Comparing Construction Manager–General Contractor and Federal Early Contractor Involvement Project Delivery Methods

Past studies of the construction manager–general contractor (CMGC) project delivery method have focused on its use by state and municipal departments of transportation. The literature also includes the approach to the CMGC delivery method based on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) termed early contractor involvement (ECI), which the literature classifies as merely a different term for CMGC. The desire to use CMGC project delivery by the Federal Lands Highway Divisions stimulated a deeper study of the restrictions placed on federal agencies by the FAR and found that although CMGC and ECI project delivery are indeed similar, they are not identical. The findings of that study are reported. A comparative analysis of the two project delivery models is presented, and it is found that ECI delivery is substantially different from CMGC delivery because of FAR-based limitations on preconstruction services and pricing methodology. It is concluded that the use of an incentive–disincentive scheme and the bidding of a proposed profit margin enhance competition during the ECI contractor selection process. The results of this study can be used outside the federal sector by state and local transportation agencies to furnish an alternative to the CMGC delivery method in those areas in which industry opposition is the primary barrier to implementing the CMGC delivery method.