This public works project is being built under the construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) or CM at risk procurement method. This is also known by some as GC/CM. The CM/GC negotiates an early maximum allowable construction cost (MACC) with the client. This is similar to a GMP. The construction manager (CM) was also awarded the concrete and steel packages (work they normally self-perform as a GC) under separate competitive lump sum bids. The CM is now a subcontractor to itself.

i) How can the client be sure that costs incurred under the lump sum portions of the project by the CMs subcontractor team are not being charged to the CMs MACC?

ii) Does the CM evaluate the subcontractors change orders and pay requests critically?

iii) Does the CM help the subcontractor with site supervision and equipment usage more than they may with other subcontractors?

iv) Is this procurement system fair to the taxpayers?

v) Are the CMs MACC accounts auditable? Are the CMs accounts auditable for their own lump sum subcontracted portions of the work?

vi) One reason many public agencies are choosing the negotiated CM/GC MACC approach over traditional competitive bidding with general contractors is to reduce claims and lawsuits. Can these results be validated?

vii) CM/GCs offer constructability reviews, value engineering, and early procurement of long-lead materials through this delivery method as well. List some of the other advantages.

viii) Can the exact payback or return on investment be determined for the client from these services?

ix) If you were assigned the task of researching and proving these claims, what methodology would you choose?