My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-26-2013 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
06-26-2013 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/24/2013 11:27:59 AM
Creation date
6/24/2013 11:21:05 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
110
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
58 <br />exposure to any one surety by spreading the risk among more <br />carriers. Should a problem result under this format, you <br />are only at odds with the bonding company for one prime <br />contract which represents only a portion of the total <br />project. Should the GC have problems under the traditional <br />method, the bonding company's exposure is for the entire <br />project. A side benefit is the division of bonding into <br />more moderate packages. This idea seems to be gaining favor <br />among bond carriers which may lead to lower bonding <br />costs.95 <br />Constructability <br />1. The CM process advocates a single firm being in- <br />volved throughout design, construction, and implementation. <br />In the system approach to management, an optimal solution to <br />any problem can be achieved only if all of the relevant <br />factors and components of the problem are related and <br />analyzed. Therefore, the CM is placed in a position to <br />interrelate all relevant variables, and to make the deci- <br />sions that minimize the project's time and cost while maxi- <br />mizing the quality.96 <br />2. The CM brings construction "know -how" to the project <br />95 <br />96 <br />Ibid., 26. <br />Adrian, op. cit., 26. <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.