There are many ways to build a project. The conventional approach is where the architect Designs the building so that the completed plans can be placed for competitive bids among pre-qualified general contractors. A builder is then chosen and locked into a contract price based upon their bid. The advantages to this approach are that the church can be reasonably assured of receiving a fair market price for the work, and the builder is obligated to deliver the project for an established price. Disadvantages include not being assured of the project costs until the bids are received. Also, this approach may place architects and builders into an adversarial relationship, if the builder attempts to find ambiguities in the construction drawings in order to gain a competitive edge. 

Other sections have discussed the design/build approach to delivery. 

Another method commonly used on larger projects is when a construction manager is employed. The construction manager is chosen early in the process and works closely with the architect, typically providing input on materials and costs before the plans have been finalized. This provides a forum in which value engineering can take place. Working with the architect and engineers, different heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems can be reviewed for cost effectiveness, comparing initial installed costs versus long-term operating costs. Also, long-lead material items can be determined early on and put on order to facilitate a timelier project construction schedule. 

Selection of the construction manager is usually done based on qualifications and a proposal outlining the construction manager’s services and fee, both in the pre-construction phase and for the construction phase itself. For the construction phase it is generally a percentage of the project cost, normally in the range of six to eight percent. The accounting is done open-book, and sub-contractor proposals are reviewed and selected in conjunction with the owner and/or architect. This gives the church much more control over the project. The construction manager may also work with a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) developed when the drawings are 80% completed and including a reasonable contingency. If the work is completed for less than the GMP, any savings goes back to the church. This method may allow the church to experience a savings of eight to ten percent on the overall project. The risk for the construction manager is significantly less than for a general bid contractor. Even though a competitive bid general contractor has sharpened his pencil to get the cost as low as possible to be awarded the work, he must also regard factors to cover the risk of an oversight. In exchange for his taking this risk, the fee is generally in the area of eighteen to twenty-one percent of the project in order to cover his overhead and profit. 

Another method is where the church holds all of the contracts on the project that would otherwise be held by the construction manager or general contractor. This would include such things as site work and excavation, concrete and foundations, sheathing, steel work, etc. The church would hire a construction manager simply as an advisor, generally paying a reduced fee, versus the construction manager who holds all the contracts and is providing a GMP. The danger here is that there is no fixed maximum price and the risk for the final building cost is entirely on the shoulders of the church. Even if the construction manager that is advising the church has developed detailed cost estimates, there is no guarantee that the final number will align with the initial projections. There are also many responsibilities that fall between the sub-contractors disciplines and would normally be covered under the umbrella of a general contractor. In this approach, however, the church would be responsible for those things. Many financial institutions will not agree to a contract of this nature because of the risk that is involved. This approach does afford the opportunity for the greatest savings, but it also contains the greatest risk. 

The final method would be when the church acts as its own builder. Unless the church, or the individuals in charge, have built numerous projects of the size and nature of the one anticipated, you would be foolish to consider doing this. The risks and complexities of construction are far too great.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS