Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
McAllen staff outline pros and cons of construction manager-at-risk procurement for complex projects
Summary
City engineering staff briefed the McAllen City Commission on the construction manager-at-risk (CMAR) project-delivery method, describing benefits for complex or high-value projects and noting potential conflicts, premium costs, and the need for expertise to evaluate guaranteed maximum prices.
McAllen engineering staff presented an overview of the construction manager-at-risk (CMAR) project-delivery method during a City Commission workshop, stressing it is best suited for complex or high-dollar projects and can speed delivery while improving constructability.
In the presentation, Eduardo, an engineering staff presenter, defined the model: “the construction manager at risk…commits to completing the project within guaranteed maximum price or what they call GMP.” He said the GMP is based on construction documents and “any reasonably preferred items,” and that the method can offer “more transparency, through open book accounting and a shorter bid process.”
Staff framed CMAR as an alternative to traditional design–bid–build. They said CMAR is selection-by-qualifications rather than by lowest bid, allows early contractor input during design, can establish costs earlier in the process, and can overlap design and construction to save time. Eduardo cited the city’s recent use on the Quinta project as an example of where CMAR-style approaches were helpful because of project complexity.
Commissioners and staff discussed trade-offs. Staff cautioned that CMAR “may incur a premium for the faster delivery” and requires staff or third‑party expertise to evaluate GMP assumptions and contingencies. Eduardo warned of a potential conflict of interest because the construction manager helps develop the price; one mitigation is hiring an independent construction administrator to review GMPs. He said that all GMP components are negotiable except the construction manager fee and trade contractor bids, and that allowances can be included for undefined work.
When asked how to limit change orders, Eduardo said many change orders stem from unforeseen conditions (for example, subsurface utilities) and that exploratory investigations can reduce risk but add upfront cost. He summarized the trade-off: “you’re reducing your risk, but you’re paying that upfront cost,” and staff must balance the premium for risk reduction against likely savings later. Project managers such as Mario were referenced as part of staff’s process to review proposed prices and verify they represent fair value.
Staff emphasized CMAR’s fit for schedule‑sensitive, multiphase, multidisciplinary or technically complex projects—use cases where early contractor involvement improves design accuracy and cost control. Commissioners asked whether bond-funded or federally funded projects require CMAR; staff said no particular procurement method is mandatory for those funding sources and that procurement choices should match project scale and complexity.
No formal action or vote was taken; the presentation was offered to inform commissioners about CMAR as a procurement option for future complex projects and to invite questions.
Looking ahead, staff said they will continue to consider CMAR for appropriate projects and to use project-specific analysis (complexity, schedule sensitivity, and cost) when recommending a delivery method to the commission.
