Council hears contractor panel on delivery methods for major city projects

Aledo City Council members spent most of a June 16 workshop pressing contractors on how different construction delivery methods allocate risk and affect project costs and schedules.

City staff convened three contractors to describe four options for public projects: the owner's representative (construction advisor) model, construction manager as agent (CMA), construction manager at risk (CMAR) and traditional design-bid-build. Brian, the city's staff lead, opened the session by saying the meeting was informational and that staff will not seek a directive tonight.

Brandon Griffin of DeNovo Construction Solutions described the owner's representative role as "an independent professional maintained by an owner to help procure the construction process," adding that an advisor does not perform construction or design and does not replace owner decision-making. He said advisors are often used to add capacity, provide constructability reviews and support procurement and closeout.

Mike Espeset of Story Construction outlined the CMA model, which brings a construction partner into design early and permits discretionary selection rather than a strict low-bid requirement. "Having a co-pilot with you and the design team during design is what matters," he said, arguing that pre-construction services are an investment that can prevent later change orders.

Representatives from Woodruff Construction, Art Baumgartner and Grant Riemers, described CMAR under Iowa law: a qualifications-based selection, a request-for-proposals phase that sets terms for a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) and a process to pre-qualify subcontractors. They noted CMAR shifts more subcontractor risk to the CM and can consolidate change orders under a single prime contract, while requiring transparent, often open-book, accounting for allowances and contingencies.

Council members focused much of the discussion on change orders and subcontractor disputes. "I feel like we have a bit of change orderitis," Council member Tim said, asking which delivery methods would reduce the city's vulnerability to abusive or unexpected change orders. Panelists generally said methods that include substantive pre-construction services (CMA or CMAR) and early contractor involvement reduce the frequency and scale of later change orders by surfacing constructability issues earlier.

Panelists also discussed the tradeoffs for owners who want both price certainty and quality oversight. CMARs often provide a GMP and a schedule they helped set, which transfers more responsibility for hitting dates and budgets to the contractor; CMA emphasizes discretionary partner selection and owner-side contract allocation; and an owner's representative provides oversight and documentation but typically is not on site daily.

On the question of disputes with subcontractors, panelists said CMAR can simplify the owner's contractual path because the owner primarily deals with a single prime who in turn assumes subcontractor risk. Under multiple-prime approaches the city retains direct relationships with many subcontractors and can take more surgical legal steps if a specific sub fails to perform, but doing so can be more administratively complex.

Panelists cited examples and research while cautioning that delivery method is not a panacea. They pointed to high-visibility CMAR projects, including a major Des Moines airport terminal, where CMAR and owner's reps were used together to manage complexity. Presenters summarized academic data showing different average schedule and cost trends across delivery methods but emphasized that early accurate estimates, clear contracts and the particular project context drive results.

Brian told the council staff will use the workshop input to refine procurement recommendations. He noted the city plans to use an owner's representative for a fire-station relocation and a CMA for a resource recovery campus, and said staff is assessing whether CMAR fits the planned Ames Municipal Energy Center power-plant project because of its technical complexity.

Council members asked staff to return with scoring criteria and a recommended delivery method tailored to each large project's risk profile and the city's staffing capacity. The workshop ended with the council thanking the panelists and directing staff to bring formal recommendations back to the council in a future agenda item.