Construction Program Management ( Program Management )

Transcription

1 Construction Program Management ( Program Management )

2

3 Basic Required Capabili1es of the Program Management Team Extensive Experience in the Architectural and Engineering Design Process Solid Experience in all types of Design Contracts and Construc1on Contracts Extensive Experience in Construc1on Procurements Good muddy boots Construc1on Field Experience Extensive Experience in General Project Management Extensive Knowledge of Cost Es1ma1ng Process Extensive Knowledge of Scheduling Design and Construc1on Good Skills in Computer Based Scheduling and Repor1ng No Conflict of Interest with the Owner, User or Funder

4 Typical Major Phases of a Construc1on Program Predesign Planning and Programming 2. Design Services Procurement 3. Design Phases 4. Pricing and Award of Main Construc1on Contract(s) 5. Construc1on 6. Close- out

5 PMIS Program Management Information System Provides detailed tracking, analysis, reporting and recommendations throughout May be web- based

6 PMIS Quick Periodic Update dynamic reports database-generated for Owner s Senior Management reports on all aspects of the construction program

7 2. Design Services Procurement A Frequently Overlooked and Very Valuable Management Tool

8 3. Design Phases Design Phase services include, among many other management ac1ons, careful tracking of the cost and close review of the work of the architect and engineers. System illustrated is for a large project.

9

10

11

12

13 4. Pricing & Award of main Construc1on Contract(s) The Program Manager s skills in buying construc1on, analyzing proposals and nego1a1ng are ozen very much needed at this point in order to protect the interests of the Owner and Users.

14 5. Construc1on OZen one (or more) people working on the site full 1me. PM con1nues to coordinate the services of the AE. PM con1nues to coordinate the services of other consultants. All RFIs pass through the PM.

15

16 The owner's posture for purchasing construc1on Compe11on Risk sharing

17 The Bridging Method The only project delivery method that obtains a highly dependable total construc>on contract award price at only about halfway through the design phases with only a liale over half of the design cost incurred Reduces Owner s cost for a fully equivalent end product. Reduces Owner s exposure to contractor ini>ated changes orders The construc>on goes faster and smoother than in other methods Reduces Owner s exposure to claims Reduces costs/delays/disputes in fixing ever present bugs discovered ager occupancy

18 Georgia Tech Savannah Program Management and Owner s Design Consultant

19 Original Budget (Budgeted early 2002) for the Construc9on Contract Award Price (CCAP): Amount of CCAP (Awarded late 2002): Project Delivery Method: Status: Number of Contractor- ini9ated Change Orders: Total Cost of Contractor- ini9ated Change Orders: Number of claims against the College/University: Post- Occupancy Costs to the College/University due to bugs : Owner s Design Consultant ( Bridging Architect ): Contractor: Program Manager: $21,155,860 $19,643,685 Bridging Complete 0 $0 0 $0 Brookwood Group Hardin Construc9on Brookwood Group Georgia Tech Savannah Program Management and Owner s Design Consultant

20 Original Budget (Budgeted early 2000): for the Construc-on Contract Award Price (CCAP) Amount of CCAP (Awarded late 2000): Project Delivery Method: Compe--ve bids were received for a Bridging type Design- Build contract Status: Cost includes all site development. First 50,000 sf of the 100,000 sf total space was completed and occupied (7) calendar months ager Brookwood, as Development Manager and Design Architect was authorized to proceed with site search, programming and design. Full facility completed and occupied three (3) months later Number of Contractor- ini9ated Change Orders: Total Cost of Contractor- ini9ated Change Orders: Number of claims against the College/University: Post- Occupancy Costs to the College/University due to bugs : Owner s Development Manager: Owner s Design Consultant ( Bridging Architect ): Contractor: Contractor s AE: $8,000,000 $7,346,800 Bridging Complete 1 $38,310 0 $0 Brookwood Group Brookwood Group Constructora Lintel S.A. Contractor s AE Div. Scien1fic Atlanta/Cisco Systems Juarez, Mexico Program Management and Owner s Design Consultant

21 Poly Canyon Village

22 Recently Completed Poly Canyon Village

23 Original Budget (Budgeted 2004): for the Construc-on Contract Award Price (CCAP) Amount of CCAP (Awarded late 2004): The award price included several best value extras as LEED cer-fica-on Project Delivery Method: Compe--ve bids were received for a Bridging type Design- Build contract Status: Which includes all site development, all non- housing elements, and 2,634 beds of housing. First phase was completed one month ahead of schedule. Second and final phase was completed three months ahead of schedule Number of Contractor- ini9ated Change Orders: Total Cost of Contractor- ini9ated Change Orders: Number of claims against the College/University: Post- Occupancy Costs to the College/University due to bugs : Owner s Program Manager: Owner s Design Consultant ( Bridging Architect ): Contractor: Contractor s AE: $239,000,000 $239,000,000 Bridging Complete 11 $684,099 0 $0 Brookwood Group McLarand Vasquez Emsiek & Partners Clark Design/Build of California Niles Bolton Assoc. Poly Canyon Village

24 Tradi1onal Method (Design- Bid- Build) ADVANTAGES 1. Logical and orderly process, well understood throughout the industry. 2. Easily meets all procurement procedure requirements. 3. There is the direct professional rela1onship between the Architect and Engineers with the client (User and/or Owner). 4. Contract price can be set by either compe11ve bidding or nego1a1on prior to the Owner commicng to the construc1on phase.

25 Tradi1onal Method (Design- Bid- Build) 4 SERIOUS FLAWS 1. It takes too long and costs too much to get to the point of the Owner being protected with a total construc1on contract price that can be reasonably expected to hold up within a few percentage points. 2. Virtually all construc1on contracts are predicated on the drawings and specifica1ons being free of errors and omissions. Yet that is humanly impossible. 3. The method assumes that architects and engineers have the best knowledge of construc1on technology and cost effec1ve construc1on methods. Yet that is not true. 4. AZer comple1on, there can be a frustra1ng and costly situa1on for the Owner with no clear single responsibility for the correc1on of post construc1on problems.

26 Typical Design- Build Methods ADVANTAGES: Poten1al for beger integra1on of construc1on know how into design process. Single responsibility for all aspects of design & construc1on. DISADVANTAGES: Conflict of interest between the Architect/Engineers and the Owner. Early loss of leverage for the Owner. Difficult to have apples to apples compe11on on prices and performance.

27 CM- at- Risk Method ADVANTAGES Brings CM (Contractor) in early to advise on costs, schedule, materials, methods, and logis1cs. CM provides periodic cost updates and Guaranteed Maximum Price statements from around mid- point through comple1on of Contract Documents. Saves bidding 1me

28 CM- at- Risk Method DISADVANTAGES GMP issued on less than 100% Contract Documents are not readily enforceable. Has same finger poin1ng problem as in Design- Bid- Build. CM may have conflict with respect to same subs used at same 1me on other projects.

29 1. The Owner's Design Consultant (ODC), also referred to as Design Architect or Bridging Architect, carries out Schema1c Design (SD) in the tradi1onal manner. 2. The ODC and Owner's Program Manager prepare Bridging Contract Documents (BCD).

30

31 1. The Owner's Design Consultant (ODC), also referred to as Design Architect or Bridging Architect, carries out Schema1c Design (SD) in the tradi1onal manner. 2. The ODC and Owner's Program Manager prepare Bridging Contract Documents (BCD). 3. Proposals received for lump sum fixed price for a design- build form of contract; contract award; CD authoriza1on. 4. Contractor's architect/engineers prepare final Construc1on Documents (CDs) which the ODC and Owner's Program Manager review for compliance with the ODC's design and performance specifica1ons. 5. The Owner has the right to terminate without cause. If the Owner chooses, construc1on is authorized. 6. The ODC carries out observa1on of the work. Owner's Program Manager administers the contract on behalf of and acts as the representa1ve of the Owner.

32 Lloyd George U.S. Courthouse Las Vegas, Nevada

33 Manufacturing Plant and Marke1ng Center for Milliken & Co. Yonezawa, Japan

34 The Wakefield Luxury Co- Op, Atlanta, Georgia Design Management and Owner s Design Consultant

35 Several Large Programs of Remodeling Projects for Several Major Banks

36 Accelera1ng a Bridging Project