Juvenile Secure Housing Project Delivered Through CMAR
By Brooke Martin, Bruce Omtvedt and Corey Lapworth
Since 2018, Dewberry has worked with architecture firm Continuum Architects + Planners, construction company Gilbane, and client Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, to plan for and design a new secure residential care center for children and youth (SRCCCY). The project was delivered using construction manager at risk, or CMAR, and is a result of new legislation that requires an alternative sentencing path for justice-involved youth in various counties or tribal nations of Wisconsin. Per Wisconsin legislature, a youth would be placed at a SRCCCY if “the juvenile has been found to be delinquent for the commission of an act that would be punishable by a sentence of 6 months or more if committed by an adult” or “the juvenile has been found to be a danger to the public and to be in need of restrictive custodial treatment.”
Wisconsin Act 185 requires the Department of Corrections (DOC) to disseminate both emergency and permanent administrative rules governing SRCCCYs to create minimum standards for the design, construction, maintenance, operation, and services, as well as programs for youth within these facilities.
For the design and construction of a SRCCCY facility through completion there were several delivery methods to consider. The team and client needed to research which contractual delivery methods were established and approved within Wisconsin and Milwaukee County’s legislation and determine the desired procurement process. Delivery methods considered:
- Traditional Design-Bid-Build: Historically, this is the most typical delivery method, where the owner selects the architect/engineer (A/E). The A/E design team completes project design, construction documents and specifications are put out for bid, bidders send their proposals, a contractor is selected by the owner, work is contracted, and construction starts.
- Traditional Design-Build (TDB): The Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA) defines this method as a, “single contract for both design and construction” … and “more than a sole-source contract. It is as much a mindset as it is a process. It is intended to be a highly collaborative, fully integrated undertaking that is built on trust, mutual respect, teamwork, innovation and creative problem solving. Design-build works best when everybody makes the mental shift to think and act as a single entity focused on achieving shared project goals.” This method is typically a phased approach with design criteria first and a design-build team second. The owner has a single contract with the architects, engineers, and contractor in both phases.
- Progressive Design-Build (PDB): Although this is a newer process and still being defined, it follows the traditional design-build method, but is a qualifications-based procurement process. The owner issues a request for qualifications and awards a design-build contractor to review and track the design and budget. A final GMP is not reached until the end of design, but preliminary GMP milestones are tracked through the design process.
- Construction Manager – Agency (CMa): In this method, the owner hires the construction manager (CM) to act as an owner’s representative. The owner contracts with each trade, remaining involved in the project but with higher risk, as that risk is the responsibility of the owner and not the CM. In this method, the CM is not responsible for maintaining a guaranteed maximum price (GMP), managing the construction, or making sure the schedule is met. The CM – Agency role is mostly advisory to the owner during a traditional design-bid-build method; or is used with multiple prime contracts or very complex projects where a GMP cannot be established.
- Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR or CMr): The owner hires the CM to manage the project scope, schedule, and budget, from the design kickoff to construction close-out and warranty walkthroughs. The owner holds separate coordinated contracts directly with their Architect (AE) and their CMAR, with obligations for a coordinated AE/CM team execution of the project. The CM is responsible, (contractually obligated as the “constructor”) for meeting the GMP.
Selecting CMAR to meet budget and schedule requirements
Since the SRCCCY project required adherence to a strict budget and a condensed schedule, CMAR was the selected project delivery method. Using CMAR would also reduce budgetary risks and offer cost certainty for the owner, while also supporting value engineering of the project to keep the budget within the GMP. This relationship and structure allow the owner, CM, and design team to have an early integration approach. Benefits of such include project risk reduction, project timeline and procurement needs identification, limited cost overruns, and general team synchronization leading to speed to delivery. In order to use this project delivery method, the state or county legislatures must also allow for CMAR processes and project delivery prior to a project start. In the case of Milwaukee SRCCCY, the county made legislative provisions for this delivery method to be used.
This project development path from 2018-2024 required significant effort to respond to the unprecedented “historic reset” of construction material and trade labor costs dramatically affecting the secure environment construction markets. The chosen CMAR project delivery method provided the AE/CM team collaboration required to navigate these changes, adjust the project scope, and realign operational parties with available funding. First, the design team developed an owner’s project requirements (OPR) document as a baseline and conducted a feasibility analysis at the existing Milwaukee County Vel Phillips Juvenile Justice Center. From there, the AE/CM team completed programming, conceptual plans, schematic design through construction documents, selected furniture and equipment, and delivered milestone estimates along with a final estimate. This integrative process allowed the team to proceed with the design of a new 32-bed SRCCCY facility at a pace that meets the county’s vision, the new state legislative requirements, and awarded funding.
Delivering a project to meet the needs of Wisconsin’s youth
The County’s vision is to “establish a safe, positive, sustainable, and developmentally appropriate treatment environment for youth committed to the county under Wisconsin Statute Section 938.34(4m) that promotes accountability, protects the community, reduces recidivism, and returns youth to our community with the skills needed to become successful and productive citizens.” The design team’s approach combined the secure and safe aspects of a correctional youth detention facility with the warm, comfortable, open, and uplifting aspects of an educational/residential facility, creating a unique learning environment. The exterior blends into the existing regional surrounding, resembling a school, while the interior design integrates a trauma-informed approach of safe, yet normative finishes and correctional-grade furniture. The addition includes primary programmatic areas: living units, medical clinic, mental health clinic, culinary arts kitchen, dining, visitation, educational classrooms, and secure courtyards.
The final design was bid out to subcontractors by the CM as a new 32-bed SRCCCY that is both a new addition to and a limited renovation of the existing Vel. R. Philips Juvenile Justice Center. The project is currently starting construction following a July groundbreaking.
Brooke Martin, AIA, CCHP, NCARB, LEED GA, is an associate and justice architect at Dewberry. bmartin@dweberry.com
Bruce Omtvedt, AIA, is an associate principal and justice market segment leader at Dewberry. bomtvedt@dewberry.com
Corey Lapworth, AIA, NCARB, CDT is a Principal and Project Manager at Continuum Architects + Planners. corey.lapworth@continuumarchitects.com
Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in the July/August 2024 issue of Correctional News.
