Construction Management Agreements: Setting The GMP
In his Construction Law column, Ken Block offers a detailed discussion of setting the best guaranteed maximum price in construction management agreements which addresses the interests of both the owner and construction manager.
November 09, 2021 at 10:00 AM
6 minute read
Under the guaranteed maximum price (GMP) construction contract delivery method, great care and attention must be given by the owner and construction manager (CM) to setting the GMP, usually done by way of a "GMP Amendment." From the owner's perspective, the GMP should be all inclusive, leaving little room for increases in cost; from the CM's perspective, the GMP should allow for cost increases over which it has no control. A well thought out GMP will address both interests.
|Timing of the GMP
GMP agreements are most often used when the owner requires a firm price prior to completing the plans for the project and before the purchase of all trades by the CM. This is usually driven by a lender or some other circumstance requiring an early maximum price. However, because the plans are not 100% complete and the trades are not 100% bought, a fair amount of cost estimation (and assumption of risk) is required by the CM in proposing the GMP. For this reason, both CMs and owners seek to limit the risk by deferring the setting of the GMP until greater price certainty can be established; thus, the GMP proposal by the CM is customarily not made until the plans are at least 80% complete and the trades are at least 80% bought. Waiting until this point is in the best interests of both parties and may reduce the amount of the contingency (discussed below) requested by the CM.
|Elements of the GMP Proposal
The Plans and Specifications. The CM and its subcontractors are bound to perform the work in accordance with the plans and specifications prepared by the owner's design team, and a detailed enumeration of these documents is vital to establishing clarity for the required performance of the work. In addition to such enumeration, the CM will also provide qualifications and assumptions for itself and its subcontractors which may modify or detract from their obligations to conform to the precise letter of the plans. It is, therefore, incumbent on the owner to identify the areas of work that might be excluded by a particular subcontractor and arrange for the work to fall within the province of another subcontractor. Care should also be taken by the owner to identify any qualifications by the CM that might diminish its contractual obligations under the construction management agreement (CMA).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCleary vs. White & Case: NY Showdown Over $5 Billion Brazilian Bankruptcy
Fraud 'Beyond Doubt': Judge Awards $1.6 Billion Over Delayed Resort Development
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250