Construction management performance under dual services agreements

The standard documents of the American Institute of Architects and the Associated General Contractors of America for construction management projects imply processes and operational procedures that have become customary if not standard since publication in 1975. Adjustments must be made to accommodate the particular form and variation of construction management specifically required by the contract. However, construction management firms have a tendency to customize processes and procedures for their own convenience. This is especially true on projects where a firm is contractually assigned other service responsibilities such as design, contracting, or construction. When a CM process and its procedures exactly match the intent of the project delivery system, owners are positioned to gain from the use of the system. When convenience intervenes, the system cannot function effectively, and the owner may experience negative results. This paper argues that convenient customizing of the CM process and its procedures, especially customizing that mitigates the checks and balances specifically built into the construction management system and implied by established CM practice, represents a detrimental divergence from the fundamental reasons CM is selected for use by owners on their projects.