illustration of integrated project management

CM at Risk vs. IPD: The Breakdown

A side-by-side comparison of two collaborative construction delivery methods

Resources CBO Editorial Staff

Integrated Project Delivery has generated a buzz in the industry. But many industry professionals have not yet had an opportunity to participate in an IPD project. Contrasting IPD with the Construction Management at Risk delivery method may illustrate how IPD differs strikingly from more traditional delivery systems:

Topic

CM at Risk

IPD

Timing of CM InvolvementExecuted after design is underwayExecuted before design begins
Contracting PartiesOwner and CMOwner, CM and designer(and key consulting designers, trade contractors and/or suppliers
Relationship between CM and A/ECM is arms-length advisor via owner contractCM has direct contract with designer
Collaboration by CM, A/E and OwnerExpected but not contractually specifiedRequired by contract
CM Involvement in DesignExpected, based on date of involvementIntensified, based on earlier involvementand greater investment; parties may be colocated full time
Construction FundingCost of work plus agreed fee with Guaranteed Maximum PriceOpen-book cost-plus; with target pricing but no GMAX
Potential CM RewardFee, often supplemented by shared savingsShared financial rewards, incentives
Risk of Cost OverrunsCapped by GMAXDetermined by contract
LiabilityBy contractLimited by agreement
Consequential Damage WaiversOften negotiatedAddressed in form contracts, expected by parties
Financial TransparencyCM costs may be transparent; A/E and trade costs likely notAgreed cost transparency of all signatories
Project ObjectivesDetermined by owner, with A/E inputDeveloped jointly by all key participants
ManagementResponsibilities defined by contract; roles defined by personalitiesShared management, defined by contract, with roles enhanced by investment and potential incentives
Focus of ParticipantsTraditional self-interestBest interests of the project as a whole
Motivation of ParticipantsTraditional self-interestEnhanced by investment in process and potential incentives; participants expected to perform based on project interests
Roles of ParticipantsDefined by contractDeveloped by agreement of parties
Efficiencies Achieved by ParticipantsDetermined by individual conductInfluenced by conduct of other parties, to the extent that they put project interests ahead of self-interest

* Note that this summary is intentionally generalized. The differences described above can be affected by a) the forms that CM @ Risk and IPD take, b) the behavior of the individual participants and c) the corporate cultures of the owner, CM and A/E. CM @ Risk could look very much like IPD in some cases (and vice versa).  

Author

OUR DIGITAL PARTNERS

RELATED ARTICLES