Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Methods topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates procurement: construction manager-at-risk vs design-bid-build
Summary
Members discussed the advantages and risks of a construction manager-at-risk (CMAR) approach versus a traditional design-bid-build contract. Staff said the district lacks internal capacity for CMAR and urged caution; members weighed potential savings against change-order and oversight risks.
Committee members spent a substantial portion of the meeting weighing two delivery methods for the project: construction manager-at-risk (CMAR) and design-bid-build.
Staff member (S2) told the group the district does not currently have internal capacity to run a CMAR approach and noted that CMAR requires bringing a construction manager in early in the design process. "We internally did not have the capacity to... you would hire the construction manager up front," S2 said, explaining that adopting CMAR would change the district’s procurement trajectory and likely require earlier funding commitments.
Committee member (S7), who has experience with CMAR projects, described potential benefits and risks: bringing the contractor into design can reduce change orders and improve coordination, but "when you select your contractor, you don't know what the price is" and the district must have high confidence in the contractor it selects. Another member (S5) emphasized frustration with change orders under prior projects: "change orders drive me crazy," the member said, arguing that CMAR shifts certain risks and requires strong contractor selection and oversight.
The discussion concluded without a firm decision on delivery method. Staff reiterated the district’s current comfort with design-bid-build while remaining open to exploring CMAR if competitiveness in the market or other project-specific factors make it advisable.
