FACILITIES CONFERENCE

Transcription

1 FACILITIES CONFERENCE April 24-26, 2013 Construction Manager at Risk Lessons Learned Minnesota State Colleges and Universities The Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system is an Equal Opportunity employer and educator.

2 Agenda CM at Risk Background Lessons Learned Shoemaker East & West Halls Renovation St. Cloud State University Academic Partnership Center Normandale Community College Q/A

3 CM at Risk What is When to consider delivery? Advantages Disadvantages

4 What is Selection Process RFQ must receive at least three RFP Interviews Contract award see white paper for document locations contract - AIA B133, currently under review/revision A/E contract AIA 103, currently under review/revision

5 What is A/E contracted with Owner contracted with Owner holds Sub-contacts

6 When to use delivery? Complex projects requiring early purchase of materials and labor Multi phased projects Program, design or construction challenges

7 Advantages CM is selected on a qualifications basis, fee is one of many considerations Constructability reviews during design GMP at end of DD phase Allows for fast track approach Transparent, open book budget management surplus is returned to Owner!

8 Disadvantages Enforcement of GMP can be difficult since design documents are not complete at the time GMP is established There is the potential for GMP estimates to be too conservative The selection process requires more time than normal GC selection process

9 Shoemaker East & West Halls Renovation Moderator Kent Dirks, Program Manager System Office Presenters John Frischmann, Facilities Construction Coordinator St. Cloud State University Maria Ambrose ESG Architects Tom Brown Terra Construction

10 St. Cloud State University Shoemaker Hall North Renovation Project Funding $4,886,736 Revenue Funds $1,256,397 Campus Funds $6,143,133 Total Project Schedule J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D AE SD DD CD B/A CON CO

11 Shoemaker Hall North Renovation John Frischmann Typically, construction delivery has been design-bid-build Pros: Cons: Most cost effective The bid documents are 100% complete No control over contractor selection The successful, low bid is sometimes a case of who mis-bid the project Schedule is the most elongated Value Engineering (VE) needs to occur after bid Constructability rests with the Architect/Engineer (AE)

12 Shoemaker Hall North Renovation John Delivery Process Selection Entire team participates in design process Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) based on DD drawings GMP includes contingency (2 5%) RFQ is used to qualify subcontractors Frischmann

13 Shoemaker Hall North Renovation John Pros and Cons Pros Constructability review VE opportunities on the fly Frischmann Overall schedule is shortened; early bid packages (M/E) can be issued after GMP is accepted The selection is based on qualifications, not just low bid tracks changes, proposal requests No markups or overhead & profit costs are incurred. General condition costs are paid directly

14 Shoemaker Hall North Renovation John Pros and Cons Cons: A level of trust needs to be established The subcontractor RFQ process can be challenging. The CM@r is guaranteeing their GMP, but needs to award contracts to low-bid subcontractors. Frischmann Sometimes getting multiple bids for bid packages from subcontractors can be a challenge, as many subs won t meet the RFQ requirements.

15 Shoemaker Hall North Renovation John Owner s lessons learned: Track the CM@r and Owner contingency separately Take advantage of the CM@r value engineering knowledge Insist on 100% transparent public bidding The CM@r process does save time Qualifications & price based CM@r selection is of great value Decreases the OR work scope, as CM@r tracks changes/proposal requests Does not eliminate change orders Frischmann

16 Shoemaker Hall North Renovation Maria Architect s lessons learned: Constructability reviews VE assistance before CD s are done and pricing on options for owner consideration from actual sub-contractors Early mock-ups and selective demolition Ambrose Better opportunity for coordination with Owner s contractors & CM@r (abatement/low voltage for example) Earlier input from CM@r for site access and site staging that may affect campus access and site restoration Greater design team effort required during DD phase for accurate GMP Final Construction Drawings are completed after GMP is established so final refinements/revisions to drawings can lead to change order

17 Shoemaker Hall North Renovation Tom lessons learned: Brown Early design reviews result in accurate schedules and cost estimates Schedule advantages Early bid packages Construction in occupied buildings Multi phased construction Conformance/Adherence to Minnesota Statute for Bidding Open, competitive, and objective prequalification process Transparent Bid Process Open Book 100% Savings to Owner

18 Shoemaker Hall North Renovation Tom lessons learned: Establishing GMP at Design Development Architectural, structural, mechanical, and electrical not 100% complete Summary of GMP Report Assumptions, allowances, budgets, estimates, etc. Contingencies Alternates Brown

19 Academic Partnership Center Moderator Jeanne Qualley, Program Manager System Office Presenters Ed Wines, VP Finance & Operations Normandale Community College Chip Lindeke, Project Architect RRTL Architects Tim Maher, Project Manager Adolfson & Peterson Construction

20 Academic Partnership Center Project Funding $ 1,435,000 Campus Funds (D&C) $ 1,000,000 G.O. Bonds 2010 (Design) $21,984,000 G.O. Bonds 2011 (Construction) $24,419,000 Total Project Schedule J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D AE SD DD CD BA CON CO

21 Academic Partnership Center Ed Owner s lessons learned: Wines A CM comes to the table as a member of the owner s team a member that leverages their experience and expertise for the owner s benefit Hired the right key people Project Manager and Job Superintendent CM brought a wealth of experience and accountability for completion of project on schedule and within budget Sub-contractor pre-qualification and bid process provided owner input and better results Knowing at the end of DD, the GMP of the project Reduce CM s contingency at the end of bid opening when the results suggest the project will be completed with a sizable surplus De minimis PR s should be handled by CM (contract language change?)

22 Academic Partnership Center Chip Architect s lessons learned: Lindeke Standardize when CM@r is hired. Early in the SD phase is desirable for input on budget, work scope, building systems and schedule. Pursue regular design/constructability meetings between A/E and CM@r. Tailor MnSCU deliverables & standards for CM@r process Streamline change order review and approval process Engage Owner s commissioning agent in the SD, DD and CD design phase Clarify whose responsibility is the cost estimating in design A/E or CM

23 Academic Partnership Center Tim s lessons learned: Maher Adjust MnSCU contract language for projects/responsibilities Team collaboration Scheduling team members in earlier which leads to better understanding Constructability reviews during SD, DD & CD at the table with Owner s other consultants, rather then separate reviews Coverage of subcontracting community Subcontractor selection/pre-qualification Monthly project overview meetings CM is leader on trouble shooting problems and developing alternative solutions during construction

24 Questions Provide feedback to Heidi Myers