The Miami Intermodal Center (MIC), the first CM at-risk project funded by U.S Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is a 2.5 billion construction project located in east of Miami-Dade International Airport (MIA). By January 2015, the project was more than a year behind schedule, and still not opened. Along with the platform length issues, there was a dispute between FDOT and the contractor over costs; and a dispute between FDOT, the Miami-Dade Expressway Authority, and the Miami-Dade Aviation Department over ownership transfer. At that time, Tri-Rail was expected to begin serving the station within a few months, and Amtrak in Fall 2016. phase I of the project is broken into subphases of work called GMPs.
GMP stands for Guaranteed Maximum Price, which is the way the CM bids on each subphase. The CM on the project must submit a GMP for each subphase GMP. If the GMP for any GMP is higher than the owner castand, negotiations commence and can be very short, or very lengthy. In method of research there was 2 level of interviews i.e. level 1&2.
In level 1 the goal is to find how DB delivery system works and any dissatisfaction about DB and then about any alternatives delivery methods. In level 2 is about knowing how CMR will work. Use of the Construction Management at Risk (CM) project delivery method that provides the opportunity to begin construction prior to design completion, centralize risk and responsibility under one contract, and guarantee completion of the project at a negotiated price. The CM is compensated in the pre-construction phase by a negotiated fixed fee. After the award of Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) construction contracts, the CM manages a fast-track construction program and construction starts before all design is complete.
The CM is required to pre-qualify all subcontractors with all trade contracts being competitively bid. The federal department of transportation wants to reduce risk and fast track the project, for this reason they adopted CM at-risk delivery method. The CM at risk is not suitable for all the projects. They are suitable for such project like Building type projects where construction methods and specifications vary between professional groups, Innovative funding scenarios, where multiple owners may dictate final project criteria etc.
In Michigan, Detroit Wayne County Port Authority, adopted CMR for the road construction of new public dock & terminal. Though construction is purchased based on open book competitive bids, the CMR mitigate initial scope on which the GMP is based. there was difficulty in adopting DBB method because this method requires 100% documentation before bidding. The DBB project delivery system will not have the flexibility to assist in resolving the complex site and stakeholder issues etc. When considering CMR the state-level transportation authority asks, does using a Construction Manager At-Risk raise or lower the cost of the building? if the fees paid to a CM At-Risk are higher or lower than the comparable costs to a general contractor in the traditional system, or the fees to an Agency CM? Does putting the CM At-Risk raise or lower the time it takes to complete the work? These might be some of the question which asked by state-level transportation authority while considering CM at risk.
