s essential that all players work together to achieve the project’s end goal.
How Do You Achieve a High-Performing Team for Construction Management at-Risk (CMAR) Projects While Avoiding Off-Ramps?
Every team that starts a CMAR project wants the end result to be successful. So, why are some projects successful and others end with owners choosing to enact the off-ramp clause and terminate the contract? When an owner decides to pursue the off-ramp clause, it often means that a major disagreement with some aspect of the project has occurred—either the projected costs to construct the project are over the budget or the approach is not in alignment with the owner’s goals. Off-ramp provisions in contracts are essential to protecting owners, but when the off-ramp is enacted, the result is a delay in the overall project schedule and perhaps increased project costs.