Why CMAR

The traditional approach to residential construction in Los Angeles follows a sequential pattern: the owner hires an architect, the architect designs the project through construction documents, the owner solicits bids from general contractors, and a contractor is selected - typically on the basis of price - to build what the architect has drawn. The contractor's first meaningful involvement with the project occurs after design decisions are complete, permits are in process, and the budget is being tested against a finished set of drawings.

On straightforward projects, this approach works well. When the site is flat, the soil conditions are predictable, the regulatory pathway is simple, and the scope is well-defined, competitive bidding among general contractors produces a fair price against a clear set of documents. The design-bid-build sequence is the most common delivery method in residential construction for a reason: on projects where the scope is knowable in advance, it produces competitive pricing and clear accountability.

On complex projects, the sequential separation of design and construction creates a structural gap. The architect designs based on the information available during design - the geotechnical report, the topographic survey, the regulatory framework as understood at the time. The contractor arrives after those decisions are documented and discovers the distance between design assumptions and construction reality. That distance is where cost overruns, schedule delays, and adversarial change order disputes originate.

This is not a failure of the architect or the contractor. It is a consequence of the delivery method's structure. The architect is designing without the benefit of someone who builds these projects evaluating constructability, equipment access, and trade coordination as the drawings develop. The contractor is pricing without having participated in the decisions that established the scope.

On hillside construction projects in Los Angeles, the gap between design assumptions and construction reality is frequently significant. Consider common conditions on complex residential sites:

A foundation system designed without assessing whether the drill rig can physically access all caisson locations from the site's available staging areas may require redesign - or expensive alternative drilling methods - once the contractor mobilizes to the site. The drill rig access question is a constructability issue, not a structural engineering issue, and it is best evaluated by someone who has positioned rigs on similar hillside sites.

A grading plan submitted to the Department of Building and Safety without first verifying that the proposed quantities comply with the Baseline Hillside Ordinance (BHO) maximum grading limits for the project's specific slope band and street classification can result in plan check corrections. On complex hillside submittals, those corrections can add months to the permit timeline - not because the plan was wrong, but because the regulatory constraint was not identified during design.

An excavation that encounters uncertified fill not identified during pre-construction geotechnical investigation can require removal and recompaction that significantly exceeds the original earthwork budget. Additional borings during pre-construction - before the budget and schedule are set - cost a fraction of what the same discovery costs during construction.

These are not unusual scenarios. They are common conditions on hillside residential projects in Pacific Palisades, Bel Air, Malibu, and Beverly Hills. The question is not whether the project team will encounter them, but when in the project timeline they are identified - and what options are available at that point to respond.

CMAR was developed to close the gap between design and construction on projects where that gap is the primary source of risk. By bringing the construction manager into the process during design, the team identifies site constraints, regulatory issues, and constructability problems when the response options are broadest and the cost to address them is lowest.

The core value of CMAR is the timing of the construction manager's involvement. During schematic design and design development, the CM contributes construction knowledge to a process that is otherwise guided entirely by design intent and engineering analysis. The result is a set of construction documents that has been evaluated - before permitting, before pricing, before the GMP is set - for how the project will actually be built on the actual site.

The CM's pre-construction contributions fall into several categories, each tied to specific outcomes during construction.

Constructability is the evaluation of whether the designed elements can be built on the specific site with available equipment, access, and methods. On hillside projects, constructability analysis during design addresses questions that significantly affect both cost and schedule.

Can the concrete pump reach all pour locations from the available street positions, or do pour joints need to be adjusted to accommodate a line pump? Can the crane service the entire building footprint from a single setup, or does the structural steel sequence need to account for crane repositioning? Can the retaining wall contractor access the rear of the site with their forming system, or does the wall need to be designed for a different construction method?

These are construction questions, not design questions. The architect is not expected to evaluate crane reach or pump placement. But when the CM evaluates them during design development, the architect can adjust details - pour joint locations, structural sequences, access provisions - while those adjustments are simple drawing changes rather than construction-phase change orders.

In a traditional delivery, the owner and architect learn what the project costs when bids come back - after design is complete. If bids exceed the budget, the team faces a difficult choice: redesign, value-engineer, or increase the budget. Any of those options adds time and cost to a process that is already months into permitting.

In CMAR, the CM models costs against the evolving design throughout schematic design and design development. As the architect develops the structural system, the CM prices it against current trade market conditions. As material selections are made, the CM validates them against the budget framework. When the design reaches a decision point - board-form concrete versus smooth trowel finish, steel moment frame versus wood shear walls - the CM provides the cost difference so the architect and owner can make an informed trade-off while the design is still fluid.

The budget develops alongside the design rather than arriving as a separate event after design is complete. By the time the GMP is established, the cost has been validated at multiple milestones against real trade pricing, and the distance between the GMP and the actual construction cost is narrow.

Los Angeles residential construction involves multiple regulatory agencies, overlapping permit requirements, and jurisdiction-specific constraints that interact with design decisions in ways that are not always apparent during design. The permitting landscape on a complex hillside project can include LADBS plan check, BHO grading review, Geology and Soils review, LAFD access compliance, coastal development permits, HOA architectural review, and haul route approvals - each with its own timeline and requirements.

The CM reviews the developing design against these regulatory frameworks during design development. BHO grading limits for the specific slope band and street classification. LAFD fire apparatus access requirements and their implications for driveway width, turning radius, and structural design of the access surface. Haul route restrictions (HCR) and their impact on earthwork sequencing and hauling windows. The goal is to identify conflicts between the design and the regulatory requirements while adjustments are straightforward - during design, not during plan check.

Complex residential projects involve multiple engineering disciplines - structural, geotechnical, civil, MEP, landscape - whose work products must align at the interfaces. Foundation bearing elevations must coordinate with the grading plan. Drainage systems must work with the landscape design. Shoring must fit within property lines and easement constraints. Waterproofing details must account for the structural movement joints.

In traditional delivery, these coordination issues are often discovered during construction through RFIs - Requests for Information - that halt work while the design team resolves conflicts. In CMAR, the CM reviews interdisciplinary interfaces during design and flags coordination gaps before the documents go to plan check. The structural engineer's foundation plan gets checked against the civil engineer's grading plan during DD, not during excavation.

A construction schedule developed after bid - based on the contractor's standard assumptions and the documents as drawn - may not account for conditions specific to the site. Hauling windows that restrict earthwork to specific hours and days of the week. Long-lead materials that need to be ordered months before the relevant scope of work begins. Seasonal constraints on concrete placement in exposed locations. Multi-agency permit sequences where one approval is a prerequisite for the next.

In CMAR, the CM builds the project schedule during pre-construction based on the actual site conditions, the actual permit sequence, and the actual procurement lead times. The schedule the owner sees at GMP reflects the project they are building, not a generic timeline adjusted for square footage.

The financial structure of CMAR is organized around the Guaranteed Maximum Price. The GMP is the ceiling on what the owner pays for the defined scope of work. If construction costs come in below the GMP, the savings are typically shared between the owner and CM according to a pre-negotiated split. If costs exceed the GMP due to the CM's estimating, trade management, or execution, the CM absorbs the overrun.

For a detailed explanation of how the GMP is developed and structured, see What is CMAR. This section addresses why the GMP structure produces better cost outcomes than alternative pricing mechanisms on complex projects.

In a lump-sum bid, the contractor provides a single price for the work based on the completed construction documents. The contractor's costs, markups, and contingency assumptions are internal - the owner sees a number but not how it was built. If the contractor's actual costs come in below the bid, the contractor keeps the difference. If the contractor discovers scope gaps or ambiguities in the documents, those become change orders - negotiations between owner and contractor over who pays for work that falls between the lines of the drawings.

On complex projects where the documents inevitably contain gaps, the lump-sum structure creates an adversarial dynamic around change orders. The contractor has a financial incentive to identify scope gaps and price them as extras. The owner has a financial incentive to argue that the work was included in the bid. The architect is caught in the middle, interpreting their own documents in a dispute between the two parties paying them.

The GMP structure changes this dynamic. The CM's costs are open-book - every trade bid, every general conditions line item, every contingency assumption is visible to the owner and architect. Scope gaps identified during construction are addressed through the construction contingency, which is documented, tracked, and reviewed jointly. The incentive alignment shifts from adversarial negotiation over individual change orders to collaborative management of a shared budget.

Cost-plus contracts, in which the owner pays the CM's actual costs plus a fee, eliminate the adversarial change order dynamic but introduce a different problem: there is no ceiling on the owner's exposure. If the project costs more than expected, the owner pays more. The CM's fee is typically a percentage of cost, which means the CM earns more when the project costs more - an incentive structure that runs directly counter to the owner's interest in cost control.

In CMAR with a GMP, the cost-plus mechanism operates within a defined ceiling. The CM is compensated on actual costs, and their fee is fixed and separately stated. But the GMP creates a cap on total owner exposure. If the CM's trade buyout comes in higher than estimated, or if the CM mismanages contingency, the CM absorbs the difference. The cost-plus transparency remains, but the owner's downside is limited.

Some contractors offer a GMP without a meaningful pre-construction process - they review the documents at a point in time, apply their estimating database, add contingency, and commit to a number. This GMP is structurally different from a CMAR GMP developed through months of pre-construction collaboration.

A GMP established after thorough pre-construction - constructability review, trade pre-qualification, regulatory analysis, site-specific scheduling - is built on verified information. The contingency reflects identified risks that have been quantified. The trade cost estimates reflect actual market conditions validated through preliminary pricing conversations with subcontractors. The scope inclusions and exclusions are detailed and reviewed by the owner and architect.

A GMP established without pre-construction is an estimate with a contract around it. The contingency is a percentage applied to cover unknowns that have not been investigated. The trade pricing reflects the estimator's database, not the current market for the specific project. The distance between that GMP and actual construction costs is wider, which means the contingency must be larger to protect the CM - and a larger contingency means either a higher GMP or less margin for the CM, neither of which serves the owner.

The pre-construction investment is a fraction of total project cost - typically 1-3% of the construction budget. Its value is measured by the construction-phase problems it identifies early, when the cost to address them is lowest. Detailed pre-construction methodology is covered on the Budget and Cost Control page.

In CMAR, contingency is divided into two distinct categories with different ownership and approval requirements.

Construction Contingency is controlled by the CM and covers scope gaps, missed items, estimating variances, and unforeseen conditions within the defined scope of work. Drawing on the construction contingency requires documentation of the condition and notification to the owner, but does not require owner approval for individual draws below a threshold amount. This contingency is the CM's risk buffer - it represents the unknowns that exist within even thoroughly documented construction drawings.

Owner Contingency is controlled by the owner and covers owner-directed changes, upgrades, and scope additions that were not part of the GMP scope. Drawing on the owner contingency requires owner approval. The owner decides what to add, change, or upgrade, and funds those decisions from a pot they control.

This separation is the mechanism through which CMAR's financial alignment becomes concrete. The CM manages construction risk within the construction contingency. The owner manages their own decisions within the owner contingency. Unspent construction contingency is typically shared back to the owner at project close. The incentives align: the CM benefits from accurate estimating and efficient execution because unspent contingency flows back to the project; the owner benefits from cost discipline because the GMP caps their exposure.

One of the most common alternatives for complex residential projects is engaging an advisory construction manager or owner's representative alongside a general contractor. In that structure, the advisory CM provides oversight, budget review, schedule monitoring, and owner advocacy, while a separate general contractor holds the construction contract with the owner. The advisory CM does not hold the construction contract and does not carry cost risk through a GMP.

The advisory CM model serves a specific and legitimate function. On projects where the owner wants an independent advocate who is not also the builder - someone whose only role is to represent the owner's interests in budget, schedule, and quality decisions - an advisory CM provides that independence. The advisory CM reviews the GC's pricing, monitors their schedule performance, inspects quality on the owner's behalf, and reports to the owner with no conflict of interest.

In CMAR, the advisory and construction execution functions exist under one contract. The CM provides cost intelligence during design, commits to a GMP, and executes the work. The owner engages one entity rather than two, and the CM's cost guidance is backed by the same firm's competitive trade pricing.

The distinction matters on complex projects where the coordination between pre-construction intelligence and construction execution is the primary challenge. When the CM who provided the constructability analysis during design is the same CM executing the work, the continuity of knowledge is preserved. The trade relationships developed during pre-construction pricing carry into construction. The site logistics evaluated during design development inform the construction plan. There is no handoff between the firm that planned the project and the firm that builds it.

Both models have legitimate applications. On projects where the owner's primary concern is personal advocacy separate from the builder, or where the project scope is straightforward enough that the value of consolidation is less significant, advisory CM works well. On complex projects where the gap between design intelligence and construction execution is the central risk, CMAR consolidates those functions under one contract and one accountability structure.

For a detailed comparison of the two approaches, see the CM at Risk vs. Advisor page.

The architect is the independent check and balance in the CMAR structure. The architect holds a separate contract with the owner, provides independent design oversight, reviews construction quality against the design intent, and carries professional liability for the adequacy of the design. This independence is preserved in CMAR because the architect and CM are peers reporting to the same owner - not one working under the other.

This is a structural advantage of CMAR over design-build. In design-build, the architect works for the contractor, and the owner loses the independent design advocacy that a separately contracted architect provides. In CMAR, the architect's independence is maintained while the benefits of early construction involvement are added.

One of the most common frustrations in residential construction is the budget surprise at bid. The architect designs a project the owner loves, the drawings go to bid, and the numbers come back 30-40% over budget. The owner is disappointed. The architect is embarrassed. The project either gets value-engineered into something the owner did not intend, or the budget gets increased beyond what the owner planned, or the project stalls.

With early CM involvement, cost reality is integrated into the design process from the start. The architect gets real-time feedback on what things cost as design decisions are made. Trade-offs happen collaboratively: the board-form concrete is significantly more per square foot than a smooth trowel finish - the architect and owner can decide together where that investment has the most impact on the design. The steel moment frame costs more than a wood shear wall system, but it opens up the floor plan in ways that support the design intent - so the team evaluates whether the additional cost is justified by the architectural benefit.

The design that gets permitted and built is the design the architect intended, because the budget was validated as it developed rather than tested after it was complete.

The CM catches constructability issues during design development before they become RFIs during construction. When the CM reviews the structural drawings and identifies that the specified concrete pour sequence does not account for the pump reach limitations on the site, the structural engineer can adjust pour joint locations in the drawings. When the CM identifies that the curtain wall system the architect specified requires a crane setup that conflicts with the LAFD access road, the team can resolve the conflict during DD rather than during framing.

Constructability review during design development means the drawings the trades build from have already been evaluated for field conditions, equipment access, and trade coordination. The result is fewer RFIs, fewer change orders, and fewer field conditions that force the design to be modified after it has been permitted.

From the architect's perspective, early CM involvement means the design survives construction. The budget supports the vision because cost intelligence was part of the design conversation from the beginning. The drawings are more buildable because they have been reviewed for constructability before they go to plan check. The construction process respects the design intent because the builder who evaluated the drawings during design is the same builder executing the work.

For architects working on their first complex hillside project in Los Angeles, the CM's knowledge of site-specific construction conditions - drill rig access, haul route restrictions, BHO grading compliance, LAFD fire access requirements - is particularly valuable. These are not conditions the architect is expected to know from experience. They are construction and regulatory conditions that the CM brings to the design table.

For a detailed breakdown of how architect and CM responsibilities divide across project phases in CMAR, see the Architect's Role page.

CMAR offers schedule advantages that are structural to the delivery method, not dependent on any particular contractor's efficiency. They result from the overlapping of pre-construction and design activities that in traditional delivery happen sequentially.

In traditional delivery, construction cannot begin until design is complete, bids are received, a contractor is selected, and a contract is executed. In CMAR, early work packages can proceed before the full GMP is established. Site clearing, shoring, foundation work, and long-lead procurement can begin under early release packages while the architect continues developing the balance of the construction documents.

On complex hillside projects, the site work alone - clearing, grading, shoring, foundation - can represent six months or more of construction activity. Beginning that work while the interior design and finish selections are still being finalized compresses the overall project timeline without rushing design decisions.

During pre-construction, the CM is conducting multiple workstreams in parallel with the architect's design effort. Trade pre-qualification identifies the subcontractor pool for each major scope before bidding begins. Early permit applications - grading permits, shoring permits, demolition permits - are filed while design development continues on the building permit. Long-lead materials - structural steel, custom window systems, imported stone - are identified and procurement initiated months before the relevant scope of work begins on site.

In traditional delivery, none of this work happens until the design is complete and the contractor is on board. Every week of pre-construction parallel processing is a week recovered from the overall project timeline.

A construction schedule built during pre-construction reflects the actual conditions the project will face. The CM builds the schedule around actual hauling windows - specific days and hours when earthwork trucks can access the site under the approved haul route. The schedule accounts for actual permit processing timelines based on current LADBS and DBS review loads. Long-lead procurement is sequenced against actual vendor lead times confirmed through pre-construction outreach.

The result is a schedule the owner can rely on for planning purposes - financing, move-in dates, lease expirations, school year transitions - because it was built from verified information rather than standard duration assumptions.

Every construction project involves risk - the question is how that risk is allocated among the parties. Different delivery methods allocate risk differently, and understanding the allocation is essential to choosing the right method for a given project.

In CMAR, the CM carries cost overrun risk above the GMP for the defined scope of work. If trade buyout exceeds the CM's estimates, the CM absorbs the difference. If productivity is lower than planned, the CM manages within the budget. This is the "at risk" in Construction Manager at Risk.

In cost-plus delivery, the owner carries all cost risk. There is no ceiling. If the project costs more, the owner pays more.

In lump-sum delivery, the contractor carries cost risk for the defined scope, but shifts risk back to the owner through change orders when the documents are ambiguous or incomplete - which on complex residential projects, they inevitably are.

The architect carries professional liability for the adequacy of the design in CMAR, just as in any delivery method where the architect holds a separate contract with the owner. CMAR does not change the architect's standard of care or professional responsibility. What it does is reduce the likelihood that design issues create construction-phase problems, because the CM's constructability review identifies many of those issues during design, when they are least expensive to resolve.

Schedule risk in CMAR is shared between owner and CM based on what each party controls. The CM is responsible for construction execution within the schedule - trade coordination, sequencing, productivity management. The owner is responsible for timely decisions on selections, change orders, and scope modifications. Weather, concealed conditions, and force majeure events are typically shared risks governed by the contract terms.

On complex sites, unknown conditions below grade represent a significant risk category. In traditional delivery, this risk typically falls on the owner through change orders - the contractor bids what the documents show, and anything different is an extra.

In CMAR, the pre-construction process is specifically designed to investigate and quantify site condition risk before the GMP is set. Additional borings, test pits, utility locates, hazardous materials surveys - these investigations happen during pre-construction so the GMP reflects the actual conditions rather than assumptions. Risks that can be quantified are included in the GMP. Risks that cannot be fully quantified are addressed through contingency allocations that are transparent to the owner.

Open-book accounting is a defining characteristic of CMAR, and it changes the project dynamic in ways that go beyond financial reporting.

In CMAR, every trade bid is shared with the owner and architect. The CM's fee is visible and separately stated. General conditions - the CM's on-site staff, equipment, facilities, insurance, and project management costs - are itemized. Contingency is tracked, and draws are documented with the condition that triggered them. The owner and architect can see where every dollar goes.

This transparency is not just a financial reporting mechanism. It is the foundation of the three-party check-and-balance structure that makes CMAR work on complex projects. The architect evaluates quality and design compliance. The CM manages cost and schedule. The owner makes decisions with both perspectives visible. When the architect recommends a more expensive finish detail, the owner can see the cost impact in real time and make an informed decision. When the CM identifies a value engineering opportunity, the architect can evaluate whether the substitution maintains design intent. The open book makes these conversations possible because all three parties are working from the same information.

The contrast with lump-sum delivery is significant. In a lump-sum contract, the contractor's internal costs are not visible. The owner cannot evaluate whether a change order price is fair because they cannot see the underlying trade costs. The architect cannot assess whether value engineering proposals maintain design intent because the cost basis is opaque. Disputes arise not from bad faith but from information asymmetry - the contractor knows what things cost, and the owner does not.

Open-book transparency does not eliminate all disagreements. Reasonable people can disagree about scope interpretation, contingency draws, and general conditions allocations. But the disagreements happen with full information on both sides, which means they are resolved through informed discussion rather than positional negotiation.

The following scenarios illustrate how pre-construction CM involvement changes the trajectory of a project. These are drawn from common conditions on residential construction projects in Los Angeles, framed to show what the CM identifies during design and how the team responds.

CMAR is one of several delivery methods available for residential construction projects. Choosing the right delivery method depends on the project's complexity, the owner's priorities, and the conditions specific to the site and scope. There is no universally superior method - each is suited to different project types.

The primary delivery methods used in residential construction are design-bid-build (the traditional sequential approach), design-build (where one entity provides both design and construction), and CMAR (where the CM provides pre-construction services during design and then executes the construction under a GMP). Advisory construction management, in which an independent CM advises the owner while a separate GC builds, is also common on high-value projects.

The factors that typically guide the selection of a delivery method include the complexity of the site and scope, the owner's tolerance for cost uncertainty, the importance of schedule compression, the degree to which the owner wants independent design advocacy (separate architect), and the owner's comfort level with construction management.

On projects where the site is straightforward, the scope is well-defined, and competitive pricing is the owner's primary objective, design-bid-build produces competitive results. The owner benefits from multiple GCs bidding against a complete set of documents.

On projects where speed is the dominant concern and the owner is comfortable consolidating design and construction accountability under one entity, design-build can compress the timeline by eliminating the gap between design completion and construction start. The trade-off is the loss of independent architectural advocacy - the architect works for the design-builder, not the owner.

On projects where complexity is the dominant factor - hillside sites, fire rebuilds in geotechnically challenging areas, major structural renovations, projects with significant regulatory constraints - CMAR addresses the specific risks that complexity creates. Pre-construction investigation reduces unknowns. Constructability review reduces field conflicts. Real-time cost validation reduces budget surprises. The GMP caps the owner's cost exposure. And the architect maintains independence through a separate contract with the owner.

The delivery method comparison is covered in detail on the Delivery Methods Compared page.

Hillside new construction. Site complexity, geotechnical uncertainty, equipment access constraints, BHO grading limits, LAFD fire access requirements, multi-agency permitting sequences, and long construction timelines all create conditions where early CM involvement changes outcomes. The foundation alone on a complex hillside site can involve half a dozen coordination interfaces between structural, geotechnical, civil, and shoring disciplines.

Fire rebuilds in PGRAZ zones. Post-fire sites introduce geotechnical unknowns - fire-damaged soils, loss of root structure on slopes, potential debris flow exposure - on accelerated timelines. Owners rebuilding after a fire face simultaneous pressure to move quickly and to build on sites that may have changed materially from the conditions documented in pre-fire reports. Early CM involvement helps sequence the investigation, design, and construction to move as quickly as conditions allow without skipping steps that protect the owner.

Major renovations with structural implications. Existing conditions in a renovation are unknown until the building is opened up. Concealed framing conditions, undocumented prior modifications, water damage extent, foundation adequacy - these are discovered during construction in traditional delivery. In CMAR, the pre-construction process includes selective demolition, investigative openings, and testing to characterize existing conditions before the GMP is set. The renovation scope is based on what the team actually found, not what the exterior suggested.

Complex remediation and structural repair. Failing retaining walls, foundation settlement, water intrusion damage, and structural deficiencies require coordination between the structural engineer, geotechnical engineer, and contractor to develop a repair approach that addresses the root cause, not just the symptoms. The CM's involvement during the repair design ensures the approach is constructable, the access logistics are resolved, and the scope is fully defined before the GMP commits the budget.

Projects over $3M where pre-construction investment is proportionally small relative to risk. On a $5M hillside project, a pre-construction fee of $50,000-$100,000 represents 1-2% of the construction budget. The value of that investment is measured against the potential cost of the conditions it identifies: a foundation redesign that could cost $200,000, a grading compliance issue that could delay the permit by four months, or a constructability problem that could require $150,000 in field modifications.

Owners who value transparency and want to understand where their construction dollars go are well-served by the open-book structure. Owners who want active participation in trade selection, value engineering decisions, and scope management find that CMAR provides the visibility to engage meaningfully. Owners building their first complex project benefit from the CM's guidance through decisions they have not made before.

Architects working on complex residential projects - particularly those working on their first hillside project in Los Angeles, or architects whose practices are primarily focused on design quality rather than construction administration - benefit from the CM's constructability and cost feedback during design. The CM does not replace the architect's judgment; the CM provides construction information that makes the architect's judgment more informed.

CMAR is not the right delivery method for every project. On straightforward flat-lot remodels, kitchen and bath renovations, and projects under $1M where the scope is clear and the site conditions are predictable, the pre-construction investment is disproportionate to the risk. Competitive bidding among qualified general contractors on a well-documented set of plans produces a fair price and clear accountability.

Owners who have a trusted general contractor with a track record on projects of similar complexity - and who are comfortable with lump-sum or negotiated cost-plus delivery - may not need the structure of CMAR. The delivery method adds value in proportion to the project's complexity and the owner's need for cost certainty and transparency.