|
|
 |
 |
TRADITIONAL METHODS
The majority of building projects have historically followed a more traditional model in which an owner hires an architect at the beginning of the process to develop a design and prepare the necessary documentation needed to build it. Typically, the owner also hires a general contractor under a separate contract to construct the facility. The owner then has a separate contract with each of the two entities, who then act in the owner's best interest. The architect is paid a fee commensurate with the services delivered, and the contractor is compensated within the cost of construction. Design-Bid-Build is the most often used option, with Negotiated Select Team as an additional option. This alternative within the more traditional methods has the same contractual relationship as does Design-Bid-Build, but the general contractor joins the team much earlier in the project's life to provide assistance on cost, schedule, quality, and constructability issues to improve project performance.
Design-Bid-Build
This has been the most common form of project delivery, but has been open to more scrutiny of late. The process is characterized by its three phases, by it's independent contracts between the architect and the owner, and by the linear sequencing of the work product. There are three prime players in this approach: the owner, architect, and contractor. The three phases include: (One) the owner engages the architect to design and prepare construction documents for the project; (Two) those documents are used for the bidding of the construction and a contractor is selected and a cost commitment is made; (Three) the owner hires the contractor to build the project. This method is typically used by public clients with a legal obligation to select a "low-bid" contractor. The advantage of this approach is the fact that it has been widely used and is familiar. However, the disadvantage of this approach is the length of time it takes to design, bid, and build the project because of it's linear nature and the fact that there is no communication during design between the architect and contractor. This can lead to multiple change orders and the proliferation of claims not found in other methods. |
 |
 |
Negotiated Select Team
This optional delivery method utilizes our design-assist services and has evolved from the design-bid-build method in which there are separate contracts for design and construction. At the onset of a project, the owner selects an architect and a contractor, typically on a qualifications-based selection, with whom fees for services are negotiated. The three prime players: owner, architect and contractor work together in a cooperative effort from the beginning of the design process. Design and documentation are completed by the architect with input from the contractor, who provides scheduling, cost estimating, phasing, and building systems evaluation. Additionally, when design is complete, the final construction cost is negotiated through bids from subcontractors and the general contractor builds the project. This approach is more common among private-sector projects, experienced owners, and those owners, architects and contractors who work together frequently. The principal advantage is a cooperative team approach to the process and the availability of construction expertise during the design phase. This may also result in the elimination of the inherent adversarial relationships often found between design and construction and less potential for litigation. The primary disadvantage is perceived to be the appearance of a lack of competitive bidding and owner's questioning if they have the most economical construction cost. However, under this methodology competitive bidding comes from the subcontractor, supplier, and vendor marketplace, and the "open book" approach by Manhattan assures the lowest possible cost for the right project scope. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
