Delivery Methods - Pro's & Con's

As more and more Districts continue to access bond funds for their Capital Improvement programs, it has become common place for a District to have a capital outlay program. The method in which these Programs are managed varies greatly across the state. MAAS has a 35 year history off providing Program Management Services specifically to educational institutions and has offered  these services under various models and approaches. There is no “one size fits all” approach that can be prescribed to guarantee success. There are many factors a District must consider to ensure they select a delivery model that fits their needs and brings the greatest value to their communities.

‍The following reflects some of the different delivery models and highlights the advantages and challenges our team has experienced with each of them.

Comprehensive Program Management Services

Oversight of the capital program, where employees serve in roles on the project and financial side as an extension of the District’s staff. The Program Management Team is responsible for the breadth of the Program, including Project and Construction Management oversite.

Advantages:

• Comprehensive oversight of the Program, providing visibility to all aspects for greater control of the Scope, Schedule and Budget.  
• Unifies all financial cost tracking into a single “keeper of the books”.
• Facilitates reporting to Board and voters (CBOC).
• Facilitates performance of annually required independent bond program performance and financial audits.
• Ensures The District stays on track with budgetary and program timeline goals.
• Allows The District to compare performance of Project/Construction Management teams.
• Years of experience in the industry regarding the various delivery methods of construction projects that internal staff likely does not have
• Ability to provide services / work under various Funding Streams (if assistance is needed beyond just Bond Projects)  
• Additional Scope of Services Generally Provided that Otherwise Require Internal District Resources:

• Facilitates the “Request for Qualification (RFQ)” and ‘Request for Proposal (RFP)” process for Professional Services.
• Facilitates Local Vender participation on Bond Project.
• Facilitates Community Outreach programs
• Establish “Mentorship” programs for Students
  

Challenges:

• District may be less intimately involved with the capital program.  
• Cost associated with changing PM Firms during the duration of the Program
  

Hybrid Program Management

Providing overall program management at the District level. The District hires Project Managers and administrative staff for each campus as district personnel. District staff oversee the day-to-day management of actual projects and Program Manager oversees efforts at the Program Level; including all financial data and tracking (invoices, POs, Pay Applications, etc.), Board Reports, CBOC Reports, Cashflow Projections and Compliance with industry standard best practices.  

Advantages:

• Allows each Campus more direct control over day-to-day project management activities.
• District is not tied to an outside entity that has primary control of their Program  
• Flexibility to engage specialty consultants as needed without a long-term commitment

Challenges:

• District may need to take on the long-term fiscal burden of hiring full-time staff for a bond program that has a limited duration.
• District takes on the burden of recruiting, hiring, overseeing staff, and must make sure that knowledge transfer for the Program occurs despite inevitable staffing changes.  
• More complex lines of communication between District leadership, district staff, Program Manager and Project Manager.
  

Program and Construction Management‍

Comprehensively provide Program and Construction Management. In addition to all Program Activities listed in the first bullet point, construction management of all projects is also provided.  

Advantages:

• Unified management of entire bond program under one entity.
• High level of coordination between all parts of the bond program from strategic program  to the day-to-day construction activity level.
• Facilitates communication and coordination between district’s leadership team and firm’s management team.
  

Challenges:

• District is less involved with day-to-day program and project management.
• District may not have a direct frame of reference to judge performance of selected PM/CM firm.

Financial Management Services‍

Provide all financial services to augment either the District’s internal staff or a Program Management Team.

Advantages:

• Specialized team with deep experience in Bond Financial Management  
• Standardization  
• Facilitates reporting requirements to board, district leadership and voters (CBOC).
• Facilitates performance of annually required independent bond program performance and financial audits

Challenges:

• Introduces another entity into bond program management team
• Possibly more complex lines of communication between District leadership, district staff, Program Manager and Project Manager (Both of which may be third-party providers/teams)
  

Staff Augmentation Services

Placement of individuals from multiple firms, typically as part of a pre-approved pool of firms, to serve a specific role in a Bond Program.  

Advantages:

• Allows district the ability to scale the level of participation of PM/CM in the bond program’s management to suit their specific needs based on existing in-house capabilities
• Allows District more direct control over day-to-day project management activities
  

Challenges:

• Potentially more complex and unclear lines of communication between district and various management firms
• May require in-house district staff with program/project/construction management experience
• Potential lack of collaboration and continuity among team