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.
Agenda
 CM at Risk Background
 Lessons Learned
Shoemaker East & West Halls Renovation
St. Cloud State University
Academic Partnership Center
Normandale Community College
 Q/A
CM at Risk (CM@r)
 What is CM@r?
 When to consider CM@r delivery?
 Advantages
 Disadvantages
What is CM@r ?
CM@r Selection Process
 RFQ must receive at least three
 RFP
 Interviews
 Contract award see white paper for document locations
 CM@r contract - AIA B133, currently under review/revision
 A/E contract – AIA 103, currently under review/revision
What is CM@r ?
 A/E contracted with Owner
 CM@r contracted with Owner
 CM@r holds Sub-contacts
When to use CM@r delivery?
 Complex projects requiring early purchase of materials and
labor
 Multi phased projects
 Program, design or construction challenges
CM@r 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!
CM@r 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 CM@r selection process requires more time than normal
GC selection process
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
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
2010
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
AE
2011
A
S
SD
O
N
DD
D
J
F
CD
M
A
B/A
M
J
J
CON
A
S
O
CO
N
D
Shoemaker Hall North Renovation
John Frischmann
 Typically, construction delivery has been “design-bid-build”
 Pros:
 Most cost effective
 The bid documents are 100% complete
 Cons:
 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)
Shoemaker Hall North Renovation
John Frischmann
CM@r Delivery Process
 CM@r Selection
 Entire team participates in design process
 CM@r Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) based on DD
drawings
 GMP includes contingency (2 – 5%)
 RFQ is used to qualify subcontractors
Shoemaker Hall North Renovation
John Frischmann
CM@r Pros and Cons
 Pros
 Constructability review
 VE opportunities “on the fly”
 Overall schedule is shortened; early bid packages (M/E) can be issued
after GMP is accepted
 The CM@r selection is based on qualifications, not just low bid
 CM@r tracks changes, proposal requests
 No markups or overhead & profit costs are incurred.
 General condition costs are paid directly
Shoemaker Hall North Renovation
John Frischmann
CM@r 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.
 Sometimes getting multiple bids for bid packages from subcontractors
can be a challenge, as many subs won’t meet the RFQ requirements.
Shoemaker Hall North Renovation
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
John Frischmann
Shoemaker Hall North Renovation
Maria Ambrose
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
 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
Shoemaker Hall North Renovation
Tom Brown
CM@r lessons learned:
 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
Shoemaker Hall North Renovation
CM@r 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
Tom Brown
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
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
2009
J
F M A M
J
J
2010
A
AE
S O N D
J
F M A M
SD
J
J
2011
A
S
O N D
DD
J
F M A M
CD
J
J
2012
A
S
BA
O N D
J
F M A M
J
CON
J
2013
A
S
O N D
J
F M A M
CO
J
J
A
S
O N D
Academic Partnership Center
Ed Wines
Owner’s lessons learned:
 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?)
Academic Partnership Center
Chip Lindeke
Architect’s lessons learned:
 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
Academic Partnership Center
Tim Maher
CM@r’s lessons learned:
 Adjust MnSCU contract language for CM@r 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
Questions
Provide feedback to
Heidi Myers
651-201-1773
Heidi.myers@so.mnscu.edu