AG 2004 10 18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Should the County choose to employ a construction management firm following the proposals as presented, some of the services they have offered will duplicate services provided by Ware Bonsall. Staffs of other local governments contacted as references for construction management firms cautioned that these companies offered more services. than the jurisdiction was interested in purchasing. The following are some of the issues related to this: . All of the core services offered, outside of the on-site construction management, are currently in the contract with Ware Bonsall. These services include planning and pre-design services, value engineering and estimating, and assisting Arçhitect with bidding process. Only scheduling and budgeting are not already included in the Ware Bonsall contract. Scheduling and budgeting would be provided by the general contractor, however, if the project is bid single prime. . The construction management companies identified. value engineering as a major source of cost savings. We have already purchased this ..~ervice through Ware Bonsall in the same manner as it would be offered through the proposals we received. . According to the proposals as received, the on site management service itself for each proposal is the following: $364,246 for Bovis and $520,816 for Construction Control Corporation. We would have to negotiate with the construction management firm to determine if they are willing to provide this service alone. The discussion of the construction management proposals also included a discussion of single prime and multi-prime bidding. There are a number of issues related to that discussion, including whether or not to use at-risk construction management services. . Ware Bonsall's contract states that the preferred method is single prime bidding as opposed to multi-prime bidding process. Multi-prime bidding is a more complex and time consuming process. . There are potential pitfalls in using the multi-prime approach based on our discussion with other jurisdictions. These pitfalls include that there is not one general contractor to approach when issues arise in the quality of the workmanship, scheduling of subcontractors, and disputes between subcontractors. . There were claims by construction management companies of substantial cost savings with multi-prime projects. In jail projects recently bid both single and multi-prime, the lower bid has been single prime. Examples of projects that were bid both ways and single prime was selected include: jail facilities in Cumberland and ,New Hanover Counties and a Juvenile Detention Center in Taylorsville. . Page 2 £-(