Project Delivery Method_ Figures 9.2 and 9.3, AHPP

[ylourdes84]

I found some discrepancies in Figures 9.2 and 9.3, AHPP, that are confusing.

According to AHPP page 514, in the “cost plus fixed fee” approach, the contractor is selected at the completion of contract documents. However, Figure 9.3 on page 516 shows the contractor after SD, just in the same spot as the contractor in “negotiated select team”, which is selected early in the design process.

Also, Figure 9.2 states that the construction cost for CM-adviser is determined: “N/A” ?? Why does this mean? I would say that const. cost is determined after design, since Figure 9.3 shows the $ in the same spot as D-B-B approach.

On the other hand, Figure 9.2 states that the construction cost for CM-agent is determined: “at completion”. However, Figure 9.3 shows the $ in the same spot as D-B-B and CM-adviser approaches.

@kiaragalicinao, I would appreciate your insight/comments at your earliest convenience.

Thank you very much in advance.

[kiaragalicinao]

Hi @ylourdes84,

These are great questions, and I agree with you - at quick glance, there appears to be some discrepancies within the information provided in these figures/sections of AHPP.

I’ll need to do some further digging, so I will try to get some clarification to you by early next week. In the meantime - @coachphilipcolwell or @coachthomasmasino do either of you have any insight to this?

Thank you for your patience!

Kiara Galicinao, AIA, NCARB
Black Spectacles

[coachphilipcolwell]

Hello, I think it’s important to note the difference of the “Constructor contract determined” versus “Cost of Construction determined”. The “Constructor contract determined” doesn’t necessarily mean they have selected a contractor at that point, just means the client has determined which type of contract they would like to move forward with: “Design-bid-build”, “Negotiated select team”, or “Cost plus fixed fee”. It would make sense that they have a decision on this at or during the DD phase.

For your second question, please see previous post below:

Hi,

I can help with this one!

I remember how CM-Agent and CM-Advisor are different because “Agent” is a legal term. It refers to someone who acts in another’s stead. So CM-Agent is an additional CM acting in the owner’s place, but does not assume any risk. All savings and risk are passed directly to the owner.

There’s no contract for CM-Agent because the owner is literally hiring someone to be their agent I believe. The CM isn’t technically involved in the construction themselves, they are just serving as a proxy for the owner.

CM-Advisor is not acting in the owner’s stead, but rather advising the owner what they should do. Check out page 514 of the AHPP for their definitions.

As far as the driving factors, refer to figure 9.2 of the AHPP on page 512. Both of these deliveries are primarily driven by risk. This is because in both instances the owner is hiring an extra CM that might not have been necessary.

Note, that often in Construction Manager as Advisor delivery, there are multiple prime contractors directly hired by the owner. CM-as advisor is ancillary to the Multiple-prime contracts the owner holds directly with contractors in these instances… Multiple prime is a very risky project delivery for the owner as they are absorbing risks typically taken by the CM themselves. The most current project delivery relationship diagrams provided by NCARB on their website seem to diagram a multiple-prime with CM-advisor type relationship:

AIA Contract Documents

Contract Relationship Diagrams

Contents Conventional (A201) Design-Bid-Build Small Projects Interiors Construction Manager as Adviser (CMa) Construction Manager as Constructor (CMc) Design-Build Program Management – Multiple Pr…

The link above is my favorite resource for understanding project delivery methods outside of the AHPP.

The relationships of CM driven delivery have really been updated and evolved since the AHPP was last re-published in my opinion. It would not surprise me if in the future they removed “CM-Agent” as a project delivery and instead just clarify that an owner might choose to hire an CM as their agent to help reduce risk of the owner by having a construction manager’s professional input and judgement. But that’s just my opinion Remember, you’re being tested very specifically on the contracts and the AHPP for these exams. So base your answers on what they say!

In my professional experience, I have worked with a CM-Agent once. The project delivery was CM-at risk contractually, but the owner also employed an agent as the ‘owner’ was a senior living facility operating company. The agent acted in their stead on multiple senior living facility projects to help maintain quality control.

Here’s a great presentation on the updates and in general CM led project delivery:

aia-mn.org

AIA-2019-Documents-T7-OPT.pdf

1788.64 KB

And here’s a video the AIA put out about CM-Advisor

AIA 2019 Documents Construction Manager as Adviser

Hope this helps! I know it’s confusing.

Philip

[Citrillion]

@ylourdes84 @kiaragalicinao @coachphilipcolwell I would also like to address the inadequacies of Figures 9.2 and 9.3 in the AHPP p.512 and p.516.

First of all, let me say, after studying these charts, I do not find them helpful. They are confusing, illogical and totally subjective.

In regard to Figure 9.2:

1. The difference between CM-Adviser and CM-Agent is not clear. There is no AIA contract document for CM-Agent. There is a PPT presentation put out by the AIA that essentially says they are the same thing. (see: AIA 2019 Documents Understanding the CM Role Other Terminology). Figure 9.2 appears to distinguish the two by saying that the secondary ‘driving factor’ for CM-Adviser is quality while the secondary ‘driving factor’ for the CM-Agent is time. That is just really nonsensical. I haven’t found any documentation anywhere to support the idea that a project using the CM-Adviser would be of better quality than a project using a CM-Agent.
2. Negotiated Select Team is also known as Design-Negotiate-Build or DNR. That distinction is not made in the chart.
3. I don’t understand the ‘Risk’ column as a ‘driving factor’. If ‘Risk’ is a primary driving factor for a project delivery method does that mean the project delivery method itself is ‘very risky’ or does that mean that the project delivery method prioritizes risk management?

In regard to Figure 9.3:

1. I think there is major confusion with the ‘Constructor contract determined’ bullet point. The only logical explanation is that ‘Constructor contract determined’ is actually ‘Contractor determined’. The timeline for when the constructor contract is determined is not covered nearly as much as when the contractor is brought on board and how that affects the project delivery. I just don’t see the relevance of ‘when the constuctor contract is determined’. It would not make sense, as @coachphilipcolwell opines, that the ‘Constructor contract determined’ relates to the specific project delivery method since the bullet point is in the ‘Project Delivery Phase’ column after the project delivery method has already been selected from the ‘Option’ column. By the time you get to the ‘Project Delivery Phase’ column the project delivery method has already been established (according to the hypothetical scenario in the chart, figure 9.3). I am tempted to think that it is a mistake and that they meant to say ‘Contractor determined’.
2. CM-Constuctor is also known as CM-at Risk. It would be nice if the chart noted this fact.
3. The chart doesn’t identify the meaning of PR. I went to great lengths to determine that it means ‘Proposal Request’, but it too should be included on this chart. I reviewed G709-2018, the AIA contract document for a proposal request. And I don’t think proposal request is correct. A proposal request is a request by the Architect for changes to the contract sum and contract time for proposed modifications to the construction documents. I believe the bidding process begins after CDs are complete not a ‘proposal request’. The bidding process begins by issuing Instructions to Bidders (AIA Contract Document A710-1997), an Invitation to Bid (ITB), an Invitation for Bid (IFB), a Request for Proposal (RFP) or Request for Qualification (RFQ). So maybe instead of PR it should be BP for bidding process.

None of this is giving me any confidence in studying for this exam.

[coachchrishopstock]

Hi @Citrillion I can commiserate in your frustration with these two charts - I studied them when I took the ARE and also did my best to make sense of them when I was writing content for our PcM, PjM, and CE videos, quizzes, and exam questions. They’re definitely confusing and contain some known errors (that you point out) - but I believe our videos do a fantastic job of explaining these topics and clarifying the confusion about these charts.

I take figure 9.2 with a grain of salt - choosing a delivery method is rarely as straightforward as the project team having a primary and secondary concern. I also agree that ‘risk’ is sort of a strange column - I take it to mean ‘aversion to risk’ and I’ve never worked on a project where aversion to risk wasn’t a primary concern of all parties on the project. Some key takeaways from the chart - DBB will get you the lowest cost, DNB is a similar option but allows you to focus a little more on quality, hiring a CM is a good way to mitigate risk, CMCs can condense the construction schedule (particularly via fast-tracking), and design build allows you to focus on cost and quality early on.

Figure 9.3 notes delivery methods and ‘options’ next to them, which are sort of variants of each delivery method. As you note, there are some alternate terms for some of these delivery methods that aren’t noted - it’s the nature of charts, that there’s limited real estate to fit tons of information. I would internalize that, for example, CMC is the same as CMAR (our flashcards are helpful with this).

I know this is confusing and frustrating - I would highly encourage you to watch our videos on these topics. I think you’ll feel more confident in the content after that.

[Citrillion]

@coachchrishopstock Thank you so much for this response. It is so helpful to hear confirmation that these charts are confusing. It relieves me from feeling like I should try to make sense of them. Now I can move on. I think you have restored my confidence.