Alternative Public Works

Back to the Practice Resource Group Page

The Council recognizes the design and construction process must respond to changing circumstances in the construction industry. Alternative delivery methods should be considered when appropriate for public sector projects. Any delivery system needs to address assignment of responsibilities, including responsibility for professional liability. Determination to use any delivery system should be based on evidence that the system provides good value.

The 2003 Legislature required the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) to conduct a performance audit of state capital planning, design, and construction processes. To the extent resources permit, the audit was to include a review of public works projects utilizing the general contractor/construction manager procedure. The committee was authorized to contract for consulting services in conducting this performance audit. In its final report, due January 8, 2005, the Committee shall make recommendations as appropriate.

On April 21, 2004 the House State Government Committee held a roundtable discussion on the status of JLARC’s work. It was announced that a consultant is in the process of being hired. The scope of the consultant’s work was presented as:

1. Identify state agencies and local governments that have used GC/CM in Washington, update the December 2000 inventory of GC/CM projects, and collect key “project portfolio” information.

2. Develop set of “best practices” for public works procurement as part of the “Execution” phase of capital projects. Best practices will revolve around key functions and activities that add value to or contribute to the success of the project execution and procurement process, including practices for apportioning responsibility and effectively managing project scope, schedule, and budget.

3. Develop and analytical framework to assist the Legislature in weighing the benefits and costs of GC/CM as compared to other public works procurement methods. Anticipated outcomes for the framework include: common terminology for discussing GC/CM policy and fiscal issues, and integration of both quantitative and qualitative information.

4. Detailed review of actual GC/CM experiences on selected state agency and local government case study projects.

A set of questions was reviewed as a place to start. Members of the construction industry suggested other questions in attendance. Rob Widmeyer, AIA, commented that it was unfortunate that the group could have not had the opportunity to consider the scoping before the request for a consultant went out. He was assured that the terms of the contract are quite broad and the consultant will have wide latitude for considering any number of issues. Others thought the proposed timeline is impossibly short.