eci vs. cmgc project delivery

8/17/2019 ECI vs. CMGC Project Delivery

1/15

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298333927

Comparing Construction Manager–GeneralContractor and Federal Early Contractor

Involvement Project Delivery Methods

Article in Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · January 2016

Impact Factor: 0.54 · DOI: 10.3141/2573-03

READS

2

1 author:

Douglas D. Gransberg

Iowa State University117 PUBLICATIONS 521 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Douglas D. Gransberg

Retrieved on: 10 May 2016

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Douglas_Gransberg?enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_4https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Douglas_Gransberg?enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_4https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_1https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Douglas_Gransberg?enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_7https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Iowa_State_University?enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_6https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Douglas_Gransberg?enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_5https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Douglas_Gransberg?enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_4https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_1https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298333927_Comparing_Construction_Manager-General_Contractor_and_Federal_Early_Contractor_Involvement_Project_Delivery_Methods?enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298333927_Comparing_Construction_Manager-General_Contractor_and_Federal_Early_Contractor_Involvement_Project_Delivery_Methods?enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_2


2/15


3/15

Gransberg 2

Abstract21Past studies of the construction manager/general contractor project (CMGC) delivery method have22focused on its use at state and municipal departments of transportation (DOT). The literature also23includes the Federal Acquisition Regulation-based (FAR) approach to CMGC, termed Early24Contractor Involvement (ECI), which the literature classifies as merely a different name for CMGC.25The desire to use CMGC project delivery by the Federal Lands Highway Divisions stimulated a26

deeper study of the restrictions placed on federal agencies by the FAR and found that while CMGC27and ECI are indeed similar, they are not identical. This paper reports the findings of that study. A28comparative analysis of the two project delivery models is presented, and the paper finds that ECI is29substantially different than CMGC due to FAR-based limitations on preconstruction services and30 pricing methodology. It concludes that the use of an incentive/disincentive scheme and the bidding31of a proposed profit margin enhance competition during the ECI contractor selection process. The32results of this paper can be used outside the federal sector by state and local transportation agencies33to furnish an alternative to CMGC in those areas where industry opposition is the primary barrier to34implementing CMGC.35

36

INTRODUCTION 37

A project delivery method is “the comprehensive process of assigning the contractual38responsibilities for designing and constructing a project… a delivery method identifies the39 primary parties taking contractual responsibility for the performance of the work” (1). Contractua l40relationships between the various parties to the contract are different in each project41delivery method. The traditional method for delivering highway projects is called the Design-Bid-42Build (DBB) delivery method. This method requires the owner to complete the construction43documents using either internal design assets or outsourcing the work to a design consultant. Once44the design is complete, the DOT then advertises the project via an Invitation for Bids (IFB),45awarding it to the contractor with the lowest responsive and responsible bid (2). There is no privity46 between designer and contractor, and the contractor is not involved in the design process. By47definition, DBB is not an integrated delivery method (3).48

49 The DBB method has been in use for decades, and works well for most projects. However, lack of50contractor input limits the amount and quality of constructability that can be integrated into the final51design, and as a result, alternative contracting methods have been used to deliver projects where52constructability is an essential factor of the project’s success. There are many known issues with the53traditional DBB method. For instance, the project development process is linear and sequential,54resulting in longer overall project durations. Experience has shown that DBB project delivery often55 becomes adversarial during project execution and as such, research has shown that DBB projects56have a higher average cost growth than projects delivered using alternative delivery methods.57

58The three alternative project delivery methods used on heavy civil and highway projects are Design-59

Build (DB), Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) and Early Contractor Involvement60 (ECI). In one study (3) compared the p e r f o rm an ce o f t he three delivery methods to DBB;61found that the impact of using an alternative project delivery method reduced both cost and time62growth during construction; and concluded that ECI, CMGC and DB projects tended to outperform63traditional DBB projects in most measured criteria. Other major benefits associated with64alternative delivery methods include a shorter overall project delivery time, construction contractor65input to the design, better quality construction documents, and early knowledge of costs (4).66


4/15

Background1As previously stated, highway projects are traditionally delivered using DBB. In DBB, the2owner holds separate contracts with the designer and the builder in the project delivery process.3In DBB, the Spearin doctrine imposes liability on owners for defective bidding documents (5; 6)4and as a result, is financially liable for the cost of any errors or omissions encountered in5

construction. Public DBB projects are generally awarded on a low bid basis. There is no6 contractual incentive for the builder to minimize the cost growth in this delivery system. In fact,7there can be an opposite effect. A builder who has submitted a low bid may need to look to8 post-award changes as a means to make a profit on the project after bidding the lowest possible9margin to win the project (7).10

11Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC)12CMGC projects are characterized by a contract between an owner and a construction manager13who will be at risk for the final cost and time of construction. In this agreement, the owner14authorizes the construction manager to make input during project design. The owner will either15complete the design with its own design personnel or out-source the design work to a consultant.16Generally the contractor is chosen on a best-value basis through an RFP process, or on17qualifications based selection through a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process (8).18CMGC project delivery involves two contracts (9, 10). The first is for preconstruction19services during design and the second is for the construction itself. Typically, CMGC20contracts contain a provision in which the CMGC contractor stipulates a guaranteed maximum21 price (GMP) above which the owner is not liable if the project’s scope does not change after the22GMP is established (11). Figure 1 shows the contractual relationships between the three parties.23As can be seen, there is a contractual coordination requirement between the CMGC and the24designer (12). 25

26

FIGURE 1 Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC)2728

CMGC Procurement Process29In 2010, the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Every Day Counts program brought30CMGC to the attention of the highway construction sector at the national level (13). Prior to312010, DOTs in Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Oregon, and Utah had experimented with it32under the Special Experimental Project-14 (SEP-14) (9). NCHRP Synthesis 402: Construction33


5/15

Manager-at-Risk Project Delivery for Highway Programs (9) was also published that year and1 provided a benchmark for the state-of-the practice. It found that Utah had the most experience.2Subsequently, NCHRP 10-85: A Guidebook for Construction Manager/ General Contractor3Contracting for Highway Projects (10) was initiated to provide guidance for DOTs in4implementing CMGC project delivery. Completed in 2013, that study conducted case studies on5

ten more projects, which combined with the nine Synthesis 402 case studies represented nearly6 every CMGC project that had been completed through 2012 by a DOT and found the following7trends in the contractual procedures and constraints/requirements:8

• “There is a strong preference to couple outsourced design with CMGC project delivery.9•

The consultant design contract was modified to synchronize it with the CMGC contract10in 7 of 10 projects.11

• Self-performance requirements are in the 30% to 40% range for most agencies.12• Weighted selection criteria are used in 9 of 10 projects.13• Interviews were included in the selection process in 7 of 10 projects.14• One-step procurement procedures are used by 9 out of 10 projects.15• The project target budget was disclosed in 6 of 10 projects.16

•

The CMGC contractor is selected at a level of design completion of 30% or more in all17 projects.” (10).1819

CMGC Project Pricing Structure20Pricing structures in CMGC projects are not standard across the nation. The following trends21were observed in the NCHRP Synthesis 402 and NCHRP 10-85 research findings:22

•

Payment provisions consisted of lump sum, unit price, or a combination of the two.23• Iterative pricing was used in most of the case study projects.24• Some form of open books accounting was used on most CMGC projects.25• The construction price (i.e. GMP) was negotiated and fixed once design had reached 80%26

to 100%.27• Very few restrictions were placed on the contractor’s selection of its subcontractors. The28

main requirement found was that agency reserved the right to approve all subcontractors29 prior to subcontract award.30

• Most projects allowed early release for construction (RFC) construction work packages.31• An Independent Cost Estimator (ICE) was used to verify the contractor’s construction32

costs in about half the cases.33• Incentives for completing the project below the agreed construction price were present in34

about 50% of the cases.3536

CMGC Summary37Taking the trends discussed above together, a “typical” state DOT CMGC project characterized38 by a one-step procurement with some aspect of price included in a weighted criteria selection39formula. The competing contractors are usually interviewed as part of the selection, and the40design has been advanced to roughly 30% at the time the CMGC preconstruction services41contract is awarded. The final construction price is established using an iterative pricing system42with the contractor providing estimates at predetermined points in the design process (usually4330%, 60%, and 100%), and it is fixed late in design (90% to 100%). The contractor is typically44allowed to self-perform the trades that it choses and must meet a minimum of 30% to 40% of the45


6/15

total project value. The DOT normally permits the contractor to select its own subcontractors,1reserving only approval authority for the final subcontracting plan.2

3Early Contractor Involvement (ECI)4ECI projects are characterized by a preconstruction focus on cost control and5

constructability with the construction contractor providing a Constructability Review and6 Estimating (CRE) Team during the design process to assist the owner and the designer in7developing a high quality set of construction documents that have been designed within the8target budget. This approach was pioneered by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and9used extensively and with great success during the Hurricane Katrina reconstruction program10(14). The term ECI is also used in Australia and New Zealand, and the international model is11somewhat different than the USACE model in that the contractor is brought to the team before12the design consultant and often is directly involved in the environmental permitting process (15).13Additionally, the European Union maintains two different ECI models (16). The first, called14“Competitive Procedure with Negotiation” involves negotiating scope and price with two or15more contractors and awarding based on a best and final offer. The second type is called16

“Competitive Dialogue” competing contractors making individual proposals for scope and then17 by process of elimination the field is reduced to the two best proposers who then submit tenders18offers for their proposed scope and the lowest cost offer is selected. The remainder of the paper19will devote itself to comparing the USACE ECI model to the CMGC models found in US state20DOTs.21

22Figure 2 shows that the contractual structure is nearly identical to CMGC. Thus, the main23difference is what the contractor is asked to perform during preconstruction. ECI concentrates24the preconstruction input on means, methods, and constructability, using cost estimating services25to make sure that the design can be built within the current budget (14). CMGC, while including26these factors, has a much broader spectrum of potential preconstruction tasks for the contractor27(8). 28

29

FIGURE 2 Early Contractor Involvement (ECI)30


7/15

USACE defines ECI as “an integrated project delivery method that develops a holistic team1consisting of the owner, designer, and contractor at the initiation of the project” (17). Unlike2CMGC, which is priced using a negotiated guaranteed maximum price (GMP), an ECI contract3is priced using the process prescribed in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.403-24termed: “Fixed Price Incentive Price Revision (Successive Targets)” (18). This process is a two-5

step award process where contractors’ qualifications and past performance are first evaluated on6 a Go/No Go basis against a set of evaluation criteria, and those that are found to be qualified7form a short list. The qualification criteria are kept to a minimum and a given contractor either8meets or fails to meet a given criterion, eliminating the subjectivity found in qualifications-based9award systems. A hypothetical example of typical qualifications criteria for a bridge project10might be as follows:11

•

The contractor will have successfully completed a minimum of four construction projects12for the agency in the past five years.13

• The contractor will have successfully completed at least one seismic retrofit of a major14 bridge (contract value exceeds $X.X million) in the past five years.15

• The contractor will have no unsatisfactory ratings in the USACE performance-based16

contractor performance evaluation database (termed the construction contractor appraisal17support system or CCAS) in the past three years.18

19Once the shortlist is formed, the price component is then developed. USACE announces the20“Ceiling Price” which is the maximum amount of authorized funding for the project and provides21the technical documentation used by the Corps to reach that estimated cost. Instead of22negotiating a GMP, the competing contractors actually bid an “Initial Target Price” that23consists of an “Initial Target Cost” (ITC) and an “Initial Target Profit” (ITP) as shown in24Figure 3. These are compared to the “Ceiling Price” and the contract is awarded to the contractor25that meets all the qualification requirements and has the lowest ITP. It must be understood that26the operating term in the bid process is “TARGET” and that indicates that the price is expected27

to change as the design is fully developed.282930313233343536373839404142

43444546474849505152

FIGURE 3 Typical USACE ECI Bid Form (17).53


8/15

USACE ECI uses an alternative award system for projects with a particularly complex design1where contractor means and methods will drive the final design solution. The system substitutes2an interview process for the Go/No Go evaluation (17). In this system, competing contractors3make a formal presentation that includes corporate qualifications, previous similar projects,4qualifications/experience of key personnel, project-specific issues, and preconstruction services5

components. Following the presentation, each competitor responds to a pre-published list of6 standard questions in the RFP. Finally, competing contractors are given a scenario exercise, in7which they have a fixed period of time to develop a solution and subsequently present it to the8evaluation committee. The winning contractor is determined using a best- value award based on9a “Cost-Technical Trade-off” analysis prescribed in the FAR is based on published evaluation10criteria in the RFP. Price is provided in the same manner as shown Figure 4 and is normally11assigned 50% of the weight (19).12

13After contract award, the winning contractor submits its proposed general conditions fee. In the14RFP, USACE includes the following technical information on the project:15

• Scope of work description16

•

Preliminary plans/specifications17• Construction testing matrix18

• Quality management roles and responsibilities19

20USACE makes the project delivery method selection decision during the development of the21 project’s formal acquisition plan and seeks to award the ECI contract at approximately 10% to2215% design completion (17, 18). Additionally, the typical federal architect/engineer (AE)23design services contract is also modified to comply with ECI delivery and typically includes:24

• Design packages to be reviewed by the contractor’s CRE team,25

• Design milestones to facilitate preconstruction services packages,26

• Requirements to incorporate/respond to CRE team constructability review comments,27

• Coordination of design packages with construction contractor’s self-performed work28 packages as well as the construction subcontractor bid packages.29

30The ECI contractor must declare the trade bid packages it wants to self-perform and is permitted31to prequalify its own subcontractors without government interference, provided that it obtains at32least three subcontractor quotes for all subcontractor work packages over $100,000. It is also33required to get the government’s approval (termed “Consent to Subcontract per FAR 44.2)34 before awarding subcontracts. The winning ECI contractor’s “initial target price” is revised as35design progresses to reflect both current quantities of work and market conditions. This36 procedure is consistent with a progressive GMP as defined by NCHRP Synthesis 402 (9). The37final lump sum target price is determined by an “incentive price revision using successive38

targets” as shown in Figure 4. The major components are as follows:39• Construction cost including jobsite overhead,40• CRE team preconstruction services fee which includes home office overhead for the41

entire project.4243

The final project price is established around 90% design. Similar to DBB, the lump sum can be44adjusted according to project’s scope changes during design or construction. ECI uses an “open45


9/15

books” pricing system where the owner is provided the contractor’s actual costs, which are then1used to determine the actual amount of profit allowed under the incentive/disincentive scheme.2

3456789

10111213141516171819202122

23242526272829

FIGURE 4 Typical USACE ECI Incentive/Disincentive Scheme (17).3031

Benefits and Challenges of CMGC versus ECI32There are pros and cons for every project delivery method. It is no different for the CMGC and33ECI delivery methods. Each method should only be used on projects where it will offer the34

most benefit to all the parties involved in the project. Gambatese et al. (21) notes that “the35 benefits resulting from the use of CMGC and/or ECI can be greatest for projects that:36

•

“are high risk,37• possess a high level of technical complexity,38• are governed by significant schedule constraints,39• require complex phasing,40• contain budget limitations requiring a construction cost guarantee during design, or41• on which value engineering will result in substantial cost savings.”42

43Furthermore, Schierholz et al. (22) found that the major benefits and challenges of using the44CMGC delivery method are:45

Benefits• “The ability to fast-track,• Contractor design input,• Early knowledge of costs,• Ability to bid early work packages,• Owner control of design, • Flexibility during design and/or construction,

• Shared risk allocation.”

Challenges• “Training required for agency

personnel,• Contractor and designer have

different agendas,• Requires procurement culture shift,• Total cost not known until

construction price is fixed”


10/15

Hoffman et al. (17) listed the following benefits and challenges for ECI project delivery:1Benefits:

• “Focus on quality/safety can bemaximized.

•

Engages engineers (lead & design)[owner & consultant] directly in thequality, scope, schedule, and budgetdiscussions.

•

Construction technique [means &methods] /materials can be betterconsidered during design.

• Detailed knowledge of equipment andtechnology.

• Better construction partnerships/trust(internal and external).

•

[Owner’s] Design and contractadministration [personnel] developstechnical competence across functionalareas.”

Challenges• “Design schedule must be well managed

since construction contractor is engaged

and some construction started.• Likely limited to equipment or technologyof the selected construction contractor ifthere is a basic interest.

•

Contract administration requires a moremotivated and engaged staff in allfunctional areas of USACE than otheracquisition methods.

• Funding and incentive/profit calculationscan be complex.

• Generating quantities at 10% design for the

contractor to develop an Initial Target Costmay be difficult in complex projects.”

Project Delivery Method Selection and Selection Factors2The CMGC and ECI delivery methods are project delivery tools for public transportation3agencies. Like all delivery methods, the agency not only needs to consider various project-4specific factors, but also agency-related factors when deciding whether to select CMGC or ECI.5Some agency-related factors to consider include current capabilities, risk aversion, and statutory6restrictions on methods. Some project- specific factors to consider include:7

• Schedule issues8•

The technical complexity of the project9

• Project budget control issues10• The monetary size of the project11• Third party interface issues with the project12• Project type (typical agency project vs. non-typical agency project)13• Project environmental issues14•

Project technical content15• Project traffic control issues16• Project location17• Desire to include specific innovation18• Project sustainability issues19•

A focus on quality and safety20

21An agency cannot just choose a delivery method at random to use on a project. Every agency22should have a procedure set in place to use when choosing which delivery method to use for a23 project. This procedure must be agency specific but should include consideration of various24 project and agency factors. The literature shows that CMGC is best used on projects with the25following types of requirements:26


11/15

• “There is a need for immediate transportation improvements;1

• The design is complex, difficult to define, subject to change and/or has several design2

options;3

• There is a high coordination requirement with external agencies that make cost over-4

runs and construction schedule a pressing concern;5

•

The project is sequence or schedule sensitive.” (23)6

7The literature shows that ECI is most advantageous when:8

• There is a need for immediate improvements to the infrastructure;9

• Design is technically complex, difficult to define at early stages, subject to change and/or10has several alternative solutions that require cost and schedule analysis before making a11design decision;12

• The requirement to coordinate with external agencies is high, making cost over-runs and13construction schedule a pressing concern;14

• The project is work sequence or schedule sensitive (24).15

16 Other reasons that USACE considers when selecting ECI as the delivery method for a project17include:18

• Encourage constructability19

• Encourage innovation20

• Need to use in-house design assets.21

• Facilitate value engineering22

• Third party issues (permits, utilities, etc.)23

• Reduce/compress/accelerate project delivery period24

• Flexibility needs during construction phase25

• Establish project budget at an early state of design development26

•

Provide mechanism for follow-on operations and/or maintenance27• Constrained budget28

• Compete different design solutions through the proposal process29

• Encourage price competition (bidding process)30

• Innovative financing (23)31

32Comparative Analysis33Table 1 shows a side-by-side comparison of CMGC and ECI. The details shown in the table are34meant to portray a generalized typical case, and not to be all inclusive for every possible35variation in each project delivery method. The authors are aware that there are exceptions to the36content shown below. For example, the California DOT uses CMGC with in-house design, but it37is the only DOT in the country to do that. Thus, it is not considered “typical.”38

394041424344


12/15

Table 1: CMGC and ECI Comparison1Factor CMGC ECI

Procurement procedure 1-step QBS & 1-stepBV

2-step BV

Self-performance requirement 30% to 40% None

% Design when contractor selected 30% to 70% 10% to 15%

Weighted selection criteria Yes YesWeight given to price 0% to 60% 50%

Low bid award possible No Yes

Interviews at selection

Routine project Yes No

Complex project Yes Yes

Disclose budget during procurement Yes Yes

Modify design contract Yes Yes

In-house design/outsourced design No/Yes Yes/Yes

Payment provisions

Lump sum Yes Yes

Unit price Yes No

Combination Yes No

% Design when final construction cost/GMP is set 80 % to 100% 90%Iterative Pricing Yes Yes

Open books accounting Yes Yes

Contractor controls design schedule No Yes

ICE used in pricing iterations Yes No

Owner restrictions on subcontractor selection (other thanreserving right to approve subcontracting plan)

Yes No

Early release construction work packages Yes Yes

Convert to DBB if no agreement on final construction cost Yes Yes

BV = best value; QBS = qualification based selection; GMP = guaranteed maximum price

2The table shows that the two delivery methods are very similar. CMGC has more potential3

variations, and ECI endeavors to bring the contractor into the design process at a much earlier4 point in design development than CMGC. The major differences of ECI from the better known5CMGC process are as follows:6

• ECI is focused on constructability and cost control as its primary preconstruction7activities.8

• ECI brings the contractor on to the project team much earlier in the design process.9• ECI’s pricing structure permits a low bid award for noncomplex projects.10• ECI’s pricing structure embodies an incentive/disincentive that supports its focus on cost11

control rather than cost savings.12• ECI’s pricing structure simplifies the payment process using a lump sum or firm fixed13

price.14

•

ECI’s two-step procurement process allows the agency to conduct a rigorous, project-15 specific contractor prequalification process.1617

So the above comparison shows that previous studies that correlated ECI as merely a different18name for CMGC were not precisely correct. While it shares the same contract structure and19many of the same characteristics, ECI is different in many substantive ways, perhaps enough to20 be considered a separate project delivery method and a potential new tool in the DOT21 procurement toolbox. Accordingly, the following section provides information on the USACE22


13/15

ECI experience as a means to furnish a base from which a state DOT can decide whether the tool1is attractive for implementation within its market.2

3USACE ECI Outcomes4Table 2 below synopsizes a cross-section of major USACE ECI projects completed during the5

Katrina reconstruction program as well as a dam project in Kansas and several military6 construction projects built in Virginia. The heavy civil projects are obviously all very large, but7the Visitor Control Center was only $6.0 million and shows the range of potential projects on8which the delivery method has been successfully applied. The table shows that some projects9went up from the initial target price during design but in most cases, the final price was lower than10the initial ceiling price, which is the amount of programmed funding available at project11authorization.12

13Table 2: USACE ECI Project Costs Record (14, 19).14

Project Type Location

Initial

Target

Price(in millions)

Initial

Ceiling

Price(in millions)

Final

Price

(in millions)

Savings

from

Ceiling

Price(in millions)

LPV 111 Levee New Orleans, LA $295 $411 $342 $69




IHNC-01 Levee New Orleans, LA $154 $181 $164 $17

Tuttle Creek DamSeismic Upgrade

Dam Manhattan, KS $206 $250 $175 $75

Central UtilityPlant

IndustrialProcess

Fort Belvoir, VA $100 $110 $107 $3

Technology Center Building Fort Belvoir, VA $78 $82 $72 $10

Visitor ControlCenter Building Fort Belvoir, VA $5.8 $6.0 $5.9 $0.1

Parking Garage Building Fort Belvoir, VA $77 $78 $72 $6

Totals $1,853 $2,438 $1,797 $652

Apparent Savings to the Government 27%

15Conclusions and Recommendations16Four conclusions can be drawn from the above analysis:17

1. At very least, ECI is a variant of CMGC project delivery that brings the contractor on18 board at the earliest practical point in the design process.19

2. The ECI pricing structure permits a 2-step low bid award for projects whose scope of20work permits a reasonable opportunity to generate the quantities of work necessary for21

the bidders to develop an initial target cost.223. The ECI pricing structure requires the contractors to compete on their profit margin,23

which may make it a more competitive selection process than typical CMGC.244. ECI’s incentive/disincentive scheme promotes cost control over cost savings and as seen25

in the USACE experience, cost control translates into cost savings at the end of the job.2627

The following recommendations are made.28


14/15

• DOTs in areas where the local construction industry opposes CMGC because of the1 proposal and interview process (i.e. the so called “beauty contest”) may be able to2overcome this barrier to implementation by employing ECI’s 2-step low bid award3model. Depending on the project, the qualifications step could be conducted using a4standard form and the Go/No Go evaluation.5

•

The slopes of the cost and price lines shown in Figure 4 will require further research to6 determine a reasonable formula for a state-level DOT project.78

References 91.

Associated General Contractors of America (AGC), Project Delivery Systems for10Construction, Associated General Contractors of America, Washington, D.C., 2004.11

2. Dunston, P.S., McManus,J.F., and Gambatese, J.A. Cost/Benefits of Constructability12Reviews, NCHRP Project 20-7, Task 124, Transportation Research Board, National13Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2002, p. 2.14

3. Gransberg, D.D., “Applying Alternative Technical Concepts to Construction15Manager/General Contractor Project Delivery,” Transportation Research Record, No.16

2408, Journal of the Transportation Research Board , National Academies, 2014, pp. 10-17 16.184. Lopez del Puerto, C., D.D. Gransberg, and J. S. Shane “Comparative Analysis of Owner 19

Goals for Design/Build Projects,” Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 20 24 (1), January 2008, pp 32-29. 21

5. Holland, J.K., “Design-Builder Not Entitled to Equitable Adjustment to Meet Owner's22Detailed Design Specifications,” Expert Commentary, International Risk Management23Institute, 2004, On-line, Available at:24http://www.irmi.com/expert/articles/2004/holland09.aspx, [November 11, 2014].25

6. Loulakis, M. C. Legal Aspects for Performance-Based Specifications for Highway26Construction and Maintenance Contracts. NCHRP Legal Research Digest No. 61;27Transportation Research Board National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, p. 60.28

7.

Anderson S.D. and I. Damnjanovic, Selection and Evaluation of Alternative Contracting29 Methods to Accelerate Project Completion, NCHRP Synthesis 379, TRB 200830

8. West, N., D.D. Gransberg, and J. McMinimee, “Effective Tools for Project Delivered 31 Using the Construction Manager/General Contractor,” Transportation Research Record 32 No. 2268 , Journal of the Transportation Research Board, National Academies 2012, 33 pp.33-42. 34

9. Gransberg, D.D. and J. S. Shane, Construction Manager-at-Risk Project Delivery for 35 Highway Programs, NCHRP Synthesis 402, Transportation Research Board, National 36 Research Council, Washington, DC, 8 2010, 86-96 pp. 37

10. Gransberg, D.D., J.S. Shane, S. Anderson, C. Lopez del Puerto, and J. Schierholz, Guide38 for Implementing Construction Manager/General Contractor Project Delivery on39 Highway Projects. NCHRP 10-85, Transportation Research Board, National Academies,40January 2013, 81pp.41

11. Gambatese, J., K. Dettwyler, D. Rogge and L. Schroeder. Oregon Public Contracting42Coalition Guide to CM/GC Contracting, Oregon Public Contracting Coalition, Portland43Oregon, 2002, p. 13.44

12. Shane, J. and D.D. Gransberg, “Coordination of the Design Contract with the 45 Construction Manager-at-Risk Preconstruction Service Contract,” Transportation 46

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263963786_Comparative_Analysis_of_Owner_Goals_for_DesignBuild_Projects?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263963786_Comparative_Analysis_of_Owner_Goals_for_DesignBuild_Projects?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263963786_Comparative_Analysis_of_Owner_Goals_for_DesignBuild_Projects?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263963786_Comparative_Analysis_of_Owner_Goals_for_DesignBuild_Projects?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263963786_Comparative_Analysis_of_Owner_Goals_for_DesignBuild_Projects?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263963786_Comparative_Analysis_of_Owner_Goals_for_DesignBuild_Projects?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263963786_Comparative_Analysis_of_Owner_Goals_for_DesignBuild_Projects?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275853287_Effective_Tools_for_Projects_Delivered_by_Construction_Manager-General_Contractor_Method?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275853287_Effective_Tools_for_Projects_Delivered_by_Construction_Manager-General_Contractor_Method?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275853287_Effective_Tools_for_Projects_Delivered_by_Construction_Manager-General_Contractor_Method?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275853287_Effective_Tools_for_Projects_Delivered_by_Construction_Manager-General_Contractor_Method?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275853287_Effective_Tools_for_Projects_Delivered_by_Construction_Manager-General_Contractor_Method?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275853287_Effective_Tools_for_Projects_Delivered_by_Construction_Manager-General_Contractor_Method?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275853287_Effective_Tools_for_Projects_Delivered_by_Construction_Manager-General_Contractor_Method?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275853287_Effective_Tools_for_Projects_Delivered_by_Construction_Manager-General_Contractor_Method?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275853287_Effective_Tools_for_Projects_Delivered_by_Construction_Manager-General_Contractor_Method?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275853287_Effective_Tools_for_Projects_Delivered_by_Construction_Manager-General_Contractor_Method?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275853287_Effective_Tools_for_Projects_Delivered_by_Construction_Manager-General_Contractor_Method?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280610007_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Project_Delivery_for_Highway_Programs?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280610007_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Project_Delivery_for_Highway_Programs?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280610007_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Project_Delivery_for_Highway_Programs?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280610007_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Project_Delivery_for_Highway_Programs?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280610007_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Project_Delivery_for_Highway_Programs?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280610007_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Project_Delivery_for_Highway_Programs?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280610007_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Project_Delivery_for_Highway_Programs?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280610007_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Project_Delivery_for_Highway_Programs?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245564148_Coordination_of_Design_Contract_with_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Preconstruction_Service_Contract?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245564148_Coordination_of_Design_Contract_with_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Preconstruction_Service_Contract?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245564148_Coordination_of_Design_Contract_with_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Preconstruction_Service_Contract?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245564148_Coordination_of_Design_Contract_with_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Preconstruction_Service_Contract?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245564148_Coordination_of_Design_Contract_with_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Preconstruction_Service_Contract?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245564148_Coordination_of_Design_Contract_with_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Preconstruction_Service_Contract?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245564148_Coordination_of_Design_Contract_with_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Preconstruction_Service_Contract?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245564148_Coordination_of_Design_Contract_with_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Preconstruction_Service_Contract?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245564148_Coordination_of_Design_Contract_with_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Preconstruction_Service_Contract?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245564148_Coordination_of_Design_Contract_with_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Preconstruction_Service_Contract?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245564148_Coordination_of_Design_Contract_with_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Preconstruction_Service_Contract?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245564148_Coordination_of_Design_Contract_with_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Preconstruction_Service_Contract?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245564148_Coordination_of_Design_Contract_with_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Preconstruction_Service_Contract?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280610007_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Project_Delivery_for_Highway_Programs?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280610007_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Project_Delivery_for_Highway_Programs?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280610007_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Project_Delivery_for_Highway_Programs?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280610007_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Project_Delivery_for_Highway_Programs?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280610007_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Project_Delivery_for_Highway_Programs?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280610007_Construction_Manager-at-Risk_Project_Delivery_for_Highway_Programs?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275853287_Effective_Tools_for_Projects_Delivered_by_Construction_Manager-General_Contractor_Method?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275853287_Effective_Tools_for_Projects_Delivered_by_Construction_Manager-General_Contractor_Method?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275853287_Effective_Tools_for_Projects_Delivered_by_Construction_Manager-General_Contractor_Method?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275853287_Effective_Tools_for_Projects_Delivered_by_Construction_Manager-General_Contractor_Method?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275853287_Effective_Tools_for_Projects_Delivered_by_Construction_Manager-General_Contractor_Method?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275853287_Effective_Tools_for_Projects_Delivered_by_Construction_Manager-General_Contractor_Method?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275853287_Effective_Tools_for_Projects_Delivered_by_Construction_Manager-General_Contractor_Method?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263963786_Comparative_Analysis_of_Owner_Goals_for_DesignBuild_Projects?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263963786_Comparative_Analysis_of_Owner_Goals_for_DesignBuild_Projects?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263963786_Comparative_Analysis_of_Owner_Goals_for_DesignBuild_Projects?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263963786_Comparative_Analysis_of_Owner_Goals_for_DesignBuild_Projects?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263963786_Comparative_Analysis_of_Owner_Goals_for_DesignBuild_Projects?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-d2eb5192-3f8a-4ff5-8727-9d10db215424&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5ODMzMzkyNztBUzozNDQyODE4ODI2MTE3MTJAMTQ1OTA5NDYwNTM5OQ==


15/15

eci vs. cmgc project delivery

Documents