There are several alternative delivery methods beyond the traditional architect-led design-bid-build and the design/build approach. Many of these structures are more recent developments in the industry, driven by technology integration and the continued complexity of project scope. A few of the most common methods are:
- Construction Management at Risk (CMAR): A construction manager fills the role of the “builder” during the design phase and then has the option to become the general contractor during the construction phase, taking on the risk of delivering the project within the designed parameters.
- Integrated Project Delivery (IPD): A collaborative approach that brings together the owner, architect, and contractor early in the project to share risks and rewards. The parties work under a single, multi-party contract that aligns their interests in achieving project goals.This is typically only used on large-scale development and major public works projects.
- Job Order Contracting (JOC): Often used for repetitive or ongoing small- to medium-sized projects. It’s a type of indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract with fixed pricing, typically employed by organizations managing multiple facilities.
- Construction Management / Consulting: A construction manager acts solely as an advisor to the owner, without taking on any construction risk. They help with scheduling, cost control, and managing the contractor selection process.
- Design-Bid-Build (with Variations): Traditional delivery but with some variations, such as fast-tracking (starting construction before the design is complete) or multiple prime contracting (the owner directly contracts with multiple specialty contractors).
Each of these methods has unique advantages that align with different types of projects and owner requirements, providing flexibility in budget management, risk allocation, and the level of collaboration among project stakeholders.
How is CMAR different from Design-Build?
The main difference between Construction Management at Risk (CMAR) and Design-Build lies in how the project is structured, the level of involvement during the design phase, and who takes on risk and responsibilities. Here’s a closer look:
1. Team Structure and Responsibility
- CMAR: In the CMAR model, the owner hires both a design team (architect/engineer) and a construction manager (CM). The CM initially acts as a consultant during the design phase and later becomes the general contractor, taking responsibility for construction. The CM does not have direct control over the design team but collaborates closely with them.
- Design-Build: In Design-Build, the owner contracts a single entity (a Design-Build firm) that is responsible for both the design and construction of the project. This can be a single company or a partnership between a contractor and an architect. There is a unified team responsible for both designing and building the project.
2. Project Phases and Collaboration
- CMAR: The construction manager is brought on board during the design phase to provide input on constructability, cost estimating, and scheduling. The owner contracts the designer separately and retains more control over the design. The CMAR model allows for early collaboration, but the design and construction entities are separate.
- Design-Build: The design and construction are integrated from the beginning, creating a more streamlined and collaborative process. Since a single entity is responsible for the entire project, it can lead to better communication and efficiency, as there is no disconnect between the design and construction teams.
3. Risk Allocation
- CMAR: The CMAR takes on the risk of delivering the project within a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). The owner has separate contracts with the designer and construction manager, which means more coordination is required. The CMAR is responsible for managing construction costs, but the owner still has some risk in the design process.
- Design-Build: In Design-Build, the Design-Build entity assumes most of the project risk, including both design and construction risks. The owner has a single point of accountability, which can reduce conflicts and simplify decision-making. The Design-Build firm is responsible for ensuring that both the design and construction align with the budget and schedule.
4. Owner Involvement
- CMAR: The owner is more involved in managing both the design and construction contracts. This model is suitable for owners who want more influence over the design process.
- Design-Build: The owner has less direct control over the design, as both design and construction are handled by the same team. This model is ideal for owners seeking a single point of responsibility and wanting to simplify their involvement.
5. Cost Control
- CMAR: The CM provides cost estimating and value engineering during the design phase, which helps in keeping the project on budget. However, the separate design and construction contracts can create more opportunities for budget adjustments.
- Design-Build: The integrated nature of Design-Build often provides more predictable costs since the design and construction are planned together, with the budget in mind from the beginning.
In summary:
- CMAR separates the designer and construction manager, with the CM providing early input but not controlling the design.
- Design-Build unifies the design and construction under a single contract, providing a single point of responsibility and streamlined communication.
Final Thoughts
The choice between CMAR and Design-Build often depends on the owner’s desired level of involvement, risk tolerance, and preference for either a collaborative process or a single point of accountability.