Council makes plans for splash pad project

The splash park is again on Moorcroft’s agenda. The town was recently awarded the funds to design and construct the recreational water feature and discussed with HDR Engineering’s Heath Turbiville the best option to move forward from the two he recommended at a recent workshop: design/build or Construction Management At Risk (CMAR).

Mayor Ben Glenn advocates the traditional method that has served the town a long time, making HDR the practical liaison between the general contractor and council.

However, in this instance, Turbiville discussed the advantages of using the CMAR method. CMAR streamlines a project by introducing a project manager between contractors and the owner at a guaranteed project cost.

“You would still have a contract with us that would be involved with design…The contractor could move faster with their portion of it because we’re working together to come up with what’s going to be built instead of us designing it, then bidding it and in this case, potentially, contractors saying ‘we can’t supply what you bid’. Then we’d have to go back to an alternative,” he said.

Glenn, though, expressed reservations regarding this project delivery method, saying, “I’ve always been so nervous about these CMARs…The whole background of the CMAR is that it is a numbers game – ‘I will do this project for this’ and then, even if they do it for a million less, we still pay them that.”

The engineer acknowledged the veracity of this opinion, “Cost savings is not one of the savings you usually get with a CMAR, time savings is one of them and you get a little different collaboration amongst the owner, engineer and the contractor than if you just do traditional.”

Turbiville explained how the process was intended to work by the state to lessen the mayor’s concerns: “The way it should work is it should be selective professional services which do not have a price associated with it. They are required to bid the components of the actual construction work.”

The engineer admitted there is a potential for higher cost with a CMAR. He assured those present, “There is some risk on that side of it for the town, but it’s not like they’re just hanging their price; they’re actually going out and bidding and getting those prices somewhat to what you would.”

“The advantage,” Turbiville continued, “As I see in this case, is that splash parks are so specialized, if we designed a splash park, we would be designing [individual features] and each of those different suppliers have something that is a little bit different.” Thus, potentially, impeding project completion.

Employing this alternative system of oversight will also increase the hierarchy between council and contractor. Glenn spoke to this issue as well: “It’s easier for me to be closer – one step to the contractor versus two steps…I’d rather it be easier for the council to say ‘why is this project like this?’ and point at one engineer and individual than try to go through several.”

After further discussion between these two professionals of design and construction, the remainder of council present, with a better understanding of the situation, asked questions and voiced their thoughts.

When Turbiville told the mayor the condition of the grant probably requires bidding the operation out, Glenn replied, “That’s fine if that’s what it is. Then, I’m back to a design/bid/build to where we know exactly what we’re going to do ahead of time. Every time you put another guy in the line of the money, it’s a ten percent.”

Councilwoman Heidi Humpal agreed with Glenn, saying, “I would personally rather see the money stay within the one person doing it.”

The splash park will cost the town approximately $500,000 in total, with the match for the grant, $252,350.

“I’d like to bid it late fall and start it early next spring,” Glenn asked Turbiville, “How hard would it be to have the project bid out in January and completed by July 2024? I would like to see the project done by Jubilee. I know that timeline’s tough, but it’s a 30 foot by 70 foot piece of concrete with water underneath it.”

The group is waiting on more information from the clerk’s office and HDR and will revisit the matter soon, with current opinion leaning toward traditional project design and construction.