None of the parties were opposed to the CM self-performing some of the work.
All the parties feel that self-performance should not be discouraged, or at least that the current level of self-performance is about right.
There is some variability in the four contracts studied about how the Owner might let the CM self-perform the work. [See Appendix about Subconracting.] In some cases the Owner can just make a judgment call, in some the Owner must make a “best value” determination, and in some the CM must bid on that work against qualified Subs. Except in the case of bidding, letting the CM self-perform would appear to be less competitive. In the case of bidding, bid packages that define the scope of work would be needed, while in the first two cases, the scope might be less defined. Realizing the contracting situation might affect the responses, we asked, “Regarding the percentage of work self-performed by the CM, i.e., not subcontracted, do you believe, in general, self-performance by the CMR should be discouraged, other than minor site cleanup and safety. Score 1-5, where 1 means strongly agree and 5 means strongly disagree.”
The average score was 3.44, indicating disagreement. CMs disagreed more than Subs, 3.7 to 3.33, but that difference was not significant. There was no trend based on CMAR experience. The responses of the Subs, who would be in a position to loose work if the CM self-performed their specialty, is not much different than that of the CMs, whose fee might increase if they self-performed. Of course it may be that the Subs who responded to the survey did not feel it was likely that CM would perform their specialty, so it did not matter to them. Also, the Owners, many of whom like to bid the Subs to demonstrate to the funding bodies that they are competing the work, did not agree either. It appears that that all the parties feel that self-performance should not be discouraged, or at least that the current level of self-performance is about right.