my experience has been that a CM is just another person out there to cover their ass and justify their salary to the owner. i haven't met one who really understood the proactive possibility of their position. but, i suppose on large or complex projects it could be very beneficial.

I deal with CMs and GCs on a daily baisis. It truly depends on the project, on certain projects you may even have both. In my experience the CM make s sure that all the paperwork is absolutely perfect. They make sure all the shop-drawings are in and according to intent, they double-check contracts for subs and gc's and make sure they each are keeping up w/ their end, they make sure change orders are justified, they keep track of deadlines and costs. They are a middle man that owners may hire to make sure all is taken care off in accordance to the interests of the owner. On the other hand they are a pain in the behind because they only care about what looks good on paper (that's my experince) and not what is logical and practical. Bottom line is they are better to have than not to have in large complex projects.

The CM on the Job I was working on yesterday came by the site, and saw the OSB dust partitions we had put up, and thought they were actual walls for the project. That shows how familar they usually are with the working drawings and construction in general, but as a GC they are your interface with the client so they usually smooth the process out for you. If you are working for the goverment, university, or institution they are usually built-in as part of the facilities management and they do earn there $ with all the paperwork, client interface, and general running around they have to do. GCs would prefer they don't get to involved in the working drawings unless it's for an RFI, change order, or something specific. To answer the origional ? as i understand it, I've never worked on a large project where the CM took the place of a GC

norm,

generally, there are two types of construction managers - a cm-at-risk (in which they take liability for delivering the project on time/budget/whatever they agree to) or cm-advisor (which sounds like most of the descriptions above - the cm has no liability and is another type of project manager).

both have potential advantages and huge disadvantages. i've worked with one cm-at-risk who, literally, refused to allow us as the architects, to present the project to the clients. they would always take our drawings and discuss it without our presence. very, very dubious and very bad for us. a cm-advisors, on the projects i've worked with them, have ranged from very helpful (in keeping the client and contractor on schedule and on 'message') to very inept (they couldn't keep an accurate schedule, nor an accurate estimate, and basically just sucked a half million of fees that we were doing all the work for).

in my experience, cm's tend to be specialized project managers, someone that every large corporate firm should be able to hire and keep in house. the more ground we, as architects, give to cm's, the deeper the hole we start from.

Shalak Moore,

I agree with all of what you wrote. Those are some of the points that I was trying to express. (Maybe my choice of words was not very good).

g-love,

I didn't know that, thank you for the information, it truly puts many situations into perspective for me.

We encourage clients to engage CMGC's ("CM at risk") for large projects with significant unknowns when design begins. This way there is a contracted stakeholder during design who can investigate hidden conditions and give "reliable" schedule and pricing estimates. You tend to end up with overly conservative estimates but at least you can rely on them not to change in a bad way.

CMGC's are good for:

-renovations where existing conditions could have significant impact (to deal with unknown asbestos, for instance or discovery of exisiting conditions during design)

-projects where complex phasing is required. school year starts or minimizing downtime for critical facilities

-multiple bid projects where continuity of accountability is needed

The down side...Typically, the CMGC tries to save, save, save so that he can give a rebate to the owner at the end. This is particularly annoying when you realize you could have gotten copper on budget, instead of painted stucco with a rebate.

i agree with many ofthe responses above. in my opinion, the cmgc process is good. . . if done properly and with due diligence.

in one experience, the cm represented the owner (public agency) very well. they kept the contractor honest, the schedule on time, the budget in check. they also helped us (the architects) in getting information from the contractor. they were especially helpful in flushing out any rfi issues or change order items, both adds and credits. in this relationship, the cm was strickly an advisor- the owners representative who protected the owners interests, but also the architects and contractors. it was more like having an in house arbitrator.

my current project is using a cmgc. they are part of the general contractor, but they have bought into the project as an early stakeholder. it's a renovation of a state historic building with very complex phasing. in this instance, i see the value of the cmgc as critical to the project because they're able to lend expertise in areas that architects are not experts such as construction scheduling, phasing and sequencing. in this case, they have liability and are not only for advice.

both of those projects mentioned above were in the $8.5-12 m range. other projects that i've been part of used a hybrid of the cmgc and design/ build. in these instances, we the architects teamed every early (sometimes the contractor brought us the client) with the contractor. these were private projects so architectural drawings sets were limited in scope and complexity because of the systems we designed around. the contractor had liability as a stakeholder so it was in their interest to voice opinions early as to the legitimacy of the drawings and details. essentially, we got free advice and direction as to what system to detail and design around because the contractor knew which sub or system they wanted (i.e. kawneer v. us alum. or one electrical sub over another). in these cases (three in my tenure) the average change order add for those three projects were less than one percent of the construction costs. these projects ranged from $500k to 2m.

with my current project, we the architects were involved and very instrumental in interviewing and choosing the cmgc. we relied heavily on past work relationships with them and the experience we had working with them.

Depends on what you are referring to as a CM. I have vauge experience with clients who selected a CM much like they selected the architect. Rather than bidding the job single prime bid to general contractors we as the architect worked the design/budget with the CM and never technically 'bid' the job. For that process I felt that the CM was a complete waste of the owners money. The owner didn't get as much for their money in my opinion and the at-risk liability the CM took wasn't really of much value.

Most of my experience is with single prime bids to GC's. On a current project the owners hired an 'owners representative' or CM by title. For this particular client and job it was a wise move as he is handling the paperwork and supervision for the client, whom knows very little about construction and contracts.