Issuing separate contracts for sitework, structure and foundations, is the CM's way of implementing more concurrent construction activities while giving the Architect additional time to complete drawings for the building envelope and interior design. The contract included in your update doesn't assign risk, identify sufficient scope of w…
Issuing separate contracts for sitework, structure and foundations, is the CM's way of implementing more concurrent construction activities while giving the Architect additional time to complete drawings for the building envelope and interior design. The contract included in your update doesn't assign risk, identify sufficient scope of work, and unit costs the contract is based on. Performing CM duties would be typical of a CM as Agent, but along with those duties should come a detailed estimate and basis of documents for the estimate of the scope of work. This contract identifies a dollar amount to be spent, but doesn't include the CM's estimate for work to clarify Scope of Work. It identifies Architectural services as a fee of 7% but doesn't say if that fee includes all professionals required to complete the services. For example, does the fee include civil, structural, mechanical, electrical engineering design services? There is a statement the CM is coordinating interior furnishings but doesn't specific who is handling the interior design of these furnishings. Great contract for the vendor. Hope the Owner has adequate Owner Representation Services to protect the citizens in the District from budget over-runs and Scope Reduction.
Ugh. There is a saying in poker that if you can't spot the fool at the table, you're the fool. D65 has a flashing neon sign over their heads advertising that they are the fools.
Given the numerous failures on the part of CC to advise the Board that they could not produce a design for the amount that the Board had already borrowed/was going to borrow to build the new school, I have zero optimism that CC is going to adequately protect the District.
Bob - what do you make of the failure to get the bid package out on time?
I worry about the way they're doing it. We always go with a "One throat to choke" approach on our company contracts otherwise, unless the scope of work and delineations of responsibility are exceptionally well-designed, you end up with incompatibilities and missed requirements in the final construction. It inevitably leads to very expensive change orders. Or as this picture eloquently puts it:
I think they're being pushed to this because they need to show progress milestones by certain dates for their loan covenants. This is the quickest, and most expensive, way to do it.
Issuing separate contracts for sitework, structure and foundations, is the CM's way of implementing more concurrent construction activities while giving the Architect additional time to complete drawings for the building envelope and interior design. The contract included in your update doesn't assign risk, identify sufficient scope of work, and unit costs the contract is based on. Performing CM duties would be typical of a CM as Agent, but along with those duties should come a detailed estimate and basis of documents for the estimate of the scope of work. This contract identifies a dollar amount to be spent, but doesn't include the CM's estimate for work to clarify Scope of Work. It identifies Architectural services as a fee of 7% but doesn't say if that fee includes all professionals required to complete the services. For example, does the fee include civil, structural, mechanical, electrical engineering design services? There is a statement the CM is coordinating interior furnishings but doesn't specific who is handling the interior design of these furnishings. Great contract for the vendor. Hope the Owner has adequate Owner Representation Services to protect the citizens in the District from budget over-runs and Scope Reduction.
Bob - I'd love to chat with you - can you drop me an email tom@foiagras.com?
Ugh. There is a saying in poker that if you can't spot the fool at the table, you're the fool. D65 has a flashing neon sign over their heads advertising that they are the fools.
Given the numerous failures on the part of CC to advise the Board that they could not produce a design for the amount that the Board had already borrowed/was going to borrow to build the new school, I have zero optimism that CC is going to adequately protect the District.
Bob - what do you make of the failure to get the bid package out on time?
I worry about the way they're doing it. We always go with a "One throat to choke" approach on our company contracts otherwise, unless the scope of work and delineations of responsibility are exceptionally well-designed, you end up with incompatibilities and missed requirements in the final construction. It inevitably leads to very expensive change orders. Or as this picture eloquently puts it:
https://mosbybuildingarts.com/beware-culture-change-orders/
I think they're being pushed to this because they need to show progress milestones by certain dates for their loan covenants. This is the quickest, and most expensive, way to do it.
I laughed so loudly at that picture, spit out my coffee.