Key Biscayne Master Plan 043944000.18w_Key_Biscayne_MP(forJooMag) | Page 76
VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES — MASTER PLAN
complexities based on the land use that is contained in each
phase, and
priorities set by the Villages other Capital Improvement projects.
The types of land uses in the Village generally consist of multi-family
residential, mixed use commercial and residential, and single family
residential.
Understanding the level of complexity existing in any given phase can
aid in the project delivery selection process. By grouping the land use
classification, the diversity of major work elements contained in each
phase, and the anticipated community impacts involved in working in
any given phase area, this level of complexity can be more easily seen.
Community impacts include a combination of factors such as impact to
private property owners, traffic impacts, sufficient right-of-way to perform
the construction operations (or lack thereof), impacts related to other
infrastructure work beyond undergrounding to be performed, and the level
of stakeholder coordination required to execute the work. The table below
summarizes this information.
Project
Area
Land Use
Major Work Elements
Community
Impacts
Phase 1 Mixed Use Commercial /
Single and Multi-Family
Residential Undergrounding, Village
Communications, Street
Lighting, Stormwater High
Phase 2 Mixed Use Commercial /
Single and Multi-Family
Residential Undergrounding, Village
Communications, Street
Lighting, Stormwater,
Watermain Replacement Very High
Phase 3 Mixed Use Commercial /
Single and Multi-Family
Residential Undergrounding, Village
Communications, Street
Lighting, Stormwater,
Watermain Replacement Very High
Phase 4 Single-Family Residential Undergrounding, Village
Communications, Street
Lighting, Watermain
Replacement High
It is notable the major work elements described in the table are those
anticipated to be constructed in conjunction with the undergrounding
project by the contractor selected for each phase. Most projects are
unfunded at this time and involve outside stakeholder participation.
72
7.5
Project Delivery Recommendations
The Village’s undergrounding program is a very large and complex
infrastructure program that will be implemented in a phased manner over
four to six years. In developing recommendations for project delivery
methods for each of those phases, the risks to cost, schedule, and level
of service expectations must carefully be considered. Each key factor
identified in the opening of this chapter must be reviewed for their risk
impacts for each of the project delivery methods. If any single phase falters
in any of those three risk areas, the remaining phases of the program will
be detrimentally affected. For this reason, the project delivery method
must balance those risks with cost, while yielding the highest probability of
project success.
It is our opinion the CMAR method of project delivery yields the highest
probability of success for delivering the multiple phases of the Village’s
Undergrounding Program. This is a method approved for use by the
Village. The following sections reinforce this opinion based on the three
areas of risk; cost, schedule, and level of service.
Cost
The Village has placed a high priority on cost. It may be the deciding
factor as to whether this project moves forward or not. We understand
the question may arise whether using a CMAR will raise or lower the cost
of the project. Having a very cost conscious group involved during the
design process might lower the total cost of the project. However, by
shifting the cost guarantee burden onto the CMAR, a case can be made
that the actual savings may be less than promised if the CMAR is too
conservative and risk-averse. There are studies that indicate a substantial
savings in cost growth (fewer change orders) through use of CMAR, but
no reliable information on comparative initial cost for similar infrastructure
projects. This is mostly due to owners not building the exact same project
twice under different delivery methods. While the cost savings potential
exists, there is no guarantee it will cost more or less than any other
delivery system.
The CMAR project delivery method requires the least number of owner
employees to manage the process because the CMAR can expand to
meet the owner’s staffing needs. While not reflected in the GMP, the