aashto 2015 ve peer exchange - american association of ...sp.design.transportation.org/documents/tc...

CMAR Process Improvements at ADOT

Presented by: Julie Kliewer, ADOT Renee L. Hoekstra, RHA, LLC

AASHTO 2015 VE PEER EXCHANGE

Presentation Outline

• Introduction to CMAR (CMGC, GCCM) • Describe the Lessons Learned Process • Discuss Mutual Challenges and

Opportunities • Discuss Challenges and Opportunities within

the CMAR Process • Conclusions

CMGC

Trying to Fit Alternative Delivery Into Other Delivery Methods

CMGC

Owner

CMGC Architect / Engineer

Consultants Subcontractors

Contract Collaboration

• Architect/Engineer (Qualifications Based Selection) – Design services with active CMGC

participation – Some construction administration

Simultaneously or No Later than

15-30% Design

CM/GC

• The Benefits of the Processes – Much more of a team approach

• Great reduction in adversarial behaviors – Different Roles and Responsibilities

• Owner • Designer • Contractor

– Fewer RFI’s – Fewer design/construction related changes – Improved long term relationships – Owner gets more of what they want

CM/GC

• The Benefits of the Processes – Great construction means, methods and

materials input during design – Phasing opportunities/Schedule improvements – Better quality project overall – Potential for reduced involvement from design

team during construction – Lower costs in today’s market

CMGC

• Benefits of the Process – Improved long term relationships – The team is able to honestly discuss costs

(including escalation) – More budget control – Enhanced communication – Smoother project closeouts

CMGC

• Benefits if the Process – Great construction means, methods and

materials input during design – Multiple GMP approach (phasing opportunities) – Better quality project overall – Open book philosophy makes owner’s more

comfortable – Reduced involvement from design team during

construction

Why Should I Change My Behavior With These New Delivery Methods? • Because Now You Can Be Rewarded

for Going Beyond the Minimum! The New Methods Are Based Upon

a “Team” Approach that Requires: “New Thinking and New

Behaviors”

Why?

Lessons Learned Process

• A Lessons Learned evaluation completed for CMAR in 2011

• Consisted of 3 CMAR projects • Interviews completed with all levels of staff,

including: – ADOT (Design, C&S & Construction) – CMAR/D/B Firm – Consultants (Design & Construction) – APDM Consultant

Lessons Learned Process

• Questions related to: – RFQ and RFP Process and Selection – Design and Preconstruction Services – Construction – APDM Oversight – Team Scoping/Partnering – Administrative – Miscellaneous

• Opportunities & Best Management Practices Identified

CMAR Challenges & Opportunities • Selection Panel

– ADOT is more careful as to who is on the panel

• Focus on the process experience

– Training the panel members on evaluation and selection

– Kick-off meeting to educate the panel about the project

– Added a standard deviation to eliminate a high or low rating

CMAR Challenges & Opportunities

• Evaluation Criteria – Use of EMOD to evaluate safety

• Modification in scoring approach – Innovation Scoring

• Now separating innovation as it’s own criteria – Liquidated Damages Scoring Element

• Now includes impacts to milestones or project completion

– Cost Escalation Scoring Element • Have you had any issue escalations over the District

Engineer level and explanation

CMAR Challenges & Opportunities • Project Team Members

– Lack of consistency with both contractor (CMAR) and ADOT staff

– Key personnel changes • A commitment is now

required from the CMAR teams that key personnel changes must be approved by ADOT

• Key personnel must be involved with both design and construction phases


• RFP and Selection Process – RFP documents are well prepared – Designer to be selected knowing that the project

will be CMAR – CMAR needs to be selected earlier in the design

process • The optimal timing is before the development of the

Stage III design plans (60%) • Optimal time is at 30% • CMAR should be under contract not going through

the selection process


• A current challenge with the selection of only contractors with CMAR experience – New language includes “or as a General

Contractor”


• Pre-Construction/Design Process - A majority of the challenges occur during this phase of the project – There is a lack of understanding of the CMAR

process versus D/B/B or D/B • Internal education is continuing within ADOT to

educate staff as to the differences • A discussion is occurring during the Team Scoping

workshop • Contractor staff also need to be educated as to the

process and expectations of the process – “At Risk”, Expectations, Processes


• The right individuals not involved at appropriate times – The following should be included during pre-

construction services • ADOT

– Project Manager – Resident Engineer – Design Leads – District Engineer – Public Outreach – C&S

– Distance challenges


• Designer – Project Manager – Design Leads – Public Outreach

• CMAR – Pre-Construction Services Manager – Project Manager (construction) – Lead Cost Estimator – Field Engineers – Any Subcontractors involved in pre-construction

• ICE


• Challenges with understanding overall roles and responsibilities (R&R) – During the Team Scoping workshop, a

clarification of all R&R is completed • ADOT • Design Team • CMAR • Stakeholders


• Preconstruction Services R&R – CMAR Needs to be more engaged

• Actively involved in adding value to the design – Recommending adjustments to road profile and alignment – Phasing recommendations to reduce impact – Developing a construction schedule to improve efficiencies – Looking at approaches and balancing impacts


– The CMAR manual is updated to include a better description of all involved including:

• ADOT; PM, C&S, Construction, ECS

• CMAR • Designer/Consultant • ICE

– http://azdot.gov/docs/default-source/construction-group/cmar_manual_10-510.pdf?sfvrsn=0


– Increased training for the CMAR process to understand the difference between D/B/B and D/B

– PM’s need to be trained to take on a CMAR project


• Negative Impacts to the Design Schedule Due to: – Lack of strong leadership to control the design

schedule causing extended schedules and increased costs

• The team needs to identify the criticalness of the schedule on the project

• Focus on the role of the PM in schedule management

• Ensure design consultants focus on meeting schedules

• CMAR to manage the schedule, with Designer providing their schedules


• Negative Impacts to the Design Schedule: – Design changes allowed deep into the design

impacting the GMP • PM to effectively manage schedules for comments

and design changes • CMAR to provide on-going feedback on impacts


• Cost Estimates – The appropriate involvement of the ICE

• The ICE should not be a contractor’s competitor • There is a need for the ICE to understand local

conditions, prices, etc. • Current construction costs should be used, not

historical data (labor, equipment, materials based)


• Cost Estimates – Being able to compare four separate cost

estimates (CMAR, ICE, Designer, C&S) • Upon completion of the initial cost model a

reconciliation meeting will be held to determine bid items and initial quantities

– Costs will not be shared

• Assumptions and/or allowances need to be included


• Cost Estimates – Quantities

• The CMAR must “own” the quantities – CMAR to provide expertise for potential added

services to reduce risk (during preconstruction) – Each quantity is it’s own GMP – This defines the “at risk” portion of the contract – Traffic Control and Erosion Control using a NTE

– CMAR understanding their role in managing/ tracking estimates

• Additional training is needed • Discussion at the Team Scoping Workshop


• Completeness of Design – Complete design submittals needed at each

stage of design – “Let them take care of it in construction”

• Designs need to be complete • All issues to be resolved during design, not

construction • Errors and omissions fixed during design


• Risk & Value Engineering – CMAR, ADOT & Designer participating in a

formal value engineering and risk assessment workshop on most projects

– Slightly different approach, still using job plan


• Change Orders – What is defined as a change in a CMAR

• This discussion is now taking place during the Team Scoping workshop

– Changed conditions, unforeseens, owner-added scope

• Expectations of work/efforts to be completed during the preconstruction services contract

– Constructability – Bidability – Identifying existing conditions

• Defining scope versus “at risk”


• Design Reviews/Comments – Some designers not incorporating CMAR

comments • A comment reconciliation process to be

incorporated • APDM verifying that comments are being

incorporated – C&S involvement

• Completing engineer’s estimate • Review specifications and write some

– Goal is at 90%

• Need to be Involved throughout the process


• Design Reviews/Comments – Lack of urgency

• Additional training to understand the CMAR process for design reviewers


• Understanding How Allowances Are Used – Establishing realistic allowances

• Allowances are now specific to the type of work to be used with an agreed upon estimate to help establish the GMP

• During the early stages, use allowances where design is lacking


• Subcontractor selection process – This process is working well

• CMAR is taking great pride in owning their process

– Value-based approaches • There are still quality issues with

some subcontractors – Focus on a more qualification/

value based selection for some areas of work

» Traffic Control


• GMP Negotiation Process – The process is taking too much time

• Fees and general conditions can be agreed to ahead of time

• The quantity reconciliation process is helping • A minimum of 2 weeks is needed from ADOT,

needs to be included in the schedule • The preconstruction process needs to work as

intended


• Construction – Still too many change orders

related to design changes, added work, errors and omissions and unforeseen/differing site conditions

• Defining a change during the Team Scoping Workshop is necessary

• CMAR’s need to understand their risk related to quantities

• ADOT’s CMAR process now requires additional checks and balances


• Construction – Payment for mobilization

• Allowing CMAR’s to roll fees into unit prices and roll up to 10% for mobilization (once GMP is negotiated)


• Partnering Effectiveness – A new process has been implemented; Team

Scoping workshop to focus on pre-construction: • Process Expectations • Roles & Responsibilities • Issue Resolution Process • Project Goals/Objectives • Budget Elements

– Cost estimates, GMP, reconciliation, change orders


– Team Scoping Process • Design Process Elements

– Constructability, bidability, design comment reconciliation

• Subcontractor selection process • Risk Analysis if no formal VE

– Partnering office being educated as to alternative delivery

• Specific approaches required different than D/B/B

Benefits of CMAR

• Better problem solving • Joint value engineering benefits during design • More effort to meet ADOT requirements • Qualification-based ensures best value • Able to reduce impacts to the travelling public • Better control of the schedule; improved

efficiencies • Very effective for complex projects • Design and build to budget • A very strong team approach

Conclusion

• Lessons learned reports are available from ADOT

• Updated CMAR manual is completed and is available

• Additional training is being provided to ADOT staff on the various methods

• We all need to continue to learn and improve together

aashto 2015 ve peer exchange - american association of ...sp.design.transportation.org/documents/tc...

Documents