Utah’s Use of CMGC & Project Delivery

Presented by:Michelle Page, P.E.

UDOT Innovative Contracting

What is CMGC in Utah?

• Consists of a Project Team with Three Participants:– An Owner– A Designer– A General Contractor with a Two Phase

Contract • Phase I – A “Construction Management”

consulting contract to help with Design• Phase II – A “General Contracting “ contract

to build the project

Benefits of CMGC• Public Expectation

– Open Road

• Political Capital– Politicians Take Credit– UDOT utilizes more state funds than

federal

• User Cost Savings– Reduce Construction Time– Reduce Construction Delays– Business Stays Open

Innovative Contracting Program

Engineering Solutions

• Advances in Roadway Geometry:– DDI, CFI, Flex Lanes, Movable Barrier, Reversible

Lanes

• ABC Program:– I-80 Bridge Farm– Precast Structural Elements (Bents, Columns,

Superstructure, Deck, Pavement Slabs)

Owner Controls the Design

UDOT

Plan

Build

Design Consultant

Design

Contractor

UDOT

Bid Build

Contractor

Validate

CMGC Expectations

• Better Designs• Better Schedules• Lower Costs

– Savings in Design– Savings in Construction– Savings from Innovation– Savings from Mitigated Risks

Project Delivery Timelines

Design Adv

Sel

ect

Construct

Traditional

RFP

Design

Sel

ect

Construct

CMGC

Early Construct

Design-Build

ConstructRFP

DesignRFQ S

elec

tDesign

CMGC Project Delivery Results

• Speed– Early start items of work before 100% Design– Early Procurement– Advanced Contractor Planning

• Brevity– 30 to 50 Page RFP

• Control– Owner makes design decisions with Contractor and Designer

inputs

• Flexibility – We can change scope during Design

When UDOT Uses CMGC

• Projects that need Contractor input• Project where UDOT wants to control the design• Projects with a high need for innovation• Projects that can benefit from early

procurement or construction• Projects with third-party risk• Projects to introduce new technology

Cost & Schedule Influences

Mountain View CorridorInfluence of Risk and Innovation on Cost

Innovation Savings

Project Description Anticipated PriceEstimated Direct

SavingsEstimated User

Cost Savings4500 S/I-215 $3,995,048.48 $40,000,000.00ATKINVILLE INTERCHANGE $36,293,458.81 $4,700,000.00Riverdale Road Ph 1-3 $39,601,488.70 $3,260,000.00 $84,000,000.00I-80 State to 1300E $96,806,965.51 $4,000,000.00 $122,000,000.00Virgin River Trail $1,199,522.25 $180,000.00I-15 Bridge Deck in Spanish F $8,657,138.00 $240,000.00 $43,000,000.00SP-River Road to Airport $26,589,972.50 $3,536,000.00Syracuse Rd Ph 1-2 $13,947,531.55 $1,115,000.005th South Bountiful Ph1-4 $839,398.00 $700,000.00Eagle Canyon Bridge $5,294,135.21 $153,500.00Total $233,224,659.01 $17,884,500.00 $289,000,000.00Savings as a Percent of Anticipated Price: 8% 124%

Who Gets the Savings?

DBB DB CMGC

Contractor Risk

Owner Risk

Ris

k

Reduce risk, and share the savings

CMGC Projects Save on Change Orders & Overruns

Owner Implemented Innovation

Flexibility

Fair Price Strategy

• Proposal Items– Prices set inCompetitive Process

• State Averages & Ratio– Comparison to Other projects

• Total Cost Compared to– Independent Cost Estimate – Engineers Estimate

Selection Bid Items

State Average Prices

ICE, EE

We Save on Bid Item CostsCompared to State Averages

Where Owner Spends the Effort

• Define Goals• Describe Project• RFP Development• Proposal Evaluations

• Risk Analysis• Innovation Analysis• Cost Comparisons• Design Decisions• Contractor Construction

Available Tools & Resources• UDOT Website:

http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:0:::1:T,V:1869, – CMGC Description– Advertising Checklists– Analysis and Reports– Process Documents– Sample Documents

• Rudy Alder, UDOT Innovative Contracting Engineer (ralder@utah.gov)

Questions