4 th annual joint csu uc pssoa conference march 25 26 2003 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
4 th ANNUAL JOINT CSU/UC PSSOA CONFERENCE March 25-26, 2003 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
4 th ANNUAL JOINT CSU/UC PSSOA CONFERENCE March 25-26, 2003

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 21

4 th ANNUAL JOINT CSU/UC PSSOA CONFERENCE March 25-26, 2003 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 96 Views
  • Uploaded on

4 th ANNUAL JOINT CSU/UC PSSOA CONFERENCE March 25-26, 2003. “Emerging Construction Methodologies in CSU – What Public Works Contract Specialists Should Know”. Presented by: W. Anthony Fulton, Director Facilities Planning & Management San Diego State University.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '4 th ANNUAL JOINT CSU/UC PSSOA CONFERENCE March 25-26, 2003' - sissy


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
4 th annual joint csu uc pssoa conference march 25 26 2003
4th ANNUAL JOINT CSU/UC PSSOA CONFERENCEMarch 25-26, 2003

“Emerging Construction Methodologies in CSU – What Public Works Contract Specialists Should Know”

Presented by: W. Anthony Fulton, Director

Facilities Planning & Management

San Diego State University

emergence of new methodologies for capital outlay
Emergence of New Methodologies for Capital Outlay
  • Historical Background
    • Master Builder Trade Workers
    • 1960’s Emergence of “fast track”
    • 1980’s Construction Management linked to GMP
  • Trend:
    • Less staff and capability in house “outsource”
    • Minimize Risk & Claims
  • CSU Experience:
    • Decentralization of Contract Management
    • Lump Sum Funding – Streamlined Projects
methodologies available
Methodologies Available:
  • Design-Bid-Build (Low Bid)
  • Design-Build
    • “Pure” Design-Build
    • “Bridging” Design-Build
    • “Performance” Design Build
  • Construction Manager at Risk with Guaranteed Maximum Price (CM at Risk)
  • CM/GC
  • Multiple Prime
slide4

Authority:The California State University has authority to procure it’s major capital outlay projects using Design-Build or CM at Risk method of Procurement under Public Code Section 10708 which states:

“When, in the opinion of the trustees, the best interests of the California State University dictate, the trustees may enter into an agreement with a contractor to provide all significant portions of the design services and construction of a project under this chapter. The contractor shall design the project pursuant to the scope of services set forth in the request for proposals, build the project, and present the completed project to the trustees for their approval and acceptance. Work under this section shall be carried out by a contractor chosen by a competitive bidding process that employs selection criteria in addition to cost. Any design work performed pursuant to this section shall be prepared and signed by an architect certified pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 5500) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code.”

slide5

TRADITIONAL DESIGN-BID-BUILD

A/E

CM/PM

CAMPUS

AGENT

AGENT

Vendor

GENERAL

CONTRACTOR

SUB-CONTRACTOR

BUDGET

PLANNING

DESIGN

BID

CONSTRUCTION

EQUIP

OCCUPY

advantages

ADVANTAGES:

  • “BEST PRICE:” POTENTIAL
  • DELIVERY SCHEDULE CLEARLY STATED IN CONTRACT
  • 100% DESIGN COMPLETED PRIOR TO BID

DISADVANTAGES:

  • COST NOT FINAL UNTIL BID
  • COST OVERRUNS MAY REQUIRE REDO AND REDESIGN
  • BIDDERS GET “LOW” BY OMITTING WORK NOT SHOWN
  • CHANGE ORDER RATE HIGH – 5% PLUS
  • AGENTS (A/E, CM, & OTHERS) TAKE MINIMAL RESPONSIBILITY
  • SCHEDULE CHANGES DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT
slide7

CONSTRUCTION MANAGER @ RISK

A/E

CM/PM

CAMPUS

AGENT

AGENT

AGENT/VENDOR

CM @

RISK

SUB-CONTRACTOR

BUDGET

PLANNING

DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION

EQUIP

OCCUPY

CM

GMP

advantages1

ADVANTAGES:

  • CM @ RISK SELECTED ON QUALIFICATIONS, NOT PRICE
  • CM @ RISK RESPONSIBLE FOR WORK SCHEDULE, MEANS & METHODS
  • COST “GUARANTEED.” EARLY SAVINGS POSSIBLE
  • CM @ RISK ACTS AS OWNER’S PARTNER FOR A FEE
  • CONSTRUCTION CAN START EARLY

DISADVANTAGES:

  • COSTS MAY INCREASE DUE TO “DETAILS” NOT IN GMP
  • CM MAY “EXPAND” BUDGET TO CREATE FUTURE SAVINGS
  • SCHEDULE CHANGES DURING CONSTRUCITON DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT
slide9

DESIGN-BUILD

A/E

CM/PM

CAMPUS

AGENT

AGENT

AGENT/VENDOR

BUILDERS

A/E

DESIGN -

BUILDER

SUB-CONTRACTOR

BUDGET

PLANNING

DESIGN

RFP

CONSTRUCTION

EQUIP

OCCUPY

advantages2

EARLY COST GUARANTEED

  • PRICE TENDS TO MATCH QUALITY
  • PERFORMANCE BASED SELECTIONS POSSIBLE
  • CONSTRUCTION STARTS VERY EARLY
  • D-B MAY INCLUDE COMPLETE UPFRONT SERVICES “TURNKEY”
  • MOST BENEFICIAL SCHEDULE
  • ELIMINATES ERRORS & OMISSIONS

ADVANTAGES:

DISADVANTAGES:

  • FAIR PRICE COMPETITION DIFFICULT TO VERIFY
  • COST IMPACT OF POINT SCALE MAY BE DIFFICULT TO EVALUATE
  • OVER EMPHASIS ON PRICE MAY COMPROMISE QUALITY
  • “BRIDGING” DOCUMENTS MAY EXTEND SCHEDULE
  • STAFF/USERS NEED TO MAKE “QUICK” DECISIONS
  • VAGUE INTERPRETATIONS OF RFP MAY OCCUR
budgeting pre planning phase
BUDGETING PRE-PLANNING PHASE

PROJECT SCOPE

BUDGET AND

SCHEDULE

DEFINED

PROCUREMENT

PROCESSES

SERVICE

AGREEMENT

PRE-PROJECT CONTRACTS:

  • FEASIBILITY
  • CEQA
  • OTHER

FINANCIAL PLAN

LEGAL

NON-STATE ONLY

PROJECT FUNDED

BY STATE OR

NON-STATE

SOURCES

CPDC – STATE

T & F – NON-STATE

slide13

ALLOCATION

ORDER ISSUED

ACCOUNT ESTAB.

P.O. #’s ISSUED

CONTRACT #

ISSUED

BEGIN

PROJECT

METHODOLOGY SELECTED

TRADITIONAL DESIGN-BID-BUILD

DESIGN-BUILD

CM @ RISK or CM/GC w/GMP

design phase traditional design build
DESIGN PHASE [Traditional & Design-Build]

PRESCREEN

EXEC. ARCHITECT

FROM

CSU LIST

INTERVIEW

& SELECT

ARCHITECT

Keep file on

Selection

process

Send

Appointment

letter

Address

Protest

Select

Consultant

slide15

CSU FEE

CURVE

CSU DB

AGREE-

MENT

CSU

STANDARD

A/E AGREE-

MENT

OR

PREPARE SCOPE OF WORK & A/E AGREEMENT

PROCUREMENT

PROCESSES

AGREEMENT

LEGAL

slide16

IF NO LOCAL

LIST

ADVERTISE

PREPARE SCOPE OF WORK & SERVICE AGREEMENT

ISSUE RFP FOR

OTHER

SERVICES:

SELECT

CONSULTANT

PROCUREMENT

PROCESSES

AGREEMENT

  • CIVIL
  • MATERIALS TESTING
  • SOILS
  • PLAN CHECK
  • ADA COMPLIANCE
  • SEISMIC PEER REVIEW
  • CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEW
  • BID SET REPRODUCTION

LEGAL

IF BLANKET

CONTRACTS

EXIST

PURCHASE

ORDER

design phase for cm @ risk
DESIGN PHASE [For CM @ Risk]

ADVERTISE

TO ALL

REVIEW

PROPOSALS

& SELECT BUILDER

ISSUE RFP FOR

CM @ RISK

BUILDER

ISSUE SERVICE

ORDER FOR PRECONSTRUCTION SERVICES

LEGAL

AT SCHEMATIC

DESIGN PHASE

bid phase traditional
BID PHASE (Traditional)

ADVERTISE

TO ALL

AWARD

CONTRACT TO

LOW BIDDER

PREPARE &

ISSUE

BID

DOCUMENTS

OPEN

BIDS

PROCUREMENT

PROCESSES

AGREEMENT

CSU

PREQUALIFIES

CONTRACTORS

LEGAL

bid phase cm @ risk
BID PHASE (CM @ RISK)

CM AWARDS

SUB-CONTRACT

CM

AGREES

TO GMP

CM

+

ADV

BID

PACKAGES

CM AWARDS

SUB-CONTRACT

CM BIDS MULTIPLE

PACKAGES

+

CM AWARDS

SUB-CONTRACT

PROCUREMENT

PROCESSES

GMP

AGREEMENT

=

  • DIFFERENCES:
  • CM CONTROLS BIDS/OWNER OBSERVES
  • CM PARTNERS W/OWNER FOR A FEE

GMP

LEGAL

bid phase design build selection phase
BID PHASE (Design-Build Selection Phase)

LIMITED

LISTED

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENT

ADVERTISE

TO ALL

ISSUE RFP TO

CONTRACTORS

SELECTED

PROCUREMENT

ISSUES

PROPOSAL

NUMBERS TO

CONTRACTORS

ISSUE RFQ

FOR CONTRACTOR

PREQUAL

SELECT

CONTRACTORS

KEEP FILE

ON

SELECTION

PROCESS

SEND

SELECTION

LETTER

ADDRESS

PROTEST

slide21

KEEP FILE

ON

SELECTION

PROCESS

RECEIVE

COST

PROPOSALS

RECEIVE

TECHNICAL

PROPOSALS

EVALUATE

TECHNICAL

PROPOSALS

ASSIGN POINTS

COST

POINTS

QUALITY

SELECTION

=

QUALITY

ENHANCEMENT

PERFORMANCE

CRITERIA