6.1. SR 01-28-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Construction Monager A proven successful trend in the construction of municipal facilities is to use the CM approach. This approach is being increasingly used by cities to save money and to help ensure a quality product. The city successfully used this approach when it constructed Northbound Liquor. Conversely, the city experienced difficulties (some minor, some major) with the construction of the Ice _Arena and City Hall when the general contractor approached was used. Based on our recent success and difficulties, and experiences in other municipalities, it was almost a foregone conclusion that the city would be adopdng the CM approach for this upcoming project. In 1992 when the city constructed the current city hall/police station it did so with a traditional approach. The architects completed the plans and specifications and the entire project was sent out for one bid. The low construction firm for the project was Bor-Son Construction who then hired all the subcontractors. The city did not have anyone on-site as a city representative or expert except for when building inspections were taking place and when the architect was on-site. There was no city representative on-site hour-to-hour or even day-to-day. Consequently, there was limited quality control over a number of issues. We simply had to assume that the general contractor completed everything according to the plans and specifications and that no shortcuts were taken. With the CM approach, a firm is hired as the city representative to be on-site for the entire project. The architect in conjunction with the CM completes the plans and specifications for the project. The city then goes out for bids on anywhere from fifteen to twenty-five separate components of the project and each component is awarded individually. Savings with the CM approach includes the mark-up on the subcontractors that typically goes to the general contractor. Besides the savings on the general contractors mark-up of the subcontractors bids, the most important element for using a CM is the local control and city representative being on-site all day, everyday. The CM firm is hired by the city and they are the city's expert, representative, and manager of the project. Finally, by using the CM approach, there is more opportunity for local firms to get bids for the project. The subcontracts may not be open to local firms if a general contractor approach is used. A large construction firm sometimes only hires subcontractors that they were comfortable working with and know. It should be noted that CM expenses (job superintendent, project manager, etc.) would also be charged to the city with the general contractor approach; only the fees would be included in the overall bid from the general contractor. In early January the city requested and received proposals from four firms for CM services. The committee interviewed all four firms on January 9, 2002, and the committee quickly narrowed the field down to two firms. Ultimately it was the committee's choice to recommend Kraus-Anderson Construction Company as the construction managers for the project (public safety, city hall, and utilities). This firm was the strong preference of the public safety individuals on the committee. It is somewhat difficult to compare "apples to apples" when looking at the costs submitted for CM services. Kraus-Anderson Construction Company (ICA) had a slightly higher proposal than the low firm, which was Bossardt Corporation. However, after the interviews it became clear that ICA was providing far more on-site supervision than Bossardt, and this