Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Methods topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants outline pros and cons of CMAR and competitive sealed proposals for Justice Center
Summary
Design consultants told the council CMAR offers early contractor input, GMPs and fewer surprises for complex, phased builds, while CSP (competitive sealed proposals) can produce lower prices in buyer’s-market conditions but offers less early collaboration. Councilors asked for tradeoff clarifications.
Consultants presented a side-by-side comparison of construction-manager-at-risk (CMAR) and competitive sealed proposals (CSP) for the proposed Justice Center, emphasizing differences in timing, collaboration and price certainty. David Ainsler said the briefing aimed to educate council on procurement options: “what we are doing is, educating all council, with an emphasis on new council members, different, procurement methods that you can do when you build facilities or begin to, do design.”
Jessica, the design consultant, described CMAR mechanics: the construction manager is hired during design to provide cost, schedule and constructability input and later becomes the general contractor, committing to a guaranteed maximum price. She summarized the tradeoffs: CSP can provide competitive pricing when scope is well defined and market conditions favor bidders, while CMAR gives early contractor involvement and can reduce surprises and change orders during construction. The consultant also explained GMP accounting and the practice of returning buy‑out savings to the owner at project closeout.
The council used the discussion to probe whether CMAR would protect the bond amount and to ask how prior CMAR projects performed; consultants cited recent wastewater and municipal projects where early contractor involvement helped control costs and schedule.
