280 likes | 386 Views
Reflections on A Decade with Alternative Project Delivery On Texas Construction Projects. Progress, Problems, and the Future. Curt Martin Construction Resolutions, LLC Houston, Texas Curt@Construction-Resolutions.com Curt@Construction-Counsel.com. Overview: Current Status.
E N D
Reflections on A Decade with Alternative Project Delivery On Texas Construction Projects Progress, Problems, and the Future Curt Martin Construction Resolutions, LLC Houston, Texas Curt@Construction-Resolutions.com Curt@Construction-Counsel.com
Overview: Current Status • “Vertical” public construction has • Choice in construction delivery methods and • Discretion in choosing contractor / CM
A Brief History • 1995: Choices (SB 1) • 1997: Structure (SB 583) • 1999: Modest changes (SB 669) • 2001: Cities, counties and River authorities (SB 510) • 2003: Navigation districts, ports, toll roads and turnpikes (HB 3028) • 2003: TxDOT may use CDA’s) (HB 3588)
1995 – SB 1 • Discretion allowed! • Choose Method of Procurement • Use “Qualifications-Based” Selection • Applied to K-12 Schools and some higher ed facilities
1995 – SB 1 • Methods of Procurement allowed: • Design / Build (Bridging) • Construction Manager–Agent • Construction Manager-at-Risk • Selection through Competitive Sealed Proposals • Selection through Competitive Bidding
1995 – SB 1 • Schools could use various procurement methods upon finding that this method provided “Best Value.” • But beyond that there was little guidance.
1997 – SB 583 • Added Universities • Provided guidance • Described how procurement was to be done for each delivery method • Identified criteria that could be used in selection • Required user to identify and publish criteria for selection
1999 – SB 669 • More refinement: • Clarified delegation of selection • Clarified process of CM @Risk receiving sub bids • Strengthened requirement for publishing selection criteria
2001 – SB 510 • Extended Alt. Del. Procurement authority to: • Cities • Counties • River Authorities • Excluded Alt. Del. Procurement from: • Highways, water supply projects, other “horizontal” construction
2003 – HB 3028 • Extended Alt. Del. Procurement to • Ports (for certain work)
2003 – HB 3588 • Authorized TxDOT use of “Comprehensive Development Agreements” (“CDA’s”)
What History Tells Us • Demand for Alternative Delivery continues to expand • Guidelines needed on how to use these systems • Some minor adjustments required
Current status • Available “Alternative” Delivery Methods: • CM – agent • CM at risk • Competitive sealed proposals • Job order contracting • Design build • Competitive bidding
Current Issues • Following procedures? • Transparency • Standards for Construction Managers? • Can other procurement methods be used? • Extension of D/B to Horizontal • Inter-local Agreements • Job Order Contracting
Job Order Contracting • Ed. Code § 44 governs all procurement • Allows Procurement via: • Competitive bidding • Competitive sealed proposals • Request for proposals • Catalog purchase • Interlocal contract • Design/Build contract • Construction Management • Job Order Contracting
Job Order Contracting • Ed. Code § 44 governs all procurement • Allows Procurement via: • Competitive bidding • Competitive sealed proposals • Request for proposals • Catalog purchase • Interlocal contract • Design/Build contract • Construction management • Job order contracting
JOC Controversy GISD to Build $8,000,000 Middle School Renovation using Job Order Contracting
JOC Controversy HISD Creates JOC Contracts for 20 Regions Across Texas
JOC Controversy HISD arranges “Inter-Local” agreement with Texas Ass’n. of School Boards (TASB)
JOC Controversy (TASB) provides HISD JOC to Galveston ISD
JOC Controversy Citizens Group Protests; Judge issues Preliminary Injunction STOP
JOC Controversy • Can JOC be procured through “Interlocal Agreements”?
Other Controversies • Criteria not published • Criteria not followed • Rankings not made public • Improper delegations • Construction management • Who? • What role?
2005: HB 2525 • Consolidation of statutes • Consistency between various statutes • Expansion of CM at risk and CSP to infrastructure • Delegation of authority • HB 2525 passed both houses, vetoed
What We Have Learned from History (2) • Interest in Alternative Delivery Systems continues / increases • With discretion comes abuse • Need vigilance, transparency, accountability
2007: • Son of 2525 • Expand Design/Build to horizontal construction • Attack on indemnification for sole negligence
Continued Goals • Consistency • Low transactional costs • Transparency • Enforceability • Design and construction as service