Ge n. 65] 65
P ROCURE M EN T
W HE T HE R S T A T E A G ENCIE S M AY U SE T HE “C ONS T RU CT I ON M ANAGER AT R I SK ” P ROJECT D E L I VERY M E T HOD U NDER THE S TATE P ROCUREM ENT L AW

J ul y13, 2007
Br u c e A. M

y e rs , CPA Legis l at i ve Audi t or D epar tm ent

of Legis l at i ve Se r vi ces
Y ou have r eques t ed ouropi ni on w h et herSt at e age nci es m ay u se a m e th o d k n o w n a s “ C o n stru c tio n m a n a g e r a t r isk ” (“ C M R ” ) to carr y out a construct i on pr oj ect

. Y ou des cr i be t he C M R m et hod as comm enci ng w i t h a St at e agenc y ’ s pr ocur ement of a const ruct i on m anage rbya compet i t i ve pr oces s
. T he construct i on m anage r i s t hen r es pons i bl e fo rw or ki ng i n conj unct i on w i t h t he ar chi t ecton t he des i gn, pr ovi di ng a “guar ant eed m axi m um pr i ce” for cons t ruct i on of t he pr oj ect– acc ept i ng t he r i s k t hat the co stof t he pr oj ectm ay exce ed t hatpr i ce – an d pr ocur i ng t he ac tual cons t ruct i on of t he p rojec t. Y o u q u e st io n w h e th e r th e C M R m e th o d , w h ich g e n e ra lly i nvol ves a compet i t i ve pr ocur ement pr oces s fort he construct i on m anage ronl y at t he i ni t i al phas e, i m pr oper l y avoi ds r equi r ement s of t he St at e Pr ocur ement L aw i nt ended t o fos t ercompet i t i on.
I n our opi ni on, St at e l aw does not pr ohi bi t t he us e of C M R as a p rojec t d e liv e rym e th o d , p ro v id e d (a ) th e c o n stru c tio n m a n a g e r is s e l e c t e d b yo n e o f

t h e me a n s a u t h o r i z e d b yt h e P r o c u r e me n tL a w, such as com peti t i ve seal ed b i dd i ng or com peti t i ve seal ed p roposal s, orbyt he appr oved pol i ci es and pr ocedur es of age nci es nots ubj ect t o t he Pr ocur ement L aw , and ( b) t he agenc y compl i es w i th any app l i cable r egu l at i on s and dir ect i ves of t he B oard of P ub l i c W orks. T he mer i t s of C M R w i t h r es pect t o a par t i cul arcons t ruct i on pr oj ect w i l l depend on how w el l t he proc ur ement i s s t ructur ed t o pr ovi de t he w i nni ng cons t ruct i on m anage r w i t h i ncent i ves t o l i m i tt he cos tof t he p rojec t w hi l e del i ver i ng i ti n a t i m el ym anner
. T he G ener al A ss e m b lyh a s d e leg a ted to th e B o a rd o f P u b lic W o rk s th e a u th o rity to se t po li cyu n d er the P roc u rem en t L aw
. Itis th e ro le of the B o ard t o deci de w het hert he use of C M R as a pr oj ectdel i ver ym et hod i n a p a rticu lar c a se is s tru c tu re d to b e a d v a n tag e o u s to th e S tate a n d in acc or dance w i t h t he gene r al purpos es of t he Pr ocur ement L aw
. T he B oar d m ay w i s h t o cons i deradopt i ng r egul at i ons orpol i ci es t o gui de agen ci es i n st ructuri ng C M R con t ract s t o m eet t hese go al s.66 [92 Op. Att’y

For purposes of th i s opinion, we nee d not survey other de livery 1 methods such as multip l e- prime contra cting , design-build, and ag ency manag ement ser

vices. See, e .g., Modern Re al Estate Transa ct i o n s : An Ove rv ie w of

Arc hite c t an d Cons tru c tio n Co ntrac ts , ALI -AB A Continuing L eg al Education (2006), SM 002 AL I -AB A 663. I Backg r ound
A
. P r oj ect

D eli ver y Met hod v. Source Selecti on Met hod
I ti s i m por t antt o di s t i ngui s h bet w een a pr oj ectd el i ver ym et hod a n d a s o u r c e s e l e c t i o n me t h o d , a l t h o u g h t h e r e i s i n e v i t a b l ys o me over l ap i n t he t w o conce pt s
. “Pr oj ect del i ver y ” denot es t he met hod byw hi ch t he des i gn, cons t ruct i on, fi nance , r i s k m anage m en t, and ot h er el ement s of a c ons t ruct i on pr oj ectar e combi ned t o carr yout t he pr oj ect

. 1 B runer& O ’ C onnor , C ons t ruct i on L aw §2: 10 ( M ay 2006)

. “Sour ce se l ect i on” denot es t he met hod byw hi ch t he ent i t i es orcont r act or s t hatcarr youtt he var i ous s t ages oras pect s of t he pr oj ectar e s el ect ed. T he pr oj ect d el i ver ym et hod m ayaff ecthow a n d w h e n c o n tra c to rs a re se lec ted f o r dif f e re n t a sp e c ts o f

th e p rojec t; h e n c e , th e tw o c o n c e p ts are n o t e n tirely d istin c t. A sta tu te p re sc rib in g sp e c if

ic m e th o d s o f so u rc e se lec tio n f o r p u b lic c o n tra c ts m ig h t p re c lu d e c e rt a in p roje c t d e liv e ry m e th o d s
. I d.
B
. C on struction Man ag er at R isk
“C o n stru cti o n m an ag er at ri sk ” (“C M R ”) is a p rojec t delivery m et hod t hati s us ed bypr i vat e and publ i c ent i t i es t o ca rr yout cons t ruct i on pr oj ect s
. C M R m aybe contr as t ed w i t h a t r adi t i onal del i v e r y me t h o d o f

t e n r e f e r r e d t o a s “ d e s i g n - b i d

- b u i l d

. ” I n t he 1 des ign- bi d- bui l d m et hod, t he ow nerengage s an ar chi t ectur al and engi neer i ng fi r m t o pr epar e a des i gn of t he fac i l it y , incl udi ng cons t ruct i on dr aw i ngs , s peci fi cat i ons , and contr act p acka ges
. T he compl et ed des i gn packa ge i s l etoutforbi d t o i nt er es t ed gene r al cont r act or s , w i t h s el ect i on t ypi cal l y bas ed on pr i ce – i

. e. , the low est bi ddert ypi cal l yw i ns t he cont r act

. E ach c ont r act orbas es i t s pr i ce on c o n tr a c ts it h a s n e g o tia te d w ith s p e c ia lty su b c o n t ra c to rs
. See 1 B run er & O ’ C onnor , C ons t ruct i on L aw §2: 11 ( M ay2006)

. T he g e neral con t ract or, w ho had no rol e du ri ng t he desi gn ph a se , is r es pons i ble f

o rcons t ruct i ng t he fa ci l i t yi n acc or dance w i t h t he des i gn. O nce the des i gn phas e ends and cons t ruct i on beg ins, t heGe n. 65] 67
des i gn fi r m ’s r ol e i s us ual l yl i m i t ed t o r es pondi ng t o des i gn q u e s tio n s o n b e h a lf

o f th e o w n e r.
T he per cei ved adva nt ages o f desi gn- bi d- bui l d ar e t hatt he des i gn i s compl et ed bef or e cons t ruct i on phas e i s pr i ced, and t hatt he con st ruct i on ph ase c an t hu s be bid si m plyon t he b asi s of t he low est p ri c e
. I d. T his m et ho d i s al so i den t i fi ed w i t h cert ai n d i sadvan t ages: beca us e t he contr act or does not par t i ci pat e i n t he des i gn phas e, t he proj ect l oses t he b enef

i t of the con t ract or’ s pers pecti ve o n m at eri al s, c o n stru c tio n f

e a sib ili ty , an d c o n tro l o f p roje c t c o sts (p o ten tially r es ul t i ng i n change or der s t hatm ayadd t o t he pr i ce) ; t he pr oces s can be s l ow an d cumber s om e; t he compet i t i ve bi ddi ng pr oces s fort he cons t ruct i on phas e mayencour age bi dding t o m i ni m um s p e c if ic a tio n s
. I

d.
In th e C M R m e th o d , a c o n stru c tio n m a n a g e r a c ts a s b o th pr oj ectcoor di nat ordur i ng t he des i gn phas e and also as gener al cont r act or , w i t h t he s ame r i s k i n t he l att er capa ci t yas a gene r al c o n tr a c to r. S e e , e

. g

. , Mo d e r n Re a lEs t at e T r a n s a c t i o n s : An O v e rv iew o

f A rc h itec t a n d

C o n str u c tio n C o n tra c ts , ALI

- ABA C ont i nu ing L egal E ducat i on ( 2006) , SM 002 A L I

- A B A 663. C o n s tr u c tio n m a yb e g in b e f o re th e d e s ig n p h a s e is c o m p le te d

. T he ow nerof t he pr oj ectengage s t he c o n struct i on m anage r d u rin g th e d e sig n p h a se o f th e p rojec t. T h e c o n stru c tio n m a n a g e r is oft en ch o s e n , a t l e a s t i n p a r t , o n t h e b a s i s o f q u a l i f i c a t i o n s as oppo sed t o pr i ce a l one, and ac t s as a mem berof a c ol l abor at i ve des i gn t eam, pr ovi di ng pr e- cons truct i on s er vi ces s uch as s chedul e, budget , and cons t ruct i on r evi ew s
. T he cons t ruct i on m an ag er m ay as s i s tt he ow nerof t he pr oj ect i n det er m i ni ng w het her t he des i gn can be bui l tw i t hi n t he ow ner ’ s budget ; i f not , t he di r ect i on of t he des i gn w or k can be change d.
A t s om e poi ntdur i ng t he pr oces s , t he cons t ruct i on m anage r a n d o w ner neg oti at e a gu arant eed m axim um pri ce (G M P ) forb o th th e c o n str u c tio n m a n a g e m e n t se rv ice s a n d th e c o n stru c tio n itse lf bas ed on a pa r t i al l ycompl et ed des i gn and t he cons t ruct i on m anage r ’ s es t i m at e of the cos to f t he r emai ni ng des i gn and cons t ruct i on i t ems. 2 B runer& O ’ C onnor , C ons t ruct i on L aw §6: 59 ( M ay2006)

. T he ow ner m ay al s o r equi r e t he cons t ruct i on m anage r to po st a bo n d fo r the G M P

. See 63 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G e n e ra l 5 4 9 , 5 5 1 (1 9 7 8 ). If p e rm itt e d b yth e ter m s o f th e c o n tra c t, the o w n er o f th e p rojec t m ayalso see k co m p eti n g p rop o sals fo r a G M P a t th a t p o in t.68 [92 Op. Att’y

A s e xp lain e d in f

o o tn o te 6 b e lo w , a ty

p ic a l p r a c ti c e o f

ag encie s 2 us ingCMR i n M ary

land is to requi rethec on str uc tio n ma

na g e r t o competitively

bid the tradecontra cts before the GMP is neg otiated. T he cons t ruct i on m anage rt ypi cal l yact s as the gener al cont r act ordur i ng cons t ruct i on, as s um i ng t he r i s k of s ubcont r act i ng t he w or k and guar ant eei ng co m pl et i on of t he pr oj ectatt he fi xed, negot i at ed G M P. 2 B runer& O ’ C onnor , C ons t ruct i on L aw §6: 59 ( M ay2006)

. T he const ruc ti o n m anage rm aybi d and s ubcont r act p o rt io n s o f

th e w o rk a t a n ytim e
. I n ent er i ng i nt o t he t r ade s u b c o n tr act s , t he cons t ruct i on m anage ras s um es t he r i s k t hatt he t ot al c o st w ill e x c e e d th e G M P

. T h e c o n stru c tio n m a n a g e r is th u s lia b le 2 t o t he ow n er f

ort he s ubcont r act or s ’ per for m ance and t o t he s u b c o n tr a c to rs f

o r p a y m e n t. Id . A C M R c o n tra c t m a yp ro v id e th a t, i f t he ul t i m at e cos t of t he proj ect i s bel ow t he G M P, bot h t he ow ner and t he co nst ruct ion m anag er m ayshare the b enef i tof those cost s avi ngs

. T h e p e rc e iv e d b e n e f

its o f C M R a re th e a b ili tyto in c o rp o ra te a c o n tra c to r’s p e rsp e c tiv e in to p lan n in g a n d d e sig n d e c isio n s a n d to fas t

- t r ack e ar l ycons t ruct i on component s pr i ort o ful l compl et i on of d e sig n . “H is e x p e rtise is th u s u se d to a v o id th e d ilem m a c o m m o n in gover nm entpr ocur ement s : di s cover i ng aft er bi ds ar e r ece i ved t hat t he proj ect desi gn cann ot be b uil tw i t hin t he p roj ect bu dg et

. ” N ash & L o v e , I

nnovat i ons i n Feder alC ons t r uct i on C ont r act i ng , 45 G eo. W as h. L

. R ev. 309, 366- 67 ( 1977)

. M or eover , as a pr i oropi ni on of t h i s Of f i c e c o n c e r n i n g a s c h o o l c o n s t ru c t i o n p r o j e c t n o t e d , t h e GM P clau se “ p rov ides ince n ti v e to th e c o n stru cti o n m an ag er to p erf o rm i t s m i s s i on s o t hatt he s cho ol boar d r ece i ves a compl et ed s chool bui l di ng atorbel ow t he guar ant eed maxi m um pr i ce. ” 63 O pi ni ons o f th e A tto rn e

y G e n e ra l 5 4 9 , 5 5 5 ( 1 9 7 8 )

. A d i s a d v a n t a g e o f C MR i s t he adve r s ar i al r el at i ons hi p t hatm aydevel op b et w een the cons t ruct i on m anage rand t he ow ner onc e cons t ruct i on begi ns and t ens i ons ar i s e overcons t ruct i on qual i t y , t he compl et enes s of t he d e s ig n , a n d im p a c ts to s c h e d u le a n d b u d g e t. See C ons t ruct i on M a n a g e m e n t A s s o c ia tio n o f A m e ri c a , C h o o si ng the B est D el i very Method f

orY ourP r oj ect

a t4 < h t tp : // c m a a n e t

. o r g /b e s t

_ d e l i v e r y_ m et hod. php>

. A l s o, a cons t ruct i on m anage rpr ovi di ng a G M P m ay have l es s i ncent i ve t han a c ont r act orpar t i ci pat i ng i n a compet i t i veGe n. 65] 69

We express no view on the re lative merits of CMR as compared 3 with any other proje ct deliver

y method. As we e xplain below, the deter mination of it s merits for a particula r ty pe of procure ment is the re sp on sib ili ty

of theB oa rd of Pub lic Wor

ks

. This statut e wa s en ac ted in 2004. Chapters 306, 307, L aws of 4 Maryland 2004. Pursuant to that law, the B oard o f P ub l i c W orks has rec ently adopted regulations that gove rn the Stat e’s Public School Construction Program and that de al with methods of both source se lection (COMAR 23.03.03) and project delivery (COMAR 23.03.04). See 34:10 Md. Reg

. 891 (May

11, 2007), adopting regulations as proposed in 34 :4 Md. Reg . 410 (F ebrua

ry 16, 2007). s e a le d b id d in g p ro c e s s to s u b m it th e lo w e s t p o s s ib le p ri c e
. See 1 B run er & O ’C o n n o r, C o n stru cti o n L aw § 2

. 1 3 (M ay2 0 0 6 ). 3
C. CM R i n Mar

y land
Si nce atl eas tt he l at e 1970s , s om e publ i c ent i t i es i n M ar y l and have us ed C M R , al t hough m os ts uch i ns t ance s have noti nv o lved cont r act s undert he St at e Pr ocur ement L aw
. For exampl e, C M R has appar ent l ybeen us ed on occ as i on forl ocal publ i c school cons t ructi o n
. I n 63 O

p in io n s o f th e A tto rn e

y G e n e ra l 5 4 9 (19 7 8 ), A tto rn e yG e n e ra l B u rc h c o n c lu d e d th a t a lo c a l sc h o o l b o a rd c o u ld u s e a d e l i v e r yme t h o d v e r ys i mi l a rt o CM R, i n c l u d i n g a GM P pr ovi ded bya cons t ruct i on m anage r b acke d w i t h a per for m ance bond, fora St at e- s ubs i di zed pr oj ectw i t houtu s i n g c o mpe t i t i v e s eal ed bi ds fors our ce s el ect i on, i f t he s chool boar d empl oy ed a c om pet i t i ve pr ocedu re t o s el ectt he cons t ruct i on m anage r , di d notper m i tt he cons t ruct i on m anage ri t s el f t o bi d on cons t ruct i on w or k, and o b ta in e d th e a p p ro v a l o f th e B o a rd o f P u b lic W o rk s
. See a l so A nnot at ed C ode of M ar y l and, E ducat i on A r t i cl e, §4- 126( b) ( 2) ( aut hor i zi ng t he us e of compet i t i ve negot i at i on fors our ce s el ect i on in co n jun cti o n w ith C M R o r oth er “ alt ern ati v e p roje ct de li v ery arran g em en ts” fo r pu b li c sc h o o l con stru cti o n ). 4
W e under s t and t hat t he U ni ver s i t y Sy s t em of M ar y l and, w hi ch is la rg e ly e x e m p t f

ro m th e S ta te P ro c u r e m e n t L a w , s ee A nnot at ed C o d e o f M ary land , S tat e F inan ce & P ro cu rem en t A rt icl e (“ S F P ”), §11- 203( e) , has us ed C M R i n a maj or i t yof i t s capi t al cons t ruct i on70 [92 Op. Att’y

Al tho ugh th e Un ivers ity

Sy ste m is larg e ly

e xemp t, i t is to c omp ly 5 with written policies and procedures that are subjec t to review a nd a pp ro va l by

theB oa rd of Pub lic Wor

ks . SF P §§ 11 -2 03 (e )( 3) . T heUSM Bo ar d of Reg ents Policy (VII I -10.30 “Policy

concerningCapital Improv e me nt Pr oje c ts” ) state s that, fo r p ro je c ts e xce e din g$1 0 mi lli on in construction costs, “[t]he Board p refers that a construction manag er be utiliz ed (via

contra ct) to administer theseprojec ts.”
For example, the University Sy s t em re quires the c onstruction 6 manag er to submit to the university a desc ription of its biddi ngproce dures and the bidding d o cu m en ts it wil l provide to subcontra ctors. The construction manag er must issue the same solicitation pa ckag e to all trade co ntra ct o rs co mp e t i n g fo r awardan d th e un i v er s i ty

t o al l m ee t i n gs between the construc tion manag er a nd prospec tive trade contra ctors. The University S y s tem rese rves the right to re ject any tradecontra ctor rec ommended by

the construc tion manag er. See, e .g., Construction Mana g e me nt S e rv ic e s At Ris k, F ineand Pe rf or min gAr ts C e nter, B ow ie State University , RFP No. 82410-B

. Th e GM P is t o s epa

ra te ly identi fy its c omp on e nt c os t it e ms, 7 inc ludingdire c t c on str uc tio n c os ts (tr a dec ontr a c ts) , a lte rn ate s, allowanc es, g eneral conditions, constru ction manag er c ontinge ncy , and construction manag er c onstruction service s fee. Construction Mana g e me nt Se rv ic e s At Ris k, F ineand Pe rf or min gAr ts C e nter, B ow ie State University , RFP No. 82410-B at p. V-7.
The c onstructi o n manag er de velops a budg et independent of the 8 de sign te am and

up date s it at ea c h of the thre e de sign sub mis sio n s ta g e s. See Constructio n Manag ement Servic es At Risk, Fine a nd Perfor ming Arts Center, BowieState University , RFP No. 82410-B at p. V-4. I f the (continued...) p r o jec ts f o r a n u m b e r o f

y e a rs. T h e U n iv e rsityS y ste m typ ica lly

5 begi ns t he pr oces s bypr ocur i ng a cons t ruct i on m anage rt hr ough c o m p e tit iv e se a led p ro p o sa ls. In d e v e lo p in g a re q u e st f o r p ro p o sa ls ( “R FP”) fora C M R aw ar d, t he U ni ver s i t ySy s t em re qui r es t hatt he co ns t ruct i on m anage rpr ovi de var i ous s er vi ces dur i ng t he des i gn ph ase of the proj ect (i nclud in g con st ruct i bil i t yrevi ew s and co st es t i m at i ng) , i ns i s t s on cl os e over s i ghtof s ubcont r act s ent er ed i nt o by th e c o n stru c tio n m a n a g e r, re q u ire s su b m iss io n o f th e G M P a f ter its 6 appr oval of t he t r ade c ont ract or s , and i ncl udes pr ovi s i ons t hatt he 7 U ni ver s i t ySy s t em and cons t ruct i on m anage r s har e any cos ts avi ngs att he end of t he proj ect under a spec i fi ed form ul a. T he cons t ruct i on m a n a g e r is to re w o rk th e p rojec t d e sig n o r re b id th e tra d e c o n tra c ts if th e G M P e x c e e d s th e b u d g e t f o r c o n stru c tio n
. If

th e U n iv e rsity 8Ge n. 65] 71

(...continued) 8 b u d get ex ce ed s th e or i gi n al es t i m at e, th e c o n s tru ct i o nm an age r an d d es i gn t eamwo rkt o geth er t o re co n ci l e th e d i s p ar i ty an d , as n ec es s ary , t o re d es i gn the fa cility

. Id. at p. V-4, 5. Th e c on str uc tio n man a g e r sub mit s th e GM P afte r approval of the f

inal construction docume nts. Id. at V-7.
T h e s tatute exempts any capital project funde d by the 9 Tran s p o rt at i o nT r

u s tF un d f r o mv ari o u s “ s u

b m i s s i o n s an d

a p p r o va ls” require d by

the statute, but not from the a uth o ri zation to us e alter

native construction methods. SFP §3-602(i).
This statute was enac ted in 1988 as a result of a recommendation 10 of the L eg islature’s Spec ial J oin t C o m m ittee on the State’s Capital Pr ogra m, whic h s tudie d w ay s to stre amli ne thec a pit a l bu dg e tin gproc e ss. The Department of State Planning(“D SP” ), wh ich had wor ked with the c omm itt e e to d e ve lop its re c omm e nd atio ns , e xpla ine d th at th e se proce dures w o u l d “reducethe time nece ssary to complete a project by

(continued...) Sy s t em, or t he B oar d of Publ i c W or ks , r ej ect s t he G M P, t he contr act w ith th e c o n s tr u c tio n m a n a g e r t e rm in a te s
. See, e. g. , C ons t ruct i on M an ag em en t Se rvice s A t R isk, Fin e a n d P erf o rm in g A rts C en ter, B ow i e St at e U ni ver s i t y , R FP N o. 82410- B at p. V

- 9, 12- 13. D ur i ng cons t ruct i on, t he construct i on m anage r act s es s ent i al l y as a gene r al cont r act or w hi l e cont i nui ng t o as s i s t and advi s e t he U ni ver s i t yand its a rc h ite c t o n c o n tin u in g d e s ig n is s u e s
. Id

. atp. V

- 14.
Fi n all y , the law g o v ern ing the S tat e c ap it al pro g ram rec o gni zes th a t“ a l t e rn a t i v e c o n s tru ct i on m et hods ” – a c onceptt hatencompas s es C M R – m ayb e u sed to ca rry o u t ca p it al projects. S F P § 3 -60 2 (g). 9 T he st at ute pr ov i des:

T ot al pr oje ctfundi ng m ayut i l i ze a l t er nat i ve con st ruct i on m et ho ds, such as: (1 ) d e sig n /b u ild w h ich in v o lv e s a sin g le s o l i c i t a t i o n t o d e s i g n a n d b u i l d t h e f a c i l i t y; ( 2 ) “ f a s t t r a c k ” i n whi c h d e s i gn and c o n s t ru c t i o n a r e i m p l e m e n t e d c o n c u r r e n t l y. A l t hough C M R does not alw ay s i nvol ve conc ur r entdes i gn and cons t ruct i on w or k, i t coul d be cons i der ed a form of “f as tt r ack” t hat in v o lv e s o v e rla p o f th e d e sig n a n d c o n stru c tio n p h a se s o f a p rojec t. 1072 [92 Op. Att’y

(...continued) 10 abandoningthe seque ntial p roce ss of program-de sign- constructione q uipment” – i.e. , th e tra d i t i o n al d es i gn -b i d -b u i l d p rojec t delivery

method. Testimony

of DSP in Support of S enate Bill 154 (April 4, 1988). Acting on this recommendatio n , the Ge neral Assembly passed Senate B ill 154, wh ic h in c lud e d the a

uth orizatio n f

or a ltern ativ e c on str

uc tio n me tho ds in SFP §5-309(g ), and which was later re codified a s SFP §3-602(g ). See Chapt e r 7 5 3 , L aw s o f

M ar yla n d 1 9 8 8 ; C h a

p ter 5 4 0 , L a w s o f M ar yland 1989.
Division I Iconsists of Titles 11 thro u gh 19 of the State F inance

11 & Proc ureme nt Article.
The B oard doe s not revie w ca pital expenditures by

the 12 Depa rtme nt of Trans po rt atio n or the Ma ry land Trans po rt atio n A

uth ority f o r S t at e r o a d s , b ri d g e s o r h i ghw ay s
. S F P § § 1 2

- 1 0 1 ( a) , 1 2

- 2 0 2

. In pra c tic e , n e ith e r ag e nc y

us e s CM R f

or the seproje c ts. In a n y e v e n t, an a g e n c ysu b jec t to th e P ro c u re m e n t L a w m a yo n ly u s e a “ f a s t tr a c k ” m e th o d c o n s is te n tly w ith th a t la w
. II
A n a ly sis
Y ou have a s ked w het hert he St at e Pr ocur ement L aw pr ecl udes t he u se of C M R for Stat e con st ruct i on con t ract s. A
. State Procur em ent L aw
T he St at e P r ocur ement L aw , w hi ch occupi es D i vi s i on I I of t he St at e Fi nance & Pr ocur ement A r t i cl e, s eeks t o empl oybr oad- bas ed 11 compet i t i on and fa i rand equi t abl e pr ocedur es t o m axi m i ze the pur chasing pow erof t he St at e and t o ens ur e t he i nt egr i t yof t he procurem ent pr ocess. S F P §1 1-201

. S ubj ect t o cert ai n ex cepti on s, t he Pr ocur ement L aw gover ns the proc ur ement of construct i on and c o n s tr u c tio n s e rv ic e s b yS ta te a g e n c ie s
. See S F P § § 1 1 -10 1 (m ), (n), 1 1 -20 3 , 1 1 -20 4 (a).
W ith in th e p a ra m e ter s o f th e sta tu te, th e B o a rd o f P u b lic W or ks has gener al aut hor i t y over St at e proc ur ement , i ncl udi ng t he a u th o rityto e sta b lish p o licy , ad o p t re g u latio n s, a n d c re a te p ro c e d u re s
. S F P § 1 2 -1 0 1 (b )( 2 ). T h e P ro c u re m e n t L a w “ lo o k s
...

12 f o r th e [ B ]o a rd to se t b a sic p ro c u re m e n t p o licysu b jec t to th e sta tu teGe n. 65] 73

Some states have spe cifically authorized the us e o f CMR by 13 statut e. See, e .g. , Ariz. Rev. Stat. §34-101(4) (de fining“construc tionmanag er- at-risk” ); Ariz. Rev. Stat. §34-602; 5 Me. R ev. S tat. Ann. §1743; Mass. Gen. L aws Ann. 149(A), §2; N.C. Ge n. Stat. Ann. §143-128.1; S.D. Con. L aws §5-18- 47; Vernon’ s Tex. S tat. & Code s Ann. , Gover nment Code, §2166.2532. Othe r s tate s ma

keus e of CMR e ve n in

thea bs e nc e of sp e c if ic statutory authorization. SeeI llinois Offic e of Auditor General, State’s Construction Contracting Methods (2002) at p. 44. (reporting that Florida re lie d o n CM R f

or a pp ro ximate ly

80 % o f its c on str

uc tio n p ro

je c ts, although therewas no specific statutory authorization for that method of proje c t de liv e ry

). I n s tate s w ith out a

statut e sp e c if

ic a lly a uth orizin gCMR, Attorneys Gene ral have re ache d vary ing c onclusion s about the use of CMR by state ag encie s, although those conc lusions m ay d ep end on wh et h er a competitive proc ess would be use d to select the c onstruction manag er. Com

pa reM is s
. A

. G

. O p in io nN o
. 2 0 0 6

- 0 0 1 6 5 , 2006 WL 1966819 (May

19, 2006) (state ag ency may not use CMR if construction manag er is not selec ted on the b as i s o f competiti ve bidding ) with S.C. A.G. Opinion, 2004 W L 2247471 (Oc tober 1, 2004) ( CMR notprohibited despite abse nce of

expli cit s t atutory

authorization; opini on describes competitive neg otiation process for selec tion of construction mana g er)

. Since its inception, the Procure ment L aw has focuse d on source 14 selec t ion to ensure f

air c ompetition and the other g oals enc ompassed by that law. See Chapter 775, L aws of Ma ryland 1980 at p. 2666. .. .. ” A lan M . W iln e r, T h e M a ry lan d B o a rd o f P u b lic W o rk s: A H isto ry (1 9 8 4 ) at p . 1 1 7 ; see a lso A R A Hea lth S erv ices, In c. v

. D ep ’t of P ubl i c Saf

et y and C or r ect i onalSer v. , 344 M d. 85, 93, 685 A

. 2d 435 ( 1996)

. T he B oar d has adopt ed com pr ehens i ve r egul at i ons , as w e ll a s p o lic ie s , a d d re s s in g m o s t a s p e c ts o f S ta te p ro c u re m e n t. See C O M A R T itl e 2 1 ; s e e a l s o <w w w
. bpw

. s t at e. m d. us /bpw _ad. as p> (B o ard o f P u b li c W o rks p roc u rem en t adv isories).
B
. A p p li c a ti o n o

f S ta te P r o c u r e me n t

L a w to C

MR
Sour ce Se l ect i on As y o u n o t e d , t h e P r o c u r e me n tLa w d o e s n o t me n t i o n CM R. 13 H o w ev er, th e statute g en era ll yd o es n o t add re s s p rojec t delivery m et hods

. R at h er, i taut hor i zes a number of m et hods of s our ce s el ect i on, w i t h pr efe ren ce gi ven t o compet i t i ve met hods

. E xcept 14 forarc h it ectur al and engi neer i ng s er vi ces and i nfor m at i on t echnol ogycont r act s , al l pr ocur ement i s t o be bycompet i t i ve s eal ed bi ds , unl es s one of t he fol l ow i ng m et hods i s s peci fi cal l yaut hor i zed:74 [92 Op. Att’y

Cost-plus-a-percenta ge- o f- co s tco ntra ct s ar e p ro h i b i t ed

. SFP §13- 15 214(b); COMAR 21.06.03.01A. c o m p e tit iv e se a led p ro p o sa ls, n o n c o m p e ti tiv e n e g o tiatio n , so le source procurem ent, em ergencyor expe dit ed p rocurem ent, sm all pr ocur ement , an int er gover nm ent al cooper at i ve pur chas i ng a g r e e m e n t, or a u c tio n b id s. S F P § 1 3 -1 0 2 (a ); s ee al s o CO M AR 21. 05. 01. 01 ( s ame)

. T he l aw al s o des cr i bes ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch t he al t er nat i ve met hods of so u rce s el ect i on m aybe empl oy ed. For exampl e, compet i t i ve s eal ed pr opos al s m ay be us ed i n a num berof c irc u m sta n c e s, in c lu d in g c irc u m sta n c e s w h e re th e h e a d o f th e u n it det er m i nes t hatt her e i s a need t o us e t hatm et hod and t he us e of compet i t i ve s eal ed bi ddi ng “i s notpr act i cabl e or notadvant ageous to the S tat e.” S F P § 1 3 -10 4 (a)(3).
As n o t e d i n P a r t I o f t h i s o p i n i o n , c o n t r a c t s t h a ti n v o l v e CM R ar e t ypi cal l ypr ocur ed bym eans of a c om pet i t i ve pr ocess, suc h as compet i t i ve s eal ed p roposal s , t hatm ayt ake i nt o acc ountbi dder q u a lif ica tio n s. C o m p e tit iv e se a led p ro p o sa ls a re sp e c if ica lly aut hor i zed unde rt he St at e Pr ocur ement L aw w hen t he pr ocur ement offi cer , w i t h t he uni thead’ s appr oval , d et er m i nes t hatt he us e of c ompe t i t i ve s e a l e d bi dd i ng i s no tpr a c t i c a bl e ora dv a nt a ge ou s
. SFP §§13- 102( a) ( 1) , 13- 104( a)

. I ti s ourunder s t andi ng t hatt he c o mp e t i t i ve s e a l e d p r o p o s a l me t h o d i s u s u a l l yu s e d f o ra CM R c o n tr a c t.
C os tand P r i ce Pri nci

pl es
T h e P ro c u re m e n t L a w d ire c ts th e B o a rd o f P u b lic W o rk s to a d o p t re g u latio n s o n p ric e a n d c o st pr in c ip les f o r S tate p ro c u re m e n ts t hat c a n b e us e d a s gu i de l i ne s fo rne go t i a t i on s on e s t i mat e d c os t s, fi xed pr i ces , an d cont r actm odi fi cat i ons
. SFP §13- 213. Such r egul at i ons ar e found atC O M A R 21. 06. 03, 21. 06. 04, and 21. 09. 01. C M R can be ut i l i zed c ons i s t ent l yw i t h t hos e r egul ati o n s
. For exampl e, a per t i nentr egul at i on li st s par t i cul arcont r actt ypes , or pr i ci ng m et hods , i n t he fol l ow i ng or der of pr efe r ence : fi xed- pr i ce, fi xed- pr i ce i ncent i ve, cos tpl us i ncent i ve fe e, and cos t

- pl us fi xed fe e or cost -r ei m bu rs em ent. C O M A R 21

. 06

. 03

. 01 B

. S i m i l arl y , w h ile th e P ro c u re m e n t L a w p e rm its a u n it, su b jec t to a n e x c e p tio n , to 15 ent eri nt o a pr i ci n g m ethod “thatw i l l pr om ot e t he bes ti nt er es t s of t he St at e, ” t he s t atut e di r ect s t he unit “[i ] f pr act i cabl e .
. . [t o] gi ve pr efe r ence t o a fi xed- pr i ce f or m of pr ocur ement cont r act

. ” SFP §13- 2 1 4 (a )( 2 ). C M R is a n e x a m p le o f a f ix e d -p ri c e c o n tr a c t.Ge n. 65] 75

For example, w e understand that the Univer sity Sy stem uses the 16 applicableMBE g oals to its C MR contrac ts. C ont r act Modi f i cat i on P r ocedur es A C M R cont r act neces s ar i l yi nvol ves a s ubs t ant i al m odi fi cat i on of t he cos t of t he contr actw hen t he G M P i s s et

. U nder t he St at e P r ocur ement L aw , a contr act orm us tcer t i fycos tand pr i ce in f o rm a tio n w h en a c o n tr a c t m o d if ic a tio n w ill e x c e e d $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0

. See S F P §1 3-220 ; C O M A R 21

. 06

. 04

. 01

. A con t ractm od i fi cat i on i s al so subjectt o cert i fi cat i on by t he fi scal authori t yt hat the incr ease i n co st w ill n o t e x c e e d b u d g e te d f u n d s
. See C O M A R 21. 03. 0 3

. 01, 21. 07. 02. 02. I n addi t i on, unl es s an age ncyhas been de l egat ed con t ract i ng authori t ybyt he B oard of P ub l i c W orks, t he ag ency m ust obt ai n B oar d appr oval pr i ort o agr eei ng t o a m o d ifi cat i on of p ro c u re m e n t c o n tr a c t. See C O M A R 2 1 .0 2 .0 1 ; A R A Health Servi ces, I nc. , 344 M d. 85, 93- 94, 685 A

. 2d 43 5 (19 9 6 ). A s s um i ng t hatan ag en cyco m p li es w ith thes e p roc ed u res a n d o b tai n s the n ec essa ry cer t i fi cat i ons and appr oval s , a C M R cont r actcoul d be i m pl ement ed u n d e r t h e s e p ro c e d u re s
. T h e re g u latio n s o n c o st a n d p ric e p rin c ip le s c a n b e u se d in est abli shi ng t he G M P for pu rposes of t he m od i fi cat i on proced ures. B as i ng t he G M P on pr i ces obt ai ned fr om compet i t i vel y bi ddi ng t he t rade subco ntr act s ( as i s typical l y the case w i t h S t at e C M R con t ract s) can e ns ur e t hatt he C M R cont r acti s cons i s t entw i t h SFP §13- 220 a n d C O M A R 2 1 .0 6 .0 4 .0 1 , an d p ro v id e a b a sis f o r th e B o a rd to d e ter m in e th a t th e G M P is re a so n a b le. T h e c o sts p r in c ip les in C O M A R 2 1 .0 9 .0 1 .0 5 a lso p ro v id e g u id a n c e to a n a g e n c yin negot i at i ng a C M R cont r act ’ s gener al condi t i ons cos tand m anage m entfee , t ypi cal l yt he s m al l es t component s of t he G M P, and t he onl ycomponent s t hat w oul d notbe t he s ubj ectof s om e form of compet i t i ve pr i ci ng.
P r ocur em ent

P r ef er ence s
T i t l e 14 of the St at e Pr ocur ement L aw es t abl i s hes var i ous p re f e re n c e s in S tate p ro c u re m e n t, i n c lu d in g p ro g ra m s re la ted to b lin d a n d d isa d v a n tag e d in d iv id u a ls, s m a ll b u sin e ss e s, a n d m in o rity b u sin e ss e n ter p rise s (M B E s). N o th in g in a C M R c o n tra c t w o u ld appea r t o i nhi bi tan age ncyfr om compl y i ng w i t h i t s obl i gat i ons u n d e rt h e s e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e P r o c u r e me n tL a w. 1676 [92 Op. Att’y
T hus , w hi l e t he Pr ocur ement L aw does notexpr es s l ym ent i on C M R , nei t herdoes i tpr ohi bi tt he us e of CM R , an d it ap p ear s t hat C M R cont r act s as t heyar e t ypi cal l y s t ructur ed can c om pl yw i t h t he a p p l i c a b l e r e g u l a t i o n s u n d e rt h e P r o c u r e me n tL a w. C
. C o mp lia n c e w ith B o a rdP o licie s A ddre ss in g C M R C o n tra c ts
E v e n if a c o m p e tit iv e so u rc e se lec tio n m e th o d is us e d to choos e a cons t ruct i on m anage r for a C M R cont r act and t he contr act m o d ifi ca ti o n p roc ed u res a re f o ll o w ed , the u se o f thi s pr oject de li v ery m et hod m aybe atodds w i t h bas i c pr i nci pl es an imat i ng t he Pr ocur ement L aw
. For exampl e, t he G M P gener al l yw i l l r epr es ent m os t o f t h e c o s t o f t h e c o n t r a c t a n d i s n o t i t s e l f a s ubj ect of compet i t i ve bi ddi ng. I n s uch ci r cumst ance s , t he St at e Pr ocur ement L aw cont empl ates t hatt he B oar d of Publ i c W or ks w i l l pr ovi de di r ect i on t o St at e age nci es underi t s del egat ed author i t yt o adopt r egul a t i o n s and pol i ci es gover ni ng St at e pr ocur ement and t o appr ove S ta te c o n tr a c ts

. T he B oar d has al r eady adopt ed cer t ai n pr act i ces i n connec t i on w i t h aw ar ds of contr act s t hat i nvol ve use of C M R byagenc i es t hat ar e not s ubj ect t o t he P r ocur ement L aw
. I n pr act i ce, t he B oar d has re q u ire d th a t an a g e n c yo b tain its a p p ro v a l tw ice in c o n n e c tio n w ith a pr ocur ement t hatut i l i zes C M R

. Fi r s t , w hen an a gencyt hat cont empl at e s u s i n g CM R a war d s a p r e - c o n s tru c t i o n s er vi ces cont r act t o a cons t ruct i on m anage r , t hatcont r acti s t o be pr es ent ed t o t he B o a r d f o r its a p p ro v a l. S e c o n d , w h e n th e a g e n c ylate r se e k s to m o d if yth e c o n tra c t t o a d d th e G M P , inc lu d in g th e tra d e c o n tra c ts an d the c o n stru cti o n serv ices f ee , the a g en cyretur n s to the B o ard a g a in f o r a p p ro v a l o f

th a t m o d if

ic a tio n
. T he B oar d has r ece nt l yi ncl uded more det ai l ed gui del i nes on the u se o f C M R an d o ther m eth o d s in it s reg u lat ion s tha t go v ern lo c a l p u b li c s c h o o l c o n s tr u c tio n s u p p o rt e d b yS ta te f u n d s
. See C O M A R 23. 03. 04. 06. T hos e regul at i ons condi t i on t he r ece i ptof St at e funds on t he us e o f cer t ai n appr oved met hods of s our ce s el ect i on t o choos e t he cons t ruct i on m anage r , i ncl udi ng compet i t i ve bi ddi ng, qual i t y - bas ed s el ect i on, compet i t i ve negot i at i on, and ot her m e th o d s. C O M A R 2 3 .0 3 .0 4 .0 6 D (4 ). In a d d iti o n , b e f o re it negot i at es a G M P w i t h a cons t ruct i on m anage rw ho has p rov i ded pr e- G M P se r vi ces , t he l ocal educa t i on agenc ym us tal l ow fort he s ubm i s s i on of compet i ng pr opos al s aft ergi vi ng publ i c not i ce. C O M A R 2 3 .0 3 .0 4 .0 6 B (2 )( b ).Ge n. 65] 77

Ty pically , the tradecontra cts will be between the tradecontra ctors 17 and the c on str

uc tio n man a g e r, no t the a g e nc y
. I f the a g e nc y we rea pa rt y to tho se c ontr a c ts, they wo uld besu bje c t to theso lic itatio n r e qu ir e me nts of the State Procurement L aw. The General Asse mbly

rec ently amende d the Public Ethics L aw 18 to a c hie vea

sim ila r re su lt b y ex pan din gtheus e of thede sign- bu ild delivery method. See Chapter 84, L aw s o f M aryland 2004. That law ame nd e d St ateGo vernme nt Artic le§1 5- 50 8 to pe rm it e ng ine e ri ngfi rm s to p artic ipatein t

hepr e lim ina

ry e ng ine e ri ngp h a s eo f

d e s i gn- bu ild

proje c ts without, in mos t case s, beingdisqualified from pa rticipatingin the construction contract f

or the proje ct. The 2004 leg islation wa s apparently neede d beca use some designbuild contra cts involve separate de sign a nd construction contracts a nd the eng ineering f

irm’s participation in the design of the spec ifications for the construction contract could disqualify it unde r the Public Ethics L aw f rom later pa rticipation in the construc tion contrac t. CMR , on the other ha nd, ty pically require s only a sing le contra ct for de sign a nd construction. See, (continued...) I n an ana l ogous cont ext , t he B oar d of Pub li c W or ks has devel oped a w r i t t en pol i cyr equi r i ng an age ncyw i s h ing to us e a m et hod ot hert han compet i t i ve s eal ed bi ddi ng fornew cons t ruct i on orr enovat i on t o expl ai n t o t he B oar d pr i ort o t he s ol i ci t at i on w hyt he ot herm et hod w as chos en and the expe ct ed b en ef it s of t he ot her m e th o d

. See B oar d of Publ i c W or ks , Secr et ar y ’s A genda, I t em 30 (P o licie s a n d P ro c e d u re s M a n u a l) (S e p tem b e r 4 , 1 9 9 1 ); see al so B oar d Pr ocur ement A dvi s or y199 9 -1 (t w o- s t age pr oces s fort he d e s i g n - b u i l d d e l i v e ryme th o d ) , a v a i l a b l e at<w w w
. b p w. s t a t e
. md. u s >. T h e B o ard req u ir es th at an ag en cyfo ll o w the s am e p roc ed u re “w heneve ra des i gn/bui l d orvar i antof t hat m et hod i s pr opos ed for a c o n stru c tio n p rojec t an d is to b e u se d in lieu o f th e tra d iti o n a l A /E cont r act

. ” Id

. F in a lly , as n o ted a b o v e , ag e n c ies th a t cu rre n tlyu se C M R w ith B oar d appr oval have typi cal l yr equi r ed t hatt r ade c ont r act s be compet i t i vel yb id byt he cons t ruct i on m anage rw i th agenc y o v ersigh t. (S u ch o v ersigh t i s g en era ll ylack ing in the stan d ard

17 compet i t i vel ybi d cont r act , w her e t he St at e has no par t i ci pat i on i n or c o n tro l o f th e g e n e ra l c o n tra c to r’s p ro c u re m e n t a n d c o n tra c tin g w ith s ubcont r act or s )

. T hus , w het hert he be nefi t s of compet i t i on can be r et ai ned i n a del i ver ym et hod t hat al l ow s fort he cons t ruct i on m a n a g e r t o p ro v id e u se f u l in p u t to b e tter es tim a te o r red u c e c o sts d u rin g th e d e sig n p h a se w ill d e p e n d o n th e p ro c e d u re s u se d in f o rm u latin g th is typ e o f

c o n tra c t. 1878 [92 Op. Att’y

(...continued) 18 e.g., Choosing the Best Delive ry Me thod for Y our Project

at 4- 8; Mo de rn Real Estate Transactions: An Overview of Architect and Construction Con tra c ts , A LI- A B A C o nt i nu i n g Le g a l E d u c at i o n( 2 0 0 6 ) , S M0 0 2 A LIAB A 663.
The L eg islative Auditor rec ently criticized, on policy grounds, the 19 Mary land Sta dium Auth ority ’s us e of CMR fo r a pa rtic ula r p ro c ur e me nt. See Of fi ce of L eg islative Audits, Audit R eport - Ma ryland Stadium Authority (F ebrua ry 2007) at pp. 9-11. D
. S u m m ary
T he St at e Pr ocur ement L aw pr i m ar il yfocus es on s our ce s el ect i on and does notdi r ect l yaddr es s pr oj ectdel i ver ym e th o d s s uch as C M R

. B ec au se o n lyth e selec ti o n o f th e c o n stru cti o n m an ag er, w h i c h r e p r e s e n t s a f

r a c t i o n o f

t o t a l p r o

j e c tc o s t s , i s d o n e b y a compet i t i ve pr ocur ement by t he agenc y , t her e i s a pos s i bi l i t yt hatt he C M R m et hod coul d be m isuse d t o avoi d compet i t i on ort hatan abs ence of compet i t i on w hen t he G M P i s s et coul d pr ove detr i m ent al t o t he S t at e. T he B oar d m ay w i s h t o adoptr egul at i ons orpol i ci es

19

– e .g
. , compet i t i ve bi ddi ng and age ncyover s i ghtof t he s ubcont r act i ng pr oces s , agr eementon a G M P, t w o- s t age r evi ew by t he B oar d – t o e n s u r e t h a tt h e u s e o f CM R i s c o n s i s t e n twi t h t he s t atut e’ s goal s of fos t er i ng compet i t i on and pr ovi di ng i ncr eas ed e c o n o m yin th e p ro c u re m e n t s y s te m
. III
C oncl usi on For t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d a b o v e , St a t e l a w d o e s n o t p r o h i b i t t he us e of CM R as a pr oj ectdel i ver ym et hod, as l ong as ( a) t he cons t ruct i on m anage ri s s el ect ed byone of the s our ce s el ect i on m et h o d s au thor i zed byt he Pr ocur ement L aw , s uch as compet i t i ve s eal ed bi ddi ng or compet i t i ve s eal ed pr opos al s , orbyt he appr oved pol i ci es and pr ocedur es of agenc i es nots ubj ectt o t he Pr ocur ement L aw , and ( b) t he agenc y compl i es w i t h any appl i cabl e reg u lat i ons a n d d i r e c t i v e s o f

t h e Bo a r d o f

P u b l i c W o r k s
. Th e mer i t s o f CM R w i t h r es pect t o a par t i cul ar cons t ruct i on pr oj ect w i l l depend on how w el l t h e p rocur ement i s s t ructur ed t o pr ovi de t he w i nni ng cons t ruct i on m anage rw i t h i ncent i ves t o l i m i tt he cos tof t he pr oj ect w hi l e del i ver i ng i ti n a ti m el ym anner
. T he G ener al A s s embl yhas del egat ed t o t he B oar d of P ubl i c W or ks t he author i t yt o s etpol i cyGe n. 65] 79

un d er the P rocur ement L aw
. I ti s t he r ol e of the B oar d t o deci de w het hert he us e of CM R as a pr oj ectdel i ver y m et hod i n a par t i cul ar cas e i s s t ructur ed t o be advant ageous t o t he S t at e and t o s at i s fyt he goal s of t he P r ocur ement L aw
. T he B oar d m ayw i s h t o cons i der adopt i ng r egul at i ons orpol i ci es t o gui de age nci es i n s t ructur i ng C M R con t ract s t o m eet t hese go al s.

D ougl as F. G ans l er A t t or ney G ener al
M a rk J. D a v is A s s is tan t A tt o rn ey G en er al
R o b e rt N . M c D o n a ld C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons and A dvi ce*

* A ss ista n t A tto rn e y G e n e ra l D a n a A . R e e d c o n trib u ted sig n if ica n tly t o t he pr epar at i on of t hi s opi ni on.