Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alternative Delivery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee reviews alternative delivery methods, cites Newport Corridor and other projects
Summary
Staff explained when Bend uses CMGC and design-build methods, reviewed results from Newport Corridor and a progressive design-build project, and said three upcoming projects may be proposed for alternative delivery.
City of Bend staff described to the Procurement Subcommittee why the city sometimes uses alternative project-delivery methods for public-improvement projects and reviewed recent project outcomes to show the tradeoffs.
Justin Sweet and Ryan Oster described alternative delivery options—construction manager/general contractor (CMGC), design-bid-build, design-build and progressive design-build—and the statutory default that public-improvement work generally uses an Invitation to Bid (ITB) and low-price award. Sweet said exemptions from low-bid processes require state-law findings, and staff briefed the subcommittee on their plan to bring draft findings to the subcommittee before seeking council approval to use alternative delivery on particular projects.
Sweet highlighted the Newport Corridor project as a recent CMGC delivery. He said the procurement produced “3 proposals” and that the final delivered cost was within 1.6% of the original estimate, despite the project having 11 change orders. Sweet said that result indicated CMGC did not diminish competition and that, on balance, the method helped the city manage complexity and scheduling.
On a separate project delivered as a progressive design-build, staff said the procurement produced three proposals and the project had only one change order; staff described that outcome as evidence that design-build methods can reduce change orders when design and construction are more tightly integrated. Sweet told the subcommittee the progressive design-build project delivered “with minimal impact to community, to the surrounding neighborhoods, to the transportation system.”
Staff said reasons to select an alternative delivery method include schedule savings, early contractor engagement for constructability reviews, and complex coordination where private development and public improvements must be sequenced together (Sweet cited timing coordination with concurrent private development as an example). Staff said the city negotiates contingencies in guaranteed maximum-price (GMP) agreements, and contingency buckets—builder contingency and city contingency—are used to allocate risk for unforeseen conditions.
The subcommittee heard that staff plan to return in the fall with draft findings for three candidate projects: a four‑intersection package in the Revere/Fourth–Eighth Street area (the “4‑pack”), the Newport Corridor components (including Butler and Purcell bridge elements and roundabouts), and an Outback expansion (pretreatment and hydro/pretreatment facilities). Staff said the Outback project likely would use CMGC because of constructability and technical complexity; the 4‑pack and corridor projects are candidates for progressive design-build, depending on final findings and outreach.
Staff also described procurement practices for alternative deliveries: selection typically emphasizes qualifications and demonstrated past performance and includes a pricing component so proposals can be compared; staff said they are moving away from using a simple markup-percentage as the price element and instead are asking proposers for priced early work or preconstruction elements that can be evaluated during selection.
Subcommittee members discussed oversight, the need to protect competition, and the safeguards staff use—independent cost estimators, contract contingencies and negotiation steps—to review pricing and manage project delivery.
