Project Delivery

Our experience is that the C&A's from the GMP proposal often lack the specificity and reference to industry standards that the project requires. It can lead to differences of interpretation.

We recommend the Owner issue Conformed Documents that reflect agreed changes. If, after CM review and acceptance, the conformed documents are incorporated by Change Order. At that point the C&A's are not contract documents having been replaced by Conformed Documents.

The benefit to the project is a single clear set of documents that avoids differing views on what was meant by the C&A's. Preparation of the conformed documents is an additional service.

From my experience working exclusively in the public realm in 27 states, when CMs are part of a project they become a partner.  First question is purpose and mindset so that "rules of engagement" are understood and clear.  CMa more as a service (Owner first) CMc more as a general contractor (Subcontractors first).  It is what it is but context is important.  Then there is the question of impact to the design process (pre-bid).  Most (VPs not BDs) will indicate there isn't a difference.  Everything is bid and "open book".  Under CMc how open needs deeper discussions as well as "self-performance" and can/ can't do. This also adds context to the "rules of engagement".  None-the-less this provides path to align B132 with B133 when it comes to involvement of the design firm in procurement (cut / paste from 132 to 133).  This also provides the path for establishing roles and responsibilities for VE at the end of each design phase (minimum).  Value analysis provided to the Owner that includes scope of work and estimate provided decisions making based on value versus expense.  It also, keep the Owner engaged so that the project is meeting their needs versus those of the design team or CM.  This is important conversation early so that the purpose of a GMP can be discussed.  This starts with the client 1. has a budget in mind and asks the design team "what can I get for this much money" or 2. a need and/or ideas.  In either case PD brings them together.  The PD deliverable provides the Owner the opportunity to digest and become a vital part of aligning budget with scope of work.  As the designer, it is an obligation to design to the budget.  When, in most of my cases, the public institution accepts the PD Alignment Report, a "design GMP" is established.  Regardless of delivery vehicle, contracts and practice have multiple vehicles for adjustments up / down but premise remains the same.  With everything above established, then the question isn't so much as the need for a GMP but when it is provided. 

If it is true what CMs say "CMa or CMc starts with bid recommendation" and the design team commits to the "design GMP" then seldom does the conversation end with a need for a GMP prior to providing 100% CDs, bidding, scoping bids (notes of which become part of construction contract) and award of construction contracts.  I am starting to see an increase in a two-step award where the first authorization is a draft of the GMP along with motion to issue NTPs so that contractors can begin transitioning operations from "penciled" to "inked".  The Conformed set is issued as soon as possible after scoping meetings along with individual NTPs, draft contracts, etc.  With conformed set issued and accepted (10 calendar days to "speak now") then the draft GMP becomes final and issued to the public entity for formal acceptance of the GMP and if available construction contract approval for signature.  

I share because this has worked for me in the past but took significant time to establish a means for consensus with the CM and Owner.  I also understand this is easier said than done - absolutely.  It takes much more than what I have shared above but I hope you get the gist.  

ThenThis step provides the path for discussing the need for GMP. 

The difference comes with "the recommendation letter to award" under CMa or "GMP" under CMc. 

Michael, having extensive experience on the private side of working with, and as an employee of CMs, I submit that it is critically important the architect/prime consultant understands the CM's contract and any A&C's they propose as part of their "construction price" to the Owner.  The architect/prime consultant needs to review the A&C's prior to Owner's acceptance and provide a detailed response to all of them, including their long-term value proposition to the project, and additional **** required to adjust the design documents for changes listed in the A&C's.

Yes it is additional services to even perform the review of the A&C's, but even if not clearly called out in the design contract as a service, I would recommend reviewing them to protect yourself and the Owner.  

Was recently in the role as a sub-consulting architect to a prime consultant on a project, whose CM had 47 pages of A&C's included in their construction price.  It was all was submitted to the Owner for approval 2 hours before the Owner's Board meeting.  Yes the price was the right on the Owner's budget, but every subcontractor's bid clarification was listed!  Worse was that the CM and Owner never shared the 47 pages with the prime consultant until several months later when we rejected a submittal that was a cheap substitution to what was specified.  Needless to say the project is now well over budget, with a year-long delay in completion.

If a CM, in any of their possible roles, is involved in a project, the architect/prime consultant must be equally involved as an integral part of the project delivery team.