The struggling economy put significant pressure on owners to be as cost-effective as possible with their construction projects during the past few years. Has the situation encouraged them to rely more heavily on the traditional design-bid-build approach, or embrace alternate project delivery methods (APDMs) such as design-build and Construction Manager at Risk (CM at Risk), which emphasize best value over low bid? Sundt CEO Dave Crawford – a recognized expert and leader in the use of APDMs – recently answered a few questions about this timely topic:
Have you seen markets that are moving toward or away from alternate project delivery during the recession?
During the recession, moving toward or away from alternate project delivery was more of a reflection of the culture of the owner. If a public owner has enabling legislation in place and a trained staff comfortable with a team approach to design and construction, they tend to derive value from design-build and CM at Risk. Obviously, if they lack enabling legislation or the staff has not been trained in participating and managing a team delivery concept, the owner reverts to the traditional design-bid-build approach to design and construction.
Are owners more or less likely to engage a professional management services firm to assist them in planning and delivering construction projects in the current market?
I haven’t seen too much difference in the engagement of professional management services during the recession compared to more normal times. If professional management firms alter their services to reflect a team approach to design and construction, they can serve as a valuable component in the success of a project. If they are still trying to provide traditional design-bid-build services under the guise of alternate project delivery, they can become a stumbling block in the success of the project.
Are there new project delivery systems that are gaining traction? If so, what are these systems and in what markets are they being used?
We hear more about integrated project delivery (IPD), but in reality we are not aware of a public owner who has enabling legislation in place to execute a multi-party agreement. The current philosophy of a team approach embraced by IPD has been used very successfully in CM at Risk and design-build projects with the right team assemblage of an owner, architect, engineer, contractor and subcontractors. Culture is a major issue because the selection of the team is dependent upon their qualifications and competence, which leads to qualification based selection and away from some of the traditional practices that focus on cost, fees, etc. In any team approach to design and construction, success is greatly enhanced through simultaneous selection of the entire team prior to the initiation of design.
Are there any new issues or trends in alternate project delivery or professional service delivery that have affected Sundt’s markets or the industry in general?
A few owners utilizing alternate project delivery are creating greater alignment with professional services. They are selecting design professionals and builders through a qualifications based selection process. This tends to be a simultaneous selection process of the team prior to the initiation of design.