Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
79 This section is designed to provide the reader with a review of the most important facts and recommendations related to the Guidebook as determined by the authors; knowledge from the authorsâ previous research and experience in the field is also shared. Many of the lessons learned and best practices for D-B and CM/GC are common to both systems; however, many are appro- priate for only one. This is not unexpected, since both are fast-tracked construction delivery systems that are only as similar to the traditional contraction project delivery system as they are to each other. To allow readers to more easily identify the information pertaining to their system of interest, the Conclusions shall continue the theme of segregation. Design-Build After almost two decades of use in transportation, D-B is a tested delivery system that is preferred when delivery time is critical. A majority of state transportation agencies have already used D-B even if several agencies have only used it for a few projects. However, a large majority of local transportation agencies and a small group of state transportation agencies have not. A few barriers exist to its first-time use. First, public agencies often need to obtain legislative authority to employ it and to use procurement approaches specific to D-B. In addition, the approach to manage design activities is also uniquely different from traditional DBB delivery. This research has outlined a few DM features typical to D-B and found that how an agency approaches them is crucial to effective DM. However, more agencies have adopted and utilized D-B. As a result, more different approaches to DM may be effective within the context and constraints of a specific agency. Therefore, the sections of this D-B guide only highlight these different approaches without recommending one over the other. At the program level, it is crucial how the agency allocates DM responsibilities among its units and how the project delivery process is managed by units that deal with phases adjacent to post-award design (i.e., D-B contract procurement and construction). At an extreme, three different units will manage design during (1) pre-award (during procurement), (2) post-award pure design phase, and (3) post-award construction phase. However, two approaches are common depending on the type of project and the level of maturity of an agency with D-B. When projects are unique (e.g., SR 99 Tunnel Project) or when an agency is not expert with D-B delivery, the same group manages the process from procurement and throughout post-award delivery. This approach creates a continuity of design information. In case the project lacks uniqueness and the agency is highly versed with D-B, it is common to assign pre-award design administration to agency staff (and units) that specialize in D-B procurement. Often, an individual from the same unit who is involved in the procurement is later assigned to manage design activities in post-award jointly with a construction PM. The role of this design manager decreases as the project moves C H a P T E r 5 Conclusions
80 Guide for Design management on Design-Build and Construction manager/General Contractor Projects from a release for construction to completion. This industry practice attempts to âbridgeâ project responsibility from pre-award to post-award. At the project level, the approach to deal with pre-award design activities substantially affects post-award DM. In fact, a significant part of design is concurrently carried out during the D-B contract procurement by all the competing teams. Design alternatives are generated at this point and incorporated into the final design. When the procurement process allows for submittal of ATCs, some of these design alternatives can be incorporated into the final design even if the team proposing the idea is not selected. This incorporation can occur either after a team is selected and before a contract is awarded, or post-award. For readers unfamiliar with ATCs, think of them as VE proposals submitted individually by competing teams in their proposals. Some agencies require that these proposals be approved before being included in the final proposal package. A significant feature of the DM is how the agency will handle the selection, approval, and incor- poration of these alternative design ideas. The case studies provide a comprehensive narration of different approaches to deal with pre-award DM, either when ATCs are allowed or not. When ATCs are not allowed, agencies rely only on post-award VE. During post-award DM, an agencyâs approach to DM is mostly shaped by how it establishes a collaborative partnering environment, how it handles communications and coordination on matters that contribute to DM, how it handles VE proposals, how it handles interdependencies between design and other activity, and, especially, how it handles formal DM processes. All the case studies were similarly structured to highlight different approaches to these features of a DM process. In addition, constraints within agencies and projects that may motivate the selection of one feature over another are provided together with a set of guidelines. Construction-Manager-as-General-Contractor CM/GC is a delivery system with some history in commercial and industrial construction, but is new to most of the transportation construction industry. In the early days of the new century, portions of the industry tried to establish CMR as a fast-tracked alternative to the more established fast-tracked D-B delivery system. CMR offered all the speed inherent in a fast-tracked system, but also offered the owner more control over the design process than did D-B. However, contractors fought the system almost everywhere it was implemented because CMR generally either forbade the CM from self-performing any work at all, or required that the CM bid for any work against qualified subcontractors. This, the contractors feared, would eliminate smaller, local contractors from ever being awarded any project large enough to attract the larger national or international contractors or CM firms. The logic of this was faulty on the surface, as any contractor or CM firm, no matter how large, that was awarded such a contract would have to find someone, probably local, to perform the actual construction. Regardless, CMR never gained any momentum as a national delivery system option for highway construction, and CM/GC, which had been used in Utah and a few other places for a time, was embraced as the fast-tracked alternative to D-B because CM/GC either allows, or in most cases requires, the CM to self-perform a set percentage of the work. The FHWA has supported the implementation of CM/GC from the time that it was introduced to the transportation construction industry, and has made that support tangible through the EDC initiatives (EDC-1 in 2010 and EDC-2 in 2012). The CM/GC partnership, or team, is comprised of the owner, the CM (contractor), the DP, the sub-DPs, the subcontractors and any other party that would be beneficial to include. The CM is best retained at the same time as the DP, very early in the process. Assuring transparency throughout the process is the most important priority for the owner. To that end the committee that chooses the DP and the CM should include a design consultant and a contractorâeither
Conclusions 81 active or retired. Fortunately, CM/GC facilitates openness and trust, providing real-time costs, schedule and constructability input. During preconstruction, the CM acts as an advisor to the DP, providing professional services to the owner. Plans reviews and constructability reviews are the two most discussed of these services, but the two most important benefits of CM/GC are made possible by the early involvement of the CM: innovation and the flexibility to allocate and re-allocate risk throughout the design phase and even until relatively late in the construction phase. These two benefits are not unrelated. When UDOT took on an inordinate and unbalanced share of the risk on the MVC project, it not only brought the contractorâs prices down by millions of dollars as a natural reaction to suddenly not having to add contingency to the contract price, but it also freed the contractor to implement several innovative construction methods which eliminated some work and lowered the cost to perform other work, saving additional millions of dollars (see MVC Case Study). It is very important for those considering implementing CM/GC to consider the cultural shift that has to take place if one (agency or individual) has never worked on a CM/GC project before. The importance of this is most manifested in the importance of choosing the right people to lead the GM/GC team, as well as who makes up the team. The agency can pretty well assemble its own partnering team, and it needs to take maximum advantage of that opportunity. A fundamental question to ask when evaluating potential team members is: Will this individual advance the CM/GC process or impede its application? If there is any doubt that the individual will advance the process, that person should be eliminated from consideration as a team member. However, nothing should be done in secret. The most important characteristic of putting the CM/GC team together is transparency. Transparency in the placing of in-house personnel on the team, transpar- ency in hiring new personnel, transparency in procuring the CM, the DP, the specialty DPs, the CEI consultant, and all other team members. To help assure success, the owner should spend great volumes of time, resources, and effort early in the process, planning in detail the entire CM/GC operation/project for its entire service life; and one of the initial actions for the agency, even before selecting outside team members, is to reach out to the community and all stakeholders and begin the process of educating them. Very few areas of the country know enough about the CM/GC culture or process for the agency to skip the vital step of an aggressive public relations and education effort, and the effort must contain a message that is consistent, no matter who is sharing or receiving the message.
