Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Construction Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners briefed on construction-manager-at-risk method for ACM renovation
Summary
County staff and Messer Construction presented the construction manager‑at‑risk (CMAR) delivery method for the planned ACM Building renovation, outlining selection, preconstruction services, guaranteed maximum price structure, insurance options and pros/cons.
Cabarrus County commissioners on Tuesday received an overview of the construction-manager-at-risk delivery method and how the county plans to use it for the ACM Building renovation. County staff and representatives from Messer Construction described the selection process, the guaranteed maximum price and insurance options the county is considering.
The presentation explained that the CMAR model brings a licensed general contractor into the design phase to provide preconstruction services, including detailed cost estimates, constructability reviews, scheduling and preparation of bid packages. Jason Harris, senior project executive with Messer Construction, said the method “integrates this construction manager into the design phase and promotes collaboration.”
County staff emphasized the cost‑certainty benefit of CMAR. Under CMAR, the construction manager provides a guaranteed maximum price, or GMP, which shifts certain risks for performance, subcontractor stability and material‑price fluctuations to the construction manager. As Michael Miller (county staff) summarized, the GMP “is a guaranteed cost for the project.”
The presentation also compared owner‑controlled insurance programs (OSIP) to contractor‑controlled insurance programs (CSIP). County staff said the county has used CSIP on recent projects and plans to use CSIP for the ACM renovation; Messer described CSIP as a consolidated insurance package that can include enhanced site safety measures and cover most subcontractor tiers. Harris described CSIP provisions Messer typically enforces, including drug screening and OSHA training requirements for on‑site workers.
Presenters noted one practice the county does not use: shared‑savings incentives that split leftover contingency funds with the contractor. Miller said Cabarrus County “has never done that. We require that all the savings come back to the county.”
Speakers described when CMAR is and is not appropriate. Both presenters said CMAR is most useful for large, complex or phased projects that benefit from early contractor input; they said simple, short renovations with a complete design are often better delivered by traditional design‑bid‑build. Harris added that early CMAR involvement can reduce costly change orders, provide continuous budget control and speed delivery by allowing procurement of long‑lead items early in the schedule.
The presentation listed past county projects delivered with CMAR and explained the qualifications‑based selection process the state requires: the county posts a request for qualifications, receives statement‑of‑qualifications packages, convenes an internal review committee, and then negotiates preconstruction services before presenting a contract to the board.
The board did not take formal action during the briefing; staff presented the CMAR approach as background while the county moves forward with the ACM preconstruction phase.
