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?
bowling_ball
Feb 20, 23 6:03 pm
I'll say that my numbers match your numbers with scary accuracy. I'm curious what others say as well.
Chad Miller
Feb 20, 23 6:56 pm
That's kind of creepy. I'm wondering if this will be common for commercial work.
Wood Guy
Feb 20, 23 6:52 pm
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.
Chad Miller
Feb 20, 23 6:56 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).
pandahut
Feb 20, 23 7:16 pm
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....
Chad Miller
Feb 21, 23 11:55 am
We use the CMGC as I described in my initial post to inform our design decisions to keep things on budget and on schedule.
natematt
Feb 21, 23 12:56 pm
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.
Chad Miller
Feb 21, 23 1:15 pm
May I ask what CMMR is? Construction Manager M . . . Risk?
natematt
Feb 22, 23 4:07 am
Sorry, CMMP . Construction Manager Multi-prime.
Chad Miller
Feb 22, 23 9:48 am
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?
natematt
Feb 22, 23 6:09 pm
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.
Chad Miller
Feb 22, 23 6:47 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.
RJ87
Feb 21, 23 1:57 pm
We're entirely commercial work it it breaks down as:
98% Design Bid Build
2% Something I'm Sure I'm Missing
Chad Miller
Feb 21, 23 2:09 pm
Are you a design build firm?
RJ87
Feb 22, 23 10:09 am
We're a traditional design-bid-build firm. We're typically in for permit before a contractor gets brought on.
Chad Miller
Feb 22, 23 10:15 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. :)
RJ87
Feb 22, 23 3:47 pm
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.
Chad Miller
Feb 22, 23 3:49 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.
x-jla
Feb 22, 23 10:26 am
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.
archanonymous
Feb 22, 23 3:46 pm
90% Hope
10% Pray
Chad Miller
Feb 22, 23 3:50 pm
Sounds almost like what I do for MOB projects. 90% hope, 10% curse god.
pj_heavy
Feb 22, 23 5:39 pm
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.
axonapoplectic
Sep 9, 24 10:43 am
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.
betonbrut
Sep 9, 24 5:22 pm
Why wait till after DD to bring in a contractor?
Chad Miller
Sep 9, 24 5:25 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.
betonbrut
Sep 9, 24 6:34 pm
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!!
Chad Miller
Sep 9, 24 6:59 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.
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?
I'll say that my numbers match your numbers with scary accuracy. I'm curious what others say as well.
That's kind of creepy. I'm wondering if this will be common for commercial work.
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.
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).
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....
We use the CMGC as I described in my initial post to inform our design decisions to keep things on budget and on schedule.
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.
May I ask what CMMR is? Construction Manager M . . . Risk?
Sorry, CMMP . Construction Manager Multi-prime.
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?
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.
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.
We're entirely commercial work it it breaks down as:
98% Design Bid Build
2% Something I'm Sure I'm Missing
Are you a design build firm?
We're a traditional design-bid-build firm. We're typically in for permit before a contractor gets brought on.
Sorry, I thought you said 90% Design Build. I was really confused for a second there! ;)
I think I need to clean my glasses. :)
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.
I'm not a fan of design build. You always get a lower quality building and it's a pain in the *#@ for CA.
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.
90% Hope
10% Pray
Sounds almost like what I do for MOB projects. 90% hope, 10% curse god.
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.
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.
Why wait till after DD to bring in a contractor?
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.
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!!
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.