ENR Editors:
A "new project delivery system"?!
Though I respect and appreciate the creativity and vision that George Heery has brought to our industry and his profession, his ongoing attempt to package Bridging as a "new project delivery system" continues to add confusion to an already confusing area of our industry.
To now apply the term to a variation of CM and coin a new term, "Bridging/CM", is unnecessarily adding to our industry hodge podge of terms. If looked at closely, his description of Bridging/CM is only a variation of CM at-Risk focusing on two classic issues: 1) the timing of the price guarantee and 2) the option of using a guaranteed maximum or a fixed price contract. Owners using CM at-Risk have been addressing both of these topics in numerous ways for decades now and to attach a new name, is only continuing to make it more difficult for owners to understand CM at-Risk.
In addition, as our industry continues to move away from an era focused on low cost and advaserial fixed price based relationships to an era focused on owners wanting the highest value and achieving it through open book collaboration, George's emphasis is on "early loss of leverage" and early "fixed prices". Are there challenges with GMP's? Sure, but smart owners understand these risks and have learned how to manage and mitigate these risks. They choose to do this so that they can continue to get the benefit of a collaborative open-book process and have a contractor focused on getting them the best value. This is a choice the owner makes. Bridging/CM, as George defines it, takes this choice away. His "new project delivery system", Bridging/CM, is heavily based on locking in an early fixed price, removing the option to use a GMP and the ability to use it as an incentive to enhance collaboration.
Even his description of bridging ("... allows the owner to obtain a highly enforceable fixed price for construction...") is not consistent with the way the majority of the industry now uses his term (as a reference to the design criteria used as a basis for competition in design-build competition). In other words, based on the way the majority of the industry now uses a term George is credited for creating, it is a variation of design-build! This was pretty widely accepted... now with addition of the term Bridging/CM we're back to more confusion. Is this really necessary?
Michael Kenig
Vice Chairman
Holder Construction