|
By Ronald A. Bauer, Executive
V.P.
Who
is in the driver’s seat, when it comes to
construction and the various ways that are available
to contract and deliver a building project? One
could certainly argue that, depending on the form or
approach, the owner or builder has more (or less)
influence over the process. Perhaps a brief analysis
of three popular construction delivery methods will
bring clarity to the issue.
Traditional Approach
First, let’s consider the traditional approach of
design/bid/build. Here the owner typically hires an
architect, who may subcontract with design
consultants, forward a bid package to qualified
general contractors, and select the low bidder.
Straightforward. The general contractor constructs
the building. The Architect arbiters quality
control. Ideally, such a method provides optimum
pricing for initial cost. The downside of this
method: no opportunity for value engineering as the
design develops, changes in scope are far more
costly, preliminary estimates are developed by the
engineers and architect and rarely hold up. It is
the slowest delivery approach, especially if the
project comes in over budget and has to go back for
redesign. The other unfortunate result is that the
Contractor and owner are in an adversarial
relationship. The Contractor’s obligation is to
maximize profits rather than to deliver value to the
owner.
At Trumbull-Nelson, our ‘slant’ is toward teamwork,
collaboration and open communication. Without
question, project owners belong in the driver’s
seat.
Construction Management
The next popular contract-delivery method is
Construction Management (CM). Under a CM approach,
the Owner hires the Architect, who may subcontract
with design consultants, and prepares a bid package.
At this time, the Owner can hire the CM to
participate in the design development, make cost
recommendations, evaluate subcontractors, provide
estimating and scheduling services, competitively
bid all pertinent trades, and (in most cases)
construct the building. Pros for utilizing CM
include better estimating during every phase,
‘built-in’ value engineering by design,
collaborative work efforts, and close monitoring of
quality control by the CM (who is acting in the
owner’s best interest). The downside of CM? Initial
cost estimating may seem high to an owner worried
about achieving an optimum price advantage. A CM
delivery system works best when a business
relationship and strong degree of trust exists
between all parties, and the Owner recognizes that
his or her best interests are being served.
Design/Build
Finally, a Design/Build approach offers an Owner the
opportunity to hire a professional construction
organization to design (or subcontract design
requirements), provide estimating and
value-engineering, seek competitive bids (on an open
book basis) on all biddable trades…and build the
facility. The advantages of Design/Build include
single source responsibility (..it’s hard for team
members to point fingers at one another if problems
exist!), accurate early budgets, ability to
“fast-track” construction, and a built-in value
engineering process. Because there is typically less
need for detail, design costs are modest. As with
CM, early project estimates may seem high.
Thoroughness and experience may mean that the most
skilled Design/Build team offers the highest early
estimates. With Design/Build, the Architect is not
in as strong a position contractually if the Owner
feels ‘checks and balances’ are needed. Finally, if
the building has a very strong architectural design
element to it (i.e. an Owner wants to convey a
certain image, and design is more heavily weighted
than utility and function), design/build methods may
have less appeal.
At Trumbull-Nelson, our ‘slant’ is toward teamwork,
collaboration and open communication. Without
question, project owners belong in the driver’s
seat. We believe that a buyer of construction
services that fully understands and appreciates
available contract and delivery system options can
play a key role in influencing the overall success
of each building project. |