Assessment of General Contractor Construction Manager Contracting Procedures

1
Assessment of General Contractor/ Construction
Manager Contracting Procedures
CPARB Presentation Joint Legislative Audit and
Review Committee Isabel Muñoz-Colón September
12, 2005
2
Background

• 2003-05 Capital Budget instructs JLARC to review
  GC/CM in major public works.
• The authorization for GC/CM will expire in 2007
• Study Overview
• How does industry research compare GC/CM to
  Design-Bid-Build (DBB)?
• Who is using GC/CM?
• Are performance indicators and benchmarks
  available to compare DBB and GC/CM?
• What is Washington States experience with GC/CM?

Report Pgs. 1-2, 11
3
How Does Industry Research Compare
Design-Bid-Build to GC/CM?
2
Report Pg. 9
4
Who is using GC/CM?
35
30
2.7 Billion spent on GC/CM State-level projects
25
20
3.8 Billion spent on GC/CM local-level projects
Project Count since 1991-2005
15
10
5
0
N108 projects
Owner Type
Report Pg. 15
5
Are performance indicators and benchmarks
available to compare?

• The state does not currently collect consistent
  reliable state and local-level data to analyze
  project performance
• Cost-per-square-foot
• Cost Growth
• Time Growth
• Quality
• Change Orders
• To address the lack of data, JLARC
• Compiled an inventory of GC/CM projects
• Conducted a survey of those projects
• Developed 21 case studies of DBB and GC/CM

Report Pgs. 33-34
6
What is Washingtons Experience with GC/CM?
Washington
GC/CM Characteristics
5
Report Pg. 19
7
Conclusions and Recommendation 1

• Conclusion
• Some agencies may be using GC/CM to overcome
  perceived deficiencies in the low-bid process in
  DBB.
• Recommendation
• The Legislature, through the Capital Projects
  Advisory Review Board, should further analyze the
  implications of the low-bid requirement on major
  capital projects.

Report Pg. 35
8
Conclusions and Recommendation 2

• Conclusion
• Executive-level oversight is critical to the
  ongoing development of sound public works
  contracting policy.
• Recommendation
• 2A The CPARB should be convened quickly to
  ensure the Board is prepared to provide
  recommendations to the Legislature before the
  2007 termination date of GC/CM.
• 2B The CPARB should consider adding to its work
  plan improving the consistency of GC/CM project
  documents across projects and jurisdictions.

Report Pgs. 35-36
9
Conclusions and Recommendation 3

• Conclusion
• Lack of sound, reliable, and consistent data
  collection is a major impediment to understanding
  the impacts of GC/CM.
• Recommendation
• 3A The CPARB should, in consultation with the
  Office of Financial Management, develop
  standardized statewide performance indicators and
  benchmarks for all major public works projects.
• 3B Project performance data should be collected
  on state and local projects to form a portfolio
  of projects.

Report Pgs. 36-37
10
Questions?

• Isabel Muñoz-Colón
• [phone]
• Munoz-colon.isabel_at_leg.wa.gov
• Study available at JLARC Website
• http//jlarc.leg.wa.gov