Key Biscayne Master Plan 043944000.18w_Key_Biscayne_MP(forJooMag) | Page 76

VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN  complexities based on the land use that is contained in each phase, and  priorities set by the Villages other Capital Improvement projects. The types of land uses in the Village generally consist of multi-family residential, mixed use commercial and residential, and single family residential. Understanding the level of complexity existing in any given phase can aid in the project delivery selection process. By grouping the land use classification, the diversity of major work elements contained in each phase, and the anticipated community impacts involved in working in any given phase area, this level of complexity can be more easily seen. Community impacts include a combination of factors such as impact to private property owners, traffic impacts, sufficient right-of-way to perform the construction operations (or lack thereof), impacts related to other infrastructure work beyond undergrounding to be performed, and the level of stakeholder coordination required to execute the work. The table below summarizes this information. Project Area Land Use Major Work Elements Community Impacts Phase 1 Mixed Use Commercial / Single and Multi-Family Residential Undergrounding, Village Communications, Street Lighting, Stormwater High Phase 2 Mixed Use Commercial / Single and Multi-Family Residential Undergrounding, Village Communications, Street Lighting, Stormwater, Watermain Replacement Very High Phase 3 Mixed Use Commercial / Single and Multi-Family Residential Undergrounding, Village Communications, Street Lighting, Stormwater, Watermain Replacement Very High Phase 4 Single-Family Residential Undergrounding, Village Communications, Street Lighting, Watermain Replacement High It is notable the major work elements described in the table are those anticipated to be constructed in conjunction with the undergrounding project by the contractor selected for each phase. Most projects are unfunded at this time and involve outside stakeholder participation. 72 7.5 Project Delivery Recommendations The Village’s undergrounding program is a very large and complex infrastructure program that will be implemented in a phased manner over four to six years. In developing recommendations for project delivery methods for each of those phases, the risks to cost, schedule, and level of service expectations must carefully be considered. Each key factor identified in the opening of this chapter must be reviewed for their risk impacts for each of the project delivery methods. If any single phase falters in any of those three risk areas, the remaining phases of the program will be detrimentally affected. For this reason, the project delivery method must balance those risks with cost, while yielding the highest probability of project success. It is our opinion the CMAR method of project delivery yields the highest probability of success for delivering the multiple phases of the Village’s Undergrounding Program. This is a method approved for use by the Village. The following sections reinforce this opinion based on the three areas of risk; cost, schedule, and level of service. Cost The Village has placed a high priority on cost. It may be the deciding factor as to whether this project moves forward or not. We understand the question may arise whether using a CMAR will raise or lower the cost of the project. Having a very cost conscious group involved during the design process might lower the total cost of the project. However, by shifting the cost guarantee burden onto the CMAR, a case can be made that the actual savings may be less than promised if the CMAR is too conservative and risk-averse. There are studies that indicate a substantial savings in cost growth (fewer change orders) through use of CMAR, but no reliable information on comparative initial cost for similar infrastructure projects. This is mostly due to owners not building the exact same project twice under different delivery methods. While the cost savings potential exists, there is no guarantee it will cost more or less than any other delivery system. The CMAR project delivery method requires the least number of owner employees to manage the process because the CMAR can expand to meet the owner’s staffing needs. While not reflected in the GMP, the