Existing Systems Overview
Design-Builder may be less inclined to negotiate a change
with a property owner who is willing to grant an easement,
but not in the location preferred by the utility owner or in
the location that offers the lowest cost to the project. This
increase in the project cost would place negative pressure
on the Design-Builder’s profit margin which reduces their
motivation to work with the property owner.
y y There is a risk that an adversarial relationship could
develop if the quality of the project is not what was
expected by the Town. Under this delivery method, the
design team works directly for the contractor and may not
have the best interest of the Town in mind.
The easement acquisition process presents a schedule risk that
a DB contractor may not be willing to assume under a fixed
schedule duration.
7.2.3.1 DB Contracting and Procurement Methods
There are several alternatives to contracting and procuring
DB services. Contracting can be through a fixed price
lump sum agreement similar to DBB or, like the CMAR
delivery method, through a pre-construction fee and GMP
development process.
The procurement process is usually a two-step process.
The first step is issuance of an RFQ and the submittal of
TOWN-WIDE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES PROGRAM
MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT
qualifications by prospective DB teams. The owner would
then establish a short list of the best qualified teams to then
submit a cost and technical proposal to the owner. The
cost and technical proposal usually contains any technical
innovations developed by the DB team along with schedule
and any other pertinent details related to the design and
construction process. In some cases, owners find it beneficial
to produce “Bridging Documents” that are prepared by an
independent consultant. The Bridging Documents provide
detailed information related to the quality and function of the
desired project. They can also contain any schedule or design
constraints that may otherwise be unknown to a DB team.
These documents can reduce the risk that the owner does not
receive what they initially thought they would at the onset of
the project.
Once the cost and technical proposals are received by the
owner from the DB teams, a DB team can be selected based
on a combination of pricing, approach and qualifications.
delivery. In a contractual sense, the owner, contractor and
designer are all parties in a multi-party agreement to create a
team-based approach whose goal is to maximize collaboration
and efficiency. Compensation typically consists of three
components: reimbursement to cover costs, incentive
for achieving desired budgetary goals, and rewards for
accomplishing set project goals.
There is very little industry experience with this method.
Kimley-Horn is not aware of it ever being used in the
public sector or on horizontal infrastructure projects. It
is also not currently an approved method of contracting
under the Town’s procurement guidelines. Kimley-
Horn is also not aware of any contractors within the
undergrounding industry that are both experienced with
this method or advocating for its use. Therefore, we have
not considered it as a viable alternative for delivery of
any phase of this program.
7.2.4 Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) 7.3 Delivery Methods Used by Local
Municipalities
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is relatively new in the
United States and not many projects have been delivered
using this method. IPD requires collaboration between the
primary parties to share the risk and responsibility for project In developing our recommendations, we also reviewed
how other local municipalities delivered their overhead
to underground utility conversion projects. The table at
right provides a summary.
As shown in the table, a mix of Design-Bid-Build, Design-
Build, and CM-at-Risk project delivery methods have been
employed by various municipalities to deliver overhead to
underground conversion projects.
Project Delivery
Method Used
Municipality
Town of Jupiter Island DBB
Jupiter Inlet Colony DBB
Town of Gulfstream DBB
City of Hollywood CMAR
City of Pompano Beach CMAR
Lake Worth (10th Ave. and 6th Ave.)
Town of Palm Beach (Worth Ave.)
DB
CMAR
Town of Palm Beach (Everglades Island) DBB
Town of Palm Beach (Nightingale/La Puerta) DBB
Town of Palm Beach (Lake Towers) CMAR
City of Hallandale Beach CMAR
City of Kissimmee CMAR
PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS | 67