Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears pros and cons of design-bid-build and construction manager-at-risk
Summary
OPM presented delivery options for the Blackstone-Millville school project, outlining timing, procurement differences and an estimated 8–10% planning delta in project cost for a CMR approach; committee members asked about voter timing, attorney general filings and contingency implications.
OPM representatives presented an extended review Feb. 11 of two procurement and delivery approaches for the district’s school project — traditional design-bid-build (DBB) and construction manager at risk (CMR).
The presentation described DBB as the conventional route in which designers complete 100% construction documents before the district solicits competitive bids. CMR was described as a partnership approach that brings a construction manager on earlier to support constructibility, preconstruction services and early procurement of long-lead items. "The construction manager at risk is a slightly different process where they come in a little bit earlier in the process and they're coming in during the design portion in order to help with the constructibility of the drawings," an OPM presenter said.
Presenters told the committee the PSR cost estimates included both delivery-method scenarios and that their comparative planning work showed an approximate 8% cost differential on average between DBB and CMR in the examples used for the PSR (CMR typically estimated higher due to preconstruction fees). They stressed that CMR can shorten portions of the schedule by enabling early procurement and phased release packages, but it usually requires the district to include CMR fees in the total project budget before a town vote.
Committee members probed when to procure a CMR relative to the town/district vote, how the attorney general’s office is involved and how contingency and risk allocation differ between methods. Presenters recommended preparing a shortlist of qualified firms, using strict prequalification language in an RFP, and — if the committee prefers to pursue CMR — initiating the AG application and RFP in schematic so interviews are completed by the vote time.
Members were told MSBA board review is expected after the June schematic submission with a possible August board meeting, and the district would seek a fall vote on the total project budget and delivery method. Several members requested examples and post-project evaluations of contractors; presenters offered to provide district-specific precedents and state qualification scorecards.
Committee discussion set the delivery-method decision for further consideration at the March meeting as the schematic submission deadline approaches.
