CM-at-Risk/Bridging

CM-at-Risk/Bridging is a project delivery method that combines the Bridging method with the CM-at-Risk method. Combining Bridging and CM-at-Risk is not only easily feasible, but can have significant added advantages over the typical CM-at-Risk method for Owners, especially those Owners who cannot or should not rely on relationships in the procurement of construction.

Basic CM-at-Risk has become a more widely used project delivery method in recent times. Contractors and construction managers prefer the method and vigorously market it. Owners continue to look for alternatives to the traditional Design-Bid-Build method.

Although the traditional Design-Bid-Build project delivery method is well understood throughout the industry, creates a direct professional relationship between the Owner and the Architect, and meets all procurement procedure requirements, the method has some negative aspects. The method has a long and expensive period of design and preparation of the Contract Documents (“Bid Documents”). It also requires a good bit of time to receive bids, negotiate the often needed changes so as to stay in budget, and award the construction contract. Also, more and more, Design-Bid-Build exposes the Owner to Contractor initiated change orders and claims. Also, in Design-Bid-Build and basic CM-at-Risk, the Owner can often be caught in a disagreement between the Contractor and the Architect/Engineers when design or construction problems are discovered after completion of construction.

Figure 1, shown below, is the basic CM-at-Risk method illustrated without Bridging features added.

Figure 1

Figure 2

In CM-at-Risk/Bridging, the design team of architects and consulting engineers which works directly with and for the Owner is referred to as the Owner’s Design Consultant (often referred to as the “Bridging Architect” or the "Design Architect") and provides the same services the Owner’s Design Consultant provides in the Bridging method as shown on the Homepage. In CM-at-Risk/Bridging the Architect and Engineers “of record” (Contractor’s AE), who prepare the Construction Documents in compliance with the Bridging Contract Documents, are separate from the Owner’s Design Consultant, and are subcontractors to the CM. Under CM-at-Risk/Bridging, all of the aspects of CM-at-Risk are retained for the Owner and the additional advantages to the Owner of Bridging are realized by the Owner.

A major improvement for the Owner employing CM-at-Risk/Bridging over CM-at-Risk is that the price obtained about halfway through the design phases is highly enforceable and more meaningful for the Owner compared to GMPs based on less than 100% complete construction documents.

Other major improvements for the Owner in CM-at-Risk/Bridging as compared to CM-at-Risk include greatly reduced exposure for the Owner to CM initiated change orders, claims and post construction disputes.

In all cases in Bridging projects (with and without CM-at-Risk) there is little if any net additional cost to the Owner for the architectural and engineering services provided by the two separate “AEs”. The two fees add up to about the same as one typical AE fee.

Because of the price guarantees issued by the CM in CM-at-Risk and CM-at-Risk/Bridging, there would exist a conflict of interest if the CM also serves as the Owner's Program Manager.