1 / 28

Reflections on A Decade with Alternative Project Delivery On Texas Construction Projects

This overview reflects on the evolution and status of alternative project delivery methods used in Texas construction over the past decade. Highlighting key legislative changes and emerging practices, it examines current issues such as transparency, standards for construction managers, and the ongoing demand for alternative delivery systems. It also discusses controversies surrounding job order contracting and the need for consistency and accountability in procurement processes. As construction methods evolve, vigilance remains crucial to ensure effective and fair project delivery.

tassos
Télécharger la présentation

Reflections on A Decade with Alternative Project Delivery On Texas Construction Projects

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reflections on A Decade with Alternative Project Delivery On Texas Construction Projects Progress, Problems, and the Future Curt Martin Construction Resolutions, LLC Houston, Texas Curt@Construction-Resolutions.com Curt@Construction-Counsel.com

  2. Overview: Current Status • “Vertical” public construction has • Choice in construction delivery methods and • Discretion in choosing contractor / CM

  3. A Brief History • 1995: Choices (SB 1) • 1997: Structure (SB 583) • 1999: Modest changes (SB 669) • 2001: Cities, counties and River authorities (SB 510) • 2003: Navigation districts, ports, toll roads and turnpikes (HB 3028) • 2003: TxDOT may use CDA’s) (HB 3588)

  4. 1995 – SB 1 • Discretion allowed! • Choose Method of Procurement • Use “Qualifications-Based” Selection • Applied to K-12 Schools and some higher ed facilities

  5. 1995 – SB 1 • Methods of Procurement allowed: • Design / Build (Bridging) • Construction Manager–Agent • Construction Manager-at-Risk • Selection through Competitive Sealed Proposals • Selection through Competitive Bidding

  6. 1995 – SB 1 • Schools could use various procurement methods upon finding that this method provided “Best Value.” • But beyond that there was little guidance.

  7. 1997 – SB 583 • Added Universities • Provided guidance • Described how procurement was to be done for each delivery method • Identified criteria that could be used in selection • Required user to identify and publish criteria for selection

  8. 1999 – SB 669 • More refinement: • Clarified delegation of selection • Clarified process of CM @Risk receiving sub bids • Strengthened requirement for publishing selection criteria

  9. 2001 – SB 510 • Extended Alt. Del. Procurement authority to: • Cities • Counties • River Authorities • Excluded Alt. Del. Procurement from: • Highways, water supply projects, other “horizontal” construction

  10. 2003 – HB 3028 • Extended Alt. Del. Procurement to • Ports (for certain work)

  11. 2003 – HB 3588 • Authorized TxDOT use of “Comprehensive Development Agreements” (“CDA’s”)

  12. What History Tells Us • Demand for Alternative Delivery continues to expand • Guidelines needed on how to use these systems • Some minor adjustments required

  13. Current status • Available “Alternative” Delivery Methods: • CM – agent • CM at risk • Competitive sealed proposals • Job order contracting • Design build • Competitive bidding

  14. Current Issues • Following procedures? • Transparency • Standards for Construction Managers? • Can other procurement methods be used? • Extension of D/B to Horizontal • Inter-local Agreements • Job Order Contracting

  15. Job Order Contracting • Ed. Code § 44 governs all procurement • Allows Procurement via: • Competitive bidding • Competitive sealed proposals • Request for proposals • Catalog purchase • Interlocal contract • Design/Build contract • Construction Management • Job Order Contracting

  16. Job Order Contracting • Ed. Code § 44 governs all procurement • Allows Procurement via: • Competitive bidding • Competitive sealed proposals • Request for proposals • Catalog purchase • Interlocal contract • Design/Build contract • Construction management • Job order contracting

  17. JOC Controversy GISD to Build $8,000,000 Middle School Renovation using Job Order Contracting

  18. JOC Controversy HISD Creates JOC Contracts for 20 Regions Across Texas

  19. JOC Controversy HISD arranges “Inter-Local” agreement with Texas Ass’n. of School Boards (TASB)

  20. JOC Controversy (TASB) provides HISD JOC to Galveston ISD

  21. JOC Controversy Citizens Group Protests; Judge issues Preliminary Injunction STOP

  22. JOC Controversy

  23. JOC Controversy • Can JOC be procured through “Interlocal Agreements”?

  24. Other Controversies • Criteria not published • Criteria not followed • Rankings not made public • Improper delegations • Construction management • Who? • What role?

  25. 2005: HB 2525 • Consolidation of statutes • Consistency between various statutes • Expansion of CM at risk and CSP to infrastructure • Delegation of authority • HB 2525 passed both houses, vetoed

  26. What We Have Learned from History (2) • Interest in Alternative Delivery Systems continues / increases • With discretion comes abuse • Need vigilance, transparency, accountability

  27. 2007: • Son of 2525 • Expand Design/Build to horizontal construction • Attack on indemnification for sole negligence

  28. Continued Goals • Consistency • Low transactional costs • Transparency • Enforceability • Design and construction as service

More Related