Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lee's Summit staff outlines pros and cons of procurement and delivery methods at Budget Committee meeting
Summary
Public Works Director Michael Park told the Budget Committee that the city selects project delivery methods case-by-case, weighing cost certainty, schedule, risk transfer and public engagement; committee members asked for case studies of recent vertical projects and more transparency in communications.
Michael Park, Lee's Summit's director of public works, told the Budget Committee on Jan. 5 that the city chooses project delivery methods on a project-by-project basis and is "dictated by state statutes on selecting professional services." Park walked the committee through RFQs, RFPs and bids and summarized three primary delivery models: design-bid-build for horizontal infrastructure, construction-manager-at-risk (CMAR) for many vertical projects, and design-build for limited, well-contained scopes.
Park said staff considers a range of factors when recommending a delivery method, including cost certainty, schedule, risk transfer, staff capacity, long-term asset value, grant restrictions and expected public engagement. He described CMAR as providing a guaranteed maximum price once design reaches a late stage and said design-build can shorten schedules but requires the city to cede more control and transparency to the integrated team.
The presentation included project examples intended to show trade-offs in practice: Colburn Road and several stormwater projects as design-bid-build work; Green Street and the joint operations facility as CMAR projects; and the police substation and Orchard Street as examples where design-build was used. Park also flagged projects where design-build produced fewer schedule benefits than expected (Orchard Street and Ward Road phase 1), noting property acquisitions and utility relocations can negate schedule gains.
Vice Chair Lovell pushed staff on vertical construction procurement and said the committee would like more concrete case studies and post-project reviews of recent fire-station work. "I would love to see our vertical construction transfer that risk as as quickly as possible and get that GMP," Lovell said, expressing a preference for earlier price certainty on major vertical projects.
Park and committee members discussed transparency tools the city already uses'including CIP documentation and monthly project status reports'and agreed staff should present a small number of case studies (including the two fire stations) and consider adding anticipated delivery methods to CIP project sheets to provide earlier clarity for council and contractors.
Next steps: staff committed to follow up with more detailed case studies and to examine whether the CIP can carry a simple, advance note on the anticipated delivery method so the full council and contracting community can plan accordingly.
