 t
Peter Schwabe, Inc., WE MEAN CONSTRUCTION! Our
diverse experience in delivering projects gives you optimum flexibility
in how you want your project run. As our logo indicates, we are
a design/build firm and work very efficiently under that project
delivery method. However, our roots as a general contractor are
also strong. We can just as easily work with your architect as we
can an architect of our choosing. You decide - we deliver!
Construction Management (not at risk)
(Consultant)
The Owner hires a Construction Manager and an Architect.
The CM coordinates drawing of plans and bidding and awarding of
contracts and manages construction. The Owner holds the contracts
and is therefore at risk for liens, lawsuits, and cost overruns.
Advantages:
- Relatively large Owner control of outcome
Disadvantages:
- Owner acts as GC and is at risk for liens,
lawsuits, etc.
- Still large amount of Owner involvement
- Potential for adversarial relationships
between subs & Arch
Construction Management (at risk)
(General Contractor)
The Owner hires a Construction Manager and an Architect.
The CM coordinates drawing of plans and bidding and awarding of
subcontracts and manages construction. The Construction Manager
holds the (sub)contracts. The Owner is therefore protected from
liens, lawsuits, and cost overruns.
Advantages:
- Relatively large Owner control of outcome
- Owner is not responsible for cost control
and cost overruns
- Owner is not at risk for liens, lawsuits,
etc.
- Generally good schedule control
Disadvantages:
- Still large amount of Owner involvement
- Potential for adversarial relationships
with GC / Arch
- Pay bigger fee for CM in exchange for
budget responsibility
Design - Bid - Build
This is the conventional delivery system where the Owner
procures the real estate, hires an Architect, manages the drawing
of construction documents, bids out drawings to several general
contractors, and manages the construction, often with the help of
the Architect.
Advantages:
- Most common delivery system
- Owner is not responsible for cost control
and cost overruns
- Owner is not at risk for liens, lawsuits,
etc.
Disadvantages:
- High potential for adversarial relationships
between GC & Arch
- Generally low bid but not best value
or quality
- Generally has most number of change orders
- Greatest risk for schedule slippage
Partnership Design - Negotiated Bid - Build
This is a variation on the conventional system where the
best qualified General Contractor is selected prior to design who
then assists the Architect in designing a building to a pre-determined
budget. Additionally, the GC addresses constructability and estimates
costs for options for Owner decision prior to completion of the
construction documents. The GC then competively bids out the subcontractor
trades. This delivery system is most commonly used on large and
/ or specialized projects.
Advantages:
- Cooperative environment between GC, Owner,
and Architect
- Generally GC costs are Open Book
- Team approach goal is best function /
value
Disadvantages:
- Architect and GC must be compatible
Design - Build
This is a single source method of contracting the design
and construction of a project. The Owner qualifies a design - build
contractor, who then works with the Owner to determine program needs.
The D-B contractor then produces design development drawings to
verify the adequacy for the Owner needs. During the design phase,
the D-B contractor produces ongoing estimates of cost of construction.
After the design concept is approved, the Owner locks into a lump
sum (fixed price) contract or a GMP (guaranteed maximum price) contract.
The D-B contractor then produces construction documents, bids out
the plans, lets subcontracts, and manages the construction through
close-out.
Advantages:
- Best value - greatest cost control
- Generally GC costs are Open Book
- Most dispute / litigation free method
- Best speed of delivery / good schedule
control
Disadvantages:
- Least Owner control after contracting
|
