Is the procurement/selection process for CM at-risk more complex than in the design-bid-build delivery method?

The procurement and selection process for Construction Manager at-risk (CM at-risk) is indeed more complex compared to the design-bid-build delivery method. This complexity arises from the different roles, responsibilities, and timelines associated with each approach.

In the CM at-risk method, the construction manager is involved early in the project, usually during the design phase. This early involvement requires a more intricate selection process since it necessitates evaluating not only the CM's capability to manage the construction but also their ability to provide valuable input during design development. The CM at-risk is responsible for managing risk in a way that is not as pronounced in the design-bid-build method, where the contractor is typically selected only after the design is fully completed.

Additionally, the selection criteria for CM at-risk often include qualitative factors such as the CM’s understanding of the project, their past performance, and their approach to collaboration, all of which demand a more nuanced evaluation process. In contrast, the design-bid-build method typically relies on a straightforward bidding process based on fixed criteria like price, which simplifies selection.

Thus, the involvement of the construction manager throughout the project lifecycle in the CM at-risk model contributes to the complexity of its procurement and selection process compared to the more linear approach of design