Project Delivery Method. This Contract presumes that the construction of the Project shall be procured by using the Design-Bid-Build method with a single bid package.
Project Delivery Method. This Contract presumes that the construction of the Project shall be procured by using the construction management method specified as CM/GC with a multiple component packages.
Project Delivery Method. Select One Competitive Sealed Proposal or Construction Manager at Risk The Owner and the Project Architect agree as follows: This form of agreement is for Architectural services on projects that use an Owner/Architect/Contractor- CM delivery method (e.g. Competitive Sealed Proposal or Construction Manager at Risk). It has been prepared by the Office of General Counsel for the University of Texas System for use on U.T. System projects and its legal terms should not be altered without the approval of the Office of General Counsel. Use this form for all appropriate U.T. System projects after April 1, 2005. TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE
Project Delivery Method. After due consideration, the City has determined that it is in the public interest to pursue the public private partnership reflected by this Agreement for the delivery of the Project rather than to pursue a design- build method of delivery for the Parking Facility. Accordingly, nothing within this Agreement should be construed as creating a design-build relationship between the Developer and the City.
Project Delivery Method. The Department intends to implement the construction of the Project through a design-bid-build delivery method. The Department will engage a general contractor based on the completed construction documents. The A/E will work directly for the Department by supporting design oversight and implementation throughout the design and construction phases.
Project Delivery Method. The Department intends to implement the construction of the Project through a XXXX delivery method. The Department will engage a XXXX contractor (“Contractor”) who will coordinate with the selected A/E to ensure that the design developed by the A/E is consistent with the Department’s budget and schedule for the Project. The Department envisions that a permit set of construction documents shall be completed, at which point the XXXX will provide a GMP based upon the approved permit documents. It is contemplated that then Project’s GMP will be finalized in sixty (60) weeks after the A/E is engaged. The A/E will work directly for the Department by supporting design oversight and implementation throughout the design and construction phases. The A/E understands it may be required to prepare multiple bid packages, which may include, but is not necessarily limited to (i) a foundation-to-grade/excavation package; (ii) a hazardous materials abatement package; and (iii) an interior demolition package. The A/E further acknowledges that its pricing includes sufficient funding to accommodate the division of the work into multiple packages and to address the coordination issues associated with such a delivery method as well as to meet the milestone schedule outlined in Section 1.7.
Project Delivery Method. Construction Manager at Risk The Owner and the Project Architect agree as follows: This form of agreement is for Architectural services on projects that use a Owner/Architect/Contractor- CM delivery method (e.g. Competitive Sealed Proposal or Construction Manager at Risk). It has been prepared by the Office of General Counsel for the University of Texas System for use on U.T. System projects and its legal terms should not be altered without the approval of the Office of General Counsel. Use this form for all appropriate U.T. System projects after April 1, 2005.
Project Delivery Method. Competitive Sealed Proposal The Owner and the Project Engineer agree as follows: TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE
Project Delivery Method. 1.4.1 The planned Project delivery method is construction manager at risk. It is anticipated that a Construction Manager at Risk will be selected during the Schematic Design phase to perform preconstruction services in an effort to assist the project team in meeting the project goals with respect to schedule, constructability, and budget.
Project Delivery Method. MTC believes that, in order to meet the deadlines for the Project, design-build procurement is the most suitable delivery method. MTC intends, upon authorization by its Board of Directors, to submit an application for approval by the Massachusetts Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) for use of design-build procurement. It expects to submit this application in early October. If approved by the OIG, MTC expects to begin the RFQ/RFP procurement process promptly, in the November-December 2010 time frame. Work necessary to complete the environmental assessment has been procured separately but must be coordinated with the work of other vendors. Network Route The proposed middle mile fiber optic network provides a number of resilient rings, carefully routed to maximize use of existing communications aerial rights-of-way. Two maps of the proposed network route follow this narrative. MTC is negotiating Route Facility Agreements with three major pole owners as well as several municipal electric utilities and others for access to their poles and other Route Facilities. Likely Route Facility Owners include: Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, National Grid, Verizon Communications, Western Massachusetts Electric Company, UNITIL, 11 municipal electric utilities in cities and towns along the route, approximately 8 private property owners and 123 cities and towns through which the route will pass. Before fiber can be attached, data will be collected regarding each proposed attachment location by a Field Data Collector. Based on the results of that data, the Route Facility Owners and MTC will identify any make-ready work to be performed before attachment of MTC’s fiber. Contractors performing make-ready work may be working under a combination of contracts with Route Facility Owners, MTC, or the design-builder MTC engages for installation. Similar procedures will likely be required for other anchor facilities. As currently designed, the network includes high strand counts and slack loops spaced frequently throughout the network to facilitate easy expansion and interconnection. The network will provide diverse routing to multiple Internet Points of Presence (“POPs”) sufficient to meet requirements of high availability for public safety. The primary in-region POP is located at One Federal St. in Springfield, the primary carrier-neutral hotel for western Massachusetts housing several ISPs, CLECs, and IXCs. That location will serve as the network’s core Int...
