The parties had differing opinions about fast tracking
Owners and A/Es felt fast tracking was sufficient, while CMs and Subs felt it was not.
Fast tracking is facilitated by CMAR, since the CM can recommend work packages and these can be negotiated and started under the existing prime contract. Contrasting that with public construction DBB, where a separate contract and probably public procurement process would be required. We asked, “One advantage of CMR to public owners is the ability to fast track construction phases or procure long lead equipment under an existing (the CMR) contract. Do you believe that owners in CMR utilize that ability sufficiently? Score 1-5, where 1 means strongly agree and 5 means strongly disagree.”
There were significant differences in the responses of Owners and A/E who agreed that sufficient use of fast track is made on CMAR, while CM agreed less. There was no trend with CMAR experience.
Since the Owner generally must approve fast tracking a particular item, they would believe that all the fast tracking they approved was a good idea and all the fast tracking they did not approve was not a good idea. In many cases fast tracking would be less competitive than regular sequencing. Hence, they would tend to believe that “sufficient” use was made of fast tracking. CMs on the other hand, would like to fast track whatever possible and practical, but might have their requests for fast tracking disapproved by the Owner, hence they have less belief in fast tracking is used sufficiently. Or at least, feel this way more often than Owners. One would expect Subs, who would often originate the fast tracking request, to believe similar to CMs. The reason why A/Es agree as Owners is not clear, except perhaps because A/Es would need to make up separate packages for work packages. Also, the CM might need to press the A/E for design details before the A/E is ready to issue them.