Project Delivery methods (CMc and CMa)
I've been using the AHPP/ PPI materials for reading and I'm a little confused about the following. Any input or pointers for sources would be appreciated!
- Who issues Change Orders and Construction Change Directives under CM-Adviser?
- What is the difference between CM-Agent and CM-Adviser?
- What are the downsides to using the CM@Risk (CM-Constructor) method?
-
Instructions: G733™ – 2019, Construction Change Directive, Construction Manager as Adviser Edition
1./ Under the Construction Manager-Adviser (CMa) delivery method (AIA documents), Change Orders are prepared by the Architect and authorized by the Owner, Contractor, and Construction Manager. Construction Change Directives (CCDs) are formally issued by the Owner and signed by both the Architect and the Construction Manager to authorize work changes when price/time is not yet agreed upon.
3./
Construction Manager at Risk (CM@Risk) method, while offering guaranteed pricing, has notable downsides, including the high cost risk of a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) set before final design, potential for increased change orders, higher administrative burdens, and the risk of poor quality if the CM cuts corners to meet the price. It also requires high trust in a single point of failure.Trimble +4Key Downsides to the CM@Risk Method- Financial and Budgetary Risks: Developing the GMP early (before final design) can lead to inaccurate scopes. If the project comes in under budget, the owner may miss out on savings, while over-budget scenarios lead to intense "value engineering" or cost-cutting that reduces project quality.
- Significant Potential for Change Orders: If the project scope is not properly defined when the GMP is set, major changes in scope can still result in costly change orders and increased costs for the owner.
- High Administrative Burden: The owner must manage separate contracts with the architect and the construction manager, leading to more complex coordination and administration compared to design-build methods.
- Single Point of Failure: Project success hinges heavily on the expertise of the CM. If the wrong, inexperienced CM is selected, the project may encounter significant delays and budget overruns.
- Quality Control Concerns: Because the CM is locked into a GMP, they may be incentivized to cut corners, pressuring subcontractors to deliver more for less, which can affect the final quality of the project.
- Not Ideal for All Projects: This method is often not cost-effective or suitable for smaller, simpler projects where the, complex,, and often expensive, preconstruction services are not necessary.
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
2 comments