CM At-Risk Delivery Model

1. CM At-Risk Delivery Model January 24, 2012

2. CM At-Risk (CMR) …a delivery method which entails a commitment by the Construction Manager to deliver the project within a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP).

3. Benefits of CM At-Risk • CMR offers the following: • Reduces Owner Risk (Does not eliminate it!) • CMR holds contracts / accountable for budget and schedule • Potential Cost Savings to the Project • Reduce Change Orders • Reduce Claims • Eliminates Value-Engineering / Re-Bidding • Minimizes Potential Schedule Delays • Less Coordination

4. Overview of CM At-Risk • CMR is similar to CM Agent, except for the following: • The CMR holds all trade contracts, instead of the Owner – no approval of trade contracts by the Commission • The CMR assumes majority of project risk associated with cost, coordination and schedule • The negotiation of the GMP for the entire project will replace the individual negotiations of consultant contracts today • The CM can self-perform work • Successful Negotiation of a GMP is a requirement

5. CM Agency vs. CM At-Risk • At-Risk Model • Joint CM/AE Selection • CMR Risk (GMP) • Less Owner Control • Claims / Schedules • Single Point Coordination • Contingency / COs • Single Contract • Contractor Selection Based on Best Value Process • Agency Model (current) • Separate CM/AE Selection • Owner’s Risk • More Owner Control • Claims / Schedules • Multiple Point Coordination • Contingency / COs • Multiple Trade Contracts • Contractor Selection Based on Lowest Responsible Bidder

6. Selecting a Delivery Model • Each District/Project is Unique in Some Fashion • Construction Experience • Knowledge of Program • Community Involvement • Decision Making • Scope • Complexity • Schedule

7. What Owner Fits CM At-Risk? • Owner Familiarity with Construction Programs & Process • Owner Availability of Staff (Moderate Level) • Small Group of Decision Makers • Owner Risk Tolerance (Moderate Level) • Owner Level of Control (Moderate Level) • Original Design vs. Project Changes • Level of Changes to Original Scope • Original Schedule vs. Project Changes • Level of Changes to Original Schedule

8. What Project Fits CM At-Risk? • Medium to Large Projects (> $2 million) • Moderate to High Complexity of Projects • Design & Schedule • Aggressive Schedule Expectations

10. CM-At Risk…Project Sequence • Establish and Procure Project Funding • Determine CMR Delivery is best method • Selection of A/E – RFP/RFQ process • Selection of CMR – RFQ/BVS process • Two Step Selection Process • Negotiation of GMP • Occurs between SD & DD Phase • Re-Confirmation of GMP to Design Intent • Bidding • Pre-Qualification of Potential Bidders by CMR • CMR bids and awards Contracts, may perform work • Construction & Closeout

11. CM-At Risk…Consultant Selection • Architect • Co-Selection of A/E even if already selected • Occurs after funding is procured • RFP/RFQ Selection • CMR • Co-Selection of CMR even if a CM is already selected • Occurs after funding is procured • RFQ/BVS Selection

12. CM-At Risk…GMP Negotiation • Occurs between SD and DD Design Phases • Small, Select Group from District & OSFC • Accurate Cost Estimate from A/E • Includes Design Intent and Hard & Soft Costs • Conduct Facilitated Session for Negotiation • Upon GMP Agreement, Design Intent is revisited

13. CM-At Risk…Prequalification • Experience • Financial condition • Performance on previous projects • Facilities • Management skills • Ability to contract properly • Goals • EDGE etc. • Affirmation of non-violations past (5) years • Proof of licenses to perform work • Self-Performance

14. INTERMISSION

15. CM-At Risk…Example #1 • A small district in northwestern Ohio. • Master plan of $47 million Pk-12 facility (renovation and addition of their existing MS/HS, plus Career Tech space). Additionally, the high school was originally built in 1911 and the attached middle school building was built in 1936. Both were fully renovated in 1995. The school is in the center of a residential area. • The District recently completed a new athletic complex project. • The board President and current Treasurer were involved in the 1995 renovation project. • Local levy took (5) times to pass with many different iterations of the master plan. • District administration indicated that many local contractors helped the district pass their levy. A board member is also an electrical contractor. The board is very concerned about the quality of construction and is interested if there are any opportunities to ensure that qualified contractors build their school. • No consultant selections (A/E or CMR) yet made.

16. CM-At Risk…Example #1 Why is this project a candidate for a CMR delivery method?

17. CM-At Risk - Owner Characteristics • A small district in northwestern Ohio. • Master plan of $47 million Pk-12 facility (renovation and addition of their existing MS/HS, plus Career Tech space). Additionally, the high school was originally built in 1911 and the attached middle school building was built in 1936. Both were fully renovated in 1995. The school is in the center of a residential area. • The District recently completed a new athletic complex project. • The board President and current Treasurer were involved in the 1995 renovation project. • Local levy took (5) times to pass with many different iterations of the master plan. • District administration indicated that many local contractors helped the district pass their levy. A board member is also an electrical contractor. The board is very concerned about the quality of construction and is interested if there are any opportunities to ensure that qualified contractors build their school. • No consultant selections (A/E or CMR) yet made.

18. CM-At Risk - Project Characteristics • A small district in northwestern Ohio. • Master plan of $47 million Pk-12 facility (renovation and addition of their existing MS/HS, plus Career Tech space). Additionally, the high school was originally built in 1911 and the attached middle school building was built in 1936. Both were fully renovated in 1995. The school is in the center of a residential area. • The District recently completed a new athletic complex project. • The board President and current Treasurer were involved in the 1995 renovation project. • Local levy took (5) times to pass with many different iterations of the master plan. • District administration indicated that many local contractors helped the district pass their levy. A board member is also an electrical contractor. The board is very concerned about the quality of construction and is interested if there are any opportunities to ensure that qualified contractors build their school. • No consultant selections (A/E or CMR) yet made.

19. CM-At Risk…Example #2 • A suburban district in central Ohio. • The scope of the project is a new $9 million Elementary School. • Interested in 21st Century concepts, District administration has established a planning committee of 48 teachers, students and parents. The committee determined that they will remain involved during the design process to make sure that their planning intent is realized in the final design. • Previous project experience (multiple prime) produced “mixed results” and schedule delays. The District is in favor of any alternative that could simplify the contracting process. • The local levy passed, through a recount, by 4 votes. • The selected A/E has worked with the District on previous projects, and the CM was selected in the 2009 CM selection.

20. CM-At Risk…Example #2 Why is this project a candidate for a CMR delivery method?

21. CM-At Risk…Owner Characteristics • A suburban district in central Ohio. • The scope of the project is a new $9 million Elementary School. • Interested in 21st Century concepts, District administration has established a planning committee of 48 teachers, students and parents. The committee determined that they will remain involved during the design process to make sure that their planning intent is realized in the final design. • Previous project experience (multiple prime) produced “mixed results” and schedule delays. The District is in favor of any alternative that could simplify the contracting process. • The local levy passed, through a recount, by 4 votes. • The selected A/E has worked with the District on previous projects, and the CM was selected in the 2009 CM selection.

22. CM-At Risk…Project Characteristics • A suburban district in central Ohio. • The scope of the project is a new $9 million Elementary School. • Interested in 21st Century concepts, District administration has established a planning committee of 48 teachers, students and parents. The committee determined that they will remain involved during the design process to make sure that their planning intent is realized in the final design. • Previous project experience (multiple prime) produced “mixed results” and schedule delays. The District is in favor of any alternative that could simplify the contracting process. • The local levy passed, through a recount, by 4 votes. • The selected A/E has worked with the District on previous projects, and the CM was selected in the 2009 CM selection.