cm at risk - freese and nichols, inc. manager at... · • construction manager at risk (cmar) •...
TRANSCRIPT
June 23, 2010
CM-AT RISK VS. DESIGN BID BUILD A TEXAS CASE STUDY – PROCUREMENT
AND IMPLEMENTATION
Acknowledgement
Mike Adams, P.E
Executive Director of Engineering and Utilities City of Midlothian
Coy M Veach, P.E., CCM
Vice President Freese and Nichols, Inc.
David W. Sloan, P.E., BCEE Senior Process Engineer Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Bryant Caswell, P.E
Associate Schrickel Rollins and Associates
Outline
• City of Midlothian, Texas • Project Delivery Systems (PDS) • Legislation History in Texas • CM-At Risk – Structure, Schedule and Services
– Solicitation and Procurement Process
• CMAR vs.DBB • Take Away Points • Questions and Answers
City of Midlothian • Ellis County, Texas • Population - 16,000 residents • Strategically located equal distance from Dallas and Fort Worth –
25 miles southwest of Dallas and southeast of Fort Worth • 2006 Long Range Water Supply and Master Plan – projects
population to steadily increase over the next 20 years • Current water demand is 10.0 MGD • Projected water demand is 36.5 MGD • Existing Tayman WTP production capacity of 13.0 MGD
Midlothian WTP Project Profile • Tayman WTP is completely build-out • New Membrane Filtration WTP to meet future demands and
provide redundancy to existing Tayman plant • Funding
– TWDB Drinking Water SRF + City Funds = $30.0 M – Engineering = $4.2 M – Funding Available for Construction = $25.6 M
• Owner Preferences – Maximize local construction participation – Operators involved in design/pre-construction phase – Desire for qualified contractor with experience
• Projected water demand may exceed available capacity in summer of 2012
Selected Water Treatment Process
Raw Water Influent
Rapid Mix Flocculators Sedimentation
Basins
Membranes
Ground Storage Tanks High Service
Pump Station
GAC
Phase I – 9 MGD Phase II – 18 MGD Phase III – 36 MGD
Project Delivery Systems
• In-house design and construction • Traditional – Design / Bid / Build (DBB) • Construction Manager Agency (CMA) • Construction Manager At Risk (CMAR) • Design Build (DB) • Design / Build / Operate / Transfer (DBOT)
Legislation History In Texas
• 1995 SB-1 – Largely an education reform bill • 1997 SB-583 and 1999 SB-669 - Provided Guidance • 2001 SB-510 – Counties, Cities and River Authorities but
not for “horizontal” construction • 2003 HB-3028 - Revisions • 2007 HB-1886 – Authorization for all types of projects
Structure and Schedule
OWNER
ARCHITECT/ ENGINEER
CM/GC CONSTRUCTION
SUBCONSULTANTS
SUBCONTRACTORS
CMAR PRE-CONSTRUCTION
Design PDR Normal Construction
Project Schedule
GMP $
$ Contractor Selected
Fast Track Construction
CMAR
CMAR CONSTRUCTION
CMAR PRE-CONSTRUCTION
Typical CMAR Services
• CMAR assumes the risk of construction • Providing suggestions on constructability, risk
management, and materials during preconstruction. • Preparing bid packages for the procurement of
Subcontractors and Suppliers. • Preparing overall project schedule and updates. • Preparing Opinion of Probable Construction Costs (OPCC) • Guaranteeing the construction cost.
Profile of a CMAR Project
• Complex project, difficult to define or subject to change. • Tight/limited budget or sensitive financial controls • Tight schedule, fast tracking desired. • Better risk management desired. • Builder selection flexibility The Midlothian WTP #2 fits this profile
Prepare CMAR RFP. Evaluate and
Select CMAR
Award Contract to Low Bidder
Prepare CMAR RFP. Evaluate and
Select CMAR
Advertising and Bidding
CMAR Project Flow Chart
Contract with Architect/ Engineer
Prepare Preliminary
Design
CMAR Bids Project
Components
Complete Final Design
Contract with CMAR for Pre- Construction
Services
Negotiate GMP Enter into
Construction Phase Contract
Complete Construction
Contract with CMAR for Pre- Construction
Services
Solicitation of a CMAR
• Request for Proposal – Scope: Project should be reasonably well defined. – Selection criteria – Schedule – Budget – Other information to support selection of CMAR
• One or two step selection process required. Midlothian selected the one step process.
One Step/Two Step Process
• One Step Process – All qualification and fees are requested – Fees include preconstruction, general conditions, bonds, and
contingencies – Evaluation based on qualifications and pricing simultaneously
• Two Step Process – First step: Select maximum 5 proposers on the basis of
qualifications (non-monetary criteria) only. – Second step: Request full proposal only from shortlisted
proposers. – Evaluation based on qualifications first, then pricing
Scoring Process • One effective method for evaluation is using a scoring
matrix based on weighted criteria and point scale • Initial scoring done independently and without
knowledge of the preconstruction fees • Owner/Architect/Engineer Due Diligence
– Reviews: Financials stability, personnel and reference checks
• Step up a workshop: – Compile scores – Open fees and score the last criteria – Reevaluate scores based on financials
• Determine if interviews are necessary – Revisit scores based on interviews.
Midlothian CMAR Scores
Guidelines for Interviews
• Short list to top contenders, release the rest. • Establish a set of standard questions • For the benefit of the CMAR
– Provide adequate time for CMAR to prepare. – Be specific about expectations for the interview. – Make the sessions informal and relaxed.
• Set aside time to discuss the collective results after each interview.
• Document reasons for scoring changes - be able to defend scores.
Selection and Contract
• At the completion of interviews – Review and revise scores as necessary – Make final decision on CMAR for recommendation to Board or
City Council
• Publish results of selection process within 45 days • Notify TWDB (funding agency) of recommendation • Notify the selected CMAR firm and begin contract
execution process • Preconstruction services begins on contract execution
date and ends after GMP is established
Proposal Evaluation Flow Chart
CMAR = DBB
• Advertisement and solicitation process allows everyone to compete on “Best Value”.
• Selection includes competitive elements. • Includes safeguards of accountability and transparency. • Owner retains design professional as their advocate and
trusted advisor. • Price is known before construction begins. • Single point of responsibility for construction. • Contractor/Builder is at risk for cost overruns and errors.
CMAR ≠ DBB
• More control in the selection of Builder/Contractor. • Allows negotiations with top ranked firms. • Collaborative team with Owner, A/E and CMAR – vested
interest • Costing is “open book” and allows owner to participate in
setting price. • Risk can be managed jointly. • Ability to effectively “fast track” construction. • Contingency is owned and managed by Owner
CMAR Myths
• No Construction Inspection required
• Less qualified Construction Inspector is acceptable
• No change orders during construction
• Greatest cost savings to the Owner
• CMAR projects have shorter schedules
• No longer have the benefit of competitive bidding process
Take Away Points
• Assess the project and determine if alternate delivery is beneficial
• Solicit and procure CMAR in accordance to local rules and regulations
• Owner must provide inspections, materials testing and verification inspections independently of CM
• Bonds are required • Specify the point at which the Guaranteed Maximum Price
will be set in the RFP. • CM recommends, Owner selects subcontractors and
suppliers.
Questions and Answers
Theodore W. Chan, P.E. Project Manager
Freese and Nichols, Inc. 1701 N. Market Street
Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202