Archinect
anchor

Project Delivery Methods: What's yours?

OddArchitect

I was working through af few 'interesting' project delivery methods on some projects and got to wondering something . .. 

What are you most common project delivery methods?

For the firm I'm at our delivery methods are as follows: 

1. CMGC with a GMP (90%).  It functions as an integrated method since we have the GC on the team right away and we work together to keep the design within budget. 

2.  Design / Bid / Build (8%)- This is a very small portion of our work but used for government work.

3.  Design Build (2 %) - We only do this with very select GC's that we know and trust.  Again it's a integrated method as with #1.  We only do this if a client requires it.  


What about the firm you're with?  What project delivery methods do you use most often?  

 
Feb 20, 23 2:27 pm
bowling_ball

I'll say that my numbers match your numbers with scary accuracy. I'm curious what others say as well. 

Feb 20, 23 6:03 pm  · 
 · 

That's kind of creepy. I'm wondering if this will be common for commercial work.

Feb 20, 23 6:56 pm  · 
 · 
Wood Guy

Wasn't this part of a recent discussion? I'm not sure what to call my preferred process but I call it pseudo design-build or integrated project delivery. I know those terms have specific meanings for those doing commercial work. I do all residential, usually hourly but I'm starting to do fixed price, and I like to get a contractor on board at the end of schematic design. 

Feb 20, 23 6:52 pm  · 
 · 

I think we had a discussion somewhat about this but it got taken off the rails by disagreements between what design build is.

It is nice to have a CG on board early.  For the majority of our work the GC starts at SD.  This is because we do a lot of fast track projects (education).  

Feb 20, 23 6:56 pm  · 
2  · 
pandahut

Recently, CMGC on larger institutional/Edu work. Definitely has it's flaws but I feel at times they are always multiple steps ahead tryng to nickle and dime work and question everything, rightfully so I guess....



Feb 20, 23 7:16 pm  · 
 · 

We use the CMGC as I described in my initial post to inform our design decisions to keep things on budget and on schedule.

Feb 21, 23 11:55 am  · 
 · 
natematt

I think we are similar in breakdown.

However, I don't think our projects are typically using a standard CMMR or CMAR format. Our owners typically have their own construction manager separate from the GC, and yet the GC tends to still be the responsible one.

Feb 21, 23 12:56 pm  · 
2  · 

May I ask what CMMR is? Construction Manager M . . . Risk?

Feb 21, 23 1:15 pm  · 
2  · 
natematt

Sorry, CMMP . Construction Manager Multi-prime.

Feb 22, 23 4:07 am  · 
2  · 

Ah! I Haven't worked on a multiple prime project in over a decade. May I ask why you do that type of project delivery method?

Feb 22, 23 9:48 am  · 
 · 
natematt

Like I said, it's not actually CMMP, but somewhere in-between as I understand them. I think it's a project scale and I feel like it's a scale thing. Owners feeling like they want more of a foot in the door on the project, but without taking on all the responsibilities. Could be regional in SoCal too, not sure. I'd guess we are split about 50/50 between that CMsomething and CMAR in our CM projects.

Feb 22, 23 6:09 pm  · 
 · 

Interesting.

I don't see how it be not actually a CMMP.  I'd think if you have more than one prime GC it would be a MP and and increased pain in the @*#. I don't understand how having multiple primes would give the owner more of a foot in the door either. Then again I don't know much about the CMMP style.

Feb 22, 23 6:47 pm  · 
 · 
RJ87

We're entirely commercial work it it breaks down as:

98% Design Bid Build

2% Something I'm Sure I'm Missing

Feb 21, 23 1:57 pm  · 
 · 

Are you a design build firm?

Feb 21, 23 2:09 pm  · 
 · 
RJ87

We're a traditional design-bid-build firm. We're typically in for permit before a contractor gets brought on.

Feb 22, 23 10:09 am  · 
 · 

Sorry, I thought you said 90% Design Build. I was really confused for a second there! ;)

I think I need to clean my glasses.  :)

Feb 22, 23 10:15 am  · 
 · 
RJ87

Design-build involves far too many cooks in the kitchen for me, as our office is purely Architectural. I couldn't care less how each GC "wants" to build it.

Feb 22, 23 3:47 pm  · 
 · 

I'm not a fan of design build. You always get a lower quality building and it's a pain in the *#@ for CA.

Feb 22, 23 3:49 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla

90% design-build (hybrid?)


10% design-good luck


We design under separate design agreement, then provide bid, and apply the design fee towards construction (landscape/civil) upon entering a contract.   Sometimes owners get comparable bids, so I guess it’s design-bid-build delivery method technically and initially.  The engineering and permit drawings happens under the construction contract if applicable.  

Feb 22, 23 10:26 am  · 
 · 
archanonymous

90% Hope

10% Pray

Feb 22, 23 3:46 pm  · 
4  · 

Sounds almost like what I do for MOB projects. 90% hope, 10% curse god.

Feb 22, 23 3:50 pm  · 
 · 
luvu

I’ve lucky enough to have been working on projects across continents , but not in North America just yet. I found the definition of Design/build varies in details from country to country and it’s not as simple as it sounds.


One good example, we won a design comp, the project manager appointed by the client  got involved since day-1. The design went to tender, this is required for institutional / public projects. A couple of GCs got shortlisted, then one was chosen  onboard  as a consultant to help with the delivery method / budget. At this point , this GC has not been awarded the project yet. We worked together with this said GC to resolve all the design issues. After direct negotiation , the GC was awarded the contract on a luxes fee lump sum and the whole design team’( architect, engs, consultants ) contracts were transferred to be under the GC.


From this point , we act as the principal consultant executing our design with GC  on the contract documents that we had prepared.



Feb 22, 23 5:39 pm  · 
 · 
axonapoplectic

resurrecting this post.



Anyone work on government projects where you bring the GC and subs in after DD? Seems like any semi-complicated project might benefit from design assist during CD phase. Private Institutional work (hospitals, universities) seems to function this way (bidding off the DD set), but the handful of public projects I’ve done have only done bidding after CDs after several rounds of cost estimates. I often felt that the client wasn’t getting the best design possible because there’s a forced marriage to the subs and the GC has a more adversarial relationship with the architect. Plus it discourages architecture firms from attempting anything remotely interesting or different than what they’ve done a million times before.


design bid build I think is fine for repetitive, simple work. Anything larger and/or complex I think needs the GC involved a little earlier.

Sep 9, 24 10:43 am  · 
 · 
betonbrut

Why wait till after DD to bring in a contractor?

Sep 9, 24 5:22 pm  · 
 · 

In a CMGC with an integrated design approach the GC typically becomes heavily involved at the beginning of DD's.  Of course the GC has been involved in the project since SD in some capacity.  

Sep 9, 24 5:25 pm  · 
 · 
betonbrut

Most of the big cost drivers on a project are decided during SD and early DD. Once the project has entered CDs, our ability as GCs to influence costs is greatly reduced... we can of course offer cheaper finishes!!

Sep 9, 24 6:34 pm  · 
 · 

I'm quite aware. Hence why in an integrated CMGC delivery method the contractor is involved starting in SD. They really start the 'heavy lifting' in DD though.

Sep 9, 24 6:59 pm  · 
 · 

Block this user


Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

Archinect


This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.

  • ×Search in: