McKinsey & Company Report On CU Construction

Developing Capital Excellence
Full report
January 2016
Pre-Decisional - Proprietary and Confidential
Executive summary (1/2)
Diagnostic CU Boulder makes significant investments in capital projects and is exploring ideas and opportunities to
improve efficiency and effectiveness in the execution of these projects
Completed 1900+ Minor and Outlay projects over the past five years routinely fall under budget similar to other
public organizations, accounting for about 18% of total budget value
Completed 30 Major projects (those above $2M), which account for 80%+ of the total spend. Approximately 8 projects
requiring additional spending limit were typically those impacted by accelerated timeline, scope changes, or decision
delays
Interviews with over 40 personnel across all stakeholder groups, review of selected projects, and analysis of available
documentation on processes surfaced opportunities for increased excellence:
a) Capital planning: Right-time commitment of funds in the project planning stage to align with available information
on scope and schedule
b) Contracting methodology: Provide clear guidelines for the project delivery method or contracting terms to
manage owner risk
c) Communication: Proactively manage risks through increased project tracking and clarity in communicating
progress with appropriate stakeholders
d) Project Manager workforce: Enhance PM workforce execution through structured training and onboarding
processes
Recommendations four themes have emerged as opportunities for increasing capital excellence based on the
above diagnostic:
Develop a clear, well-documented, and scalable stage gate process to drive capital investment success
Adopt clear guidelines in contracting strategy to address project risk based on project scope, target cost, expected
delivery schedule, market conditions, and internal capability
Deploy project controls to drive transparency of cost, schedule, and milestones during project execution thus
increasing consistency
Train and retain the Project Manager workforce to ensure best practices adoption and execution in project delivery
1 Budget performance based on initial Vice-chancellor approval limit for projects, not legislative approval
2 Compared to original estimated completion date in program planning
Pre-Decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 1
Executive summary (2/2)

Implementation CU Boulder has the opportunity to transform its capital program and potentially capture up
to 15% in planned capital spend
In addition to the efficiencies captured, the implementation of the recommendations would bring other
performance and health benefits to CU Boulder including:
Performance: improve pipeline management; ability to attract best contractors; ability to anticipate and
resolve performance issues
Health: improve relationships across stakeholders; increase in morale, accountability and ownership;
heighten value proposition to current and potential workforce
Though current recommendations focus primarily on streamlining project delivery, CU Boulder can engage
in a broader set of available strategies for capital excellence which could potentially result in even higher
savings
Athletics Complex project review reveals that the Athletics Complex faced several challenges in scope and
schedule management due to complex, often unclear, multi-party interactions at an accelerated pace
Scope misalignment between Athletics, designer, and PD&C resulted in ongoing changes and cost
escalations throughout the project lifecycle
High staff turnover both internal and external to PD&C created coordination and communication
challenges given lack of continuity in an already fast-tracked project
In order to prevent future costs, project closeout and quality assurance is an important final step and may
require additional support to supplement capacity of existing team structure
Over the past 5 years, CU Boulders capital spend has been

concentrated on Major projects with a valued budget of ~$870M
PRELIMINARY
Number of
projects
Total budget on projects1
Examples
Project size range
Total value
302
Major
Category I
Range $2-$50
Total value $318M
Category II
Range $50-$100
Total value $240M
Category III
Range $100+
Total value $308M
$867M
Range $500K-$1M
Total value $42M
980
Minor
Range $25k-$500K
Total value $91M
$171M
Range $1-$2M
Total value $39M
957
Outlays
Projects over $2M

Athletics Complex
Systems biotechnology
building
Recreation facilities
improvements
Projects between $25k$2M

Food service renovation
Replace boilers, roof
Lab renovation
$8M
Projects under $25k
Sound proofing
Temporary cooling
Fire alarm upgrade
1,967
Total
$1,046M
1 Representative project scale but not exhaustive. Current budget for projects from March 2010 after the implementations of the CP module to September 2015 across all stages of
development from planning (~$30 M) to closed. Budget defined as most recently approved budget in FAMIS as of mid-September 2015
2 Two grants listed as separate projects were merged with their associated projects. Three projects out of the 30 are ESCO with combined project value of USD ~21 M
Source: PD&C, Team analysis
Projects requiring additional spending limit were typically impacted

by accelerated timeline, scope changes, or decision delays
PRELIMINARY
NON-EXHAUSTIVE
USD Million
Initial
legislative
spending limit2
Athletics Complex1
142
System Biotech
Projects
impacted
by
significant
scope or
timeline
fluctuations
160
113
Campus Utility1
SEEC1
USD Change in
legislative
spending limit
18
169
75
91
60
56
16
112
53
% Change in
legislative
spending limit
50%
21%
88%
28
37
10
35%
SB Academic Wing1
22
28
28%
Ketchum1
13
23
10
75%
Ekeley Middle Wing
12
14
17%
SPSC - Data room
12
N/A
N/A
N/A
0%
0%
64
64
43
43
EUCLID1 (CASE)
Wilderness1
18
20
14%
IBS
14
16
13%
Bball/ Vball Practice
11
11
2%
Wilderness - Recom
0%
Stad - Video Board
0%
0%
Glenn Miller Ballroom
10%
Hallett Renovation
0%
Atmospheric Lab
0%
GIPF Bldg
(Athletics) 1
Detailed next
12%
JILA
Rec Facilities
Normal
projects
Current
legislative
spending limit3
Observed difference
in performance
between projects
which are pursued
as expected and
those impacted by:
Accelerated
scheduling
Significant or
constant scope
changes
Delayed timing in
decision-making
1 Ongoing project | 2 Initial legislative approval | 3 Current legislative approval
Source: Team Analysis, PD&C
Based on 40+ interviews, select project reviews, data analysis, and

focus groups we identified a set of opportunities
Opportunities to increase efficiency and effectiveness
Cross-cutting
Project
execution
Contracting
Design
Capital
Planning
More consistent Program Planning efforts, aligned with paced project schedule to decrease
owner risk
Address backlog in maintenance through improved capital allocation
Enhance integrated portfolio view with clear project prioritization
Rethink approval process to match the release of funds to the maturity level of the project
Augment alignment between PD&C and administration in regards to project budget estimates
and timelines
Continue with recently launched effort for early engagement of Project Manager in project
lifecycle
Emerging themes for

developing excellence
Develop a clear, welldocumented, and scalable

stage gate process to
drive capital investment
success
Adopt clear guidelines in

contracting strategy to
address project risk based
on project scope, target
cost, expected delivery
schedule, market
conditions, and internal
capability
Refine choice in contracting strategy (choice of delivery model, contract type, award process) to
align to scope, project schedule, market conditions, and owner execution capability
Consistently enforce contract terms in the field leading to lower owner risk
Standardize project execution processes

Adopt and enforce tools and as a standardization method
Increase ownership of project controls (i.e., cost and schedule tracking)
Deploy project controls

to drive transparency of
cost, schedule, and
milestones during project
execution thus increasing
consistency
Enhance communication on project progress

Celebrate success
Leverage performance monitoring (e.g., lessons learned at project completion) as source of
insight
Provide training for onboarding new employees and continuous development
Train and retain the

Project Manager
workforce to ensure best
practices adoption and
execution in project
management
Source: Interviews
CU Boulder can adapt best practices in capital management across

the four themes to continue to pursue excellence
Emerging theme
Stage-Gate process:
how do projects
move through
A multiple fund and
scope approval
gates through the
lifecycle?
Stage-gate process matches the release of

required funds to the maturity level of project
definition; specifically, it ensures projects do not
progress without an adequate evaluation of the
underlying business case, completion of key
deliverables, and mitigation of critical risks
Clear guidelines on
contracting strategy
to best manage
owner risk
Selecting contracting strategy (delivery model,

contract terms, award process) based on project
specifications (size, cost, delivery schedule,
complexity), market conditions, and internal
capability
Tracking information
on cost, schedule
and milestones for
each project
Project controls dashboards enable PMs and

Project Coordinators to:
Proactively identify issues
Ensure relevant information is at hand to
contribute to the decision making process in a
timely manner
Standardized
processes with
capability building
training to ensure
consistent execution
Establishing standardized methods, training for

PM staff on consistent approaches, and support
from key decision makers which allow PM team
to increase success in delivery of projects
VGI-AAA123-20090508-
Contracting strategy entails defining 3 linked elements

of a project
Key dimensions of contracting strategy
Key questions to be considered

Delivery model (How do I determine optimal contracting scope?)
Should I own the asset or are other ownership structures more

suitable, e.g., lease?
Which project value chain steps should be done internally and which
ones by contractor(s)?
Into how many contracts should the project scope be split?

What is the optimal split of scope between the contractors?
1 Delivery
model
Award process (How do I select my contractors?)
How can the effectiveness of existing award process be enhanced ?

How many and which suppliers/contractors should be invited?
How do we get the suppliers interested?
What is the criteria for evaluation various suppliers?
3 Contract
terms
2 Award
proces
s
Contract terms (How do I ensure most optimal contracting terms?)
What are the key project cost, performance, and schedule risks?
Who is the natural owner of the risks?
What mechanisms exist to transfer or share risk?
How can objectives be aligned between owner and contractor to
ensure an efficient execution through compensation elements such
as incentives, penalties, warranties, etc.?
McKinsey & Company | 3
SJO-AAA123-20110525-
4 Planning and scheduling process
Create/ update
plan
Process step
Users
Progress
measurement
Provide timely,
accurate inputs
Help in identifying
critical milestones
Create WBS
Identify critical
milestones
Create/ update
plan
Publish plan
Customized
analysis
Provide timely,
accurate inputs
Execute recommended focus
actions
Monitor & report

project progress
Recommend
focus actions/
area
Publish report
Identify required
analyses
Provide timely,
accurate inputs
Roles
Printed
Single and
comprehensive
capital investment
framework
W orking Draft - Last Modified 07-Sep-11 6:35:55 PM
Project Managers:
how well is project
D management best
practice followed?
Printed 4/6/2011 4:32:15 PM
Transparency: how
do project controls
C allow for right
information at the
right time?
Description
W orking Draft - Last Modified 9/7/2011 3:32:09 AM
Contracting: how
project delivery and
B contracting methods
are selected
Best practice
Planning
team
Recommend &
perform required
analyses
Publish analysis
report
STAGE GATE PROCESS
A Adding stage gates to existing Capital Project Process will focus

University resources and increase control for Major projects
#
Funding gate
From...
Review-only gate
Operations
PD&C Planning Led Process
Project
Initiation/
Concept
Development
Consultant
and
Contractor
Selection
Program
Planning
1
PD&C Project Manager Led Process
Schematic
Design
Design
Development
Construction
Documents
Bidding and
Negotiation
Construction
Close Out
Project Obtains Board Approval and is Funded
Cabinet Review and Authorization
to
Project
Initiation/
Concept
Development
Program
Planning/
Scope
Selection
Is this needed? Is it a
priority?
2a
Consultant
and
Contractor
Selection
Schematic
Design
Design
Development
Construction
Documents
2b
Is the best option still viable after scoping?

Freeze Scope. Release full budget.
Develop feasible options. Release seed money.
Bidding and
Negotiation
3
Close Out
5
Is the project ready to begin operation?
Is option still viable given the refined estimate?
Source: PD&C process, Expert interviews, Team Analysis
Start-up/
Commissioning
Construction
Is the project ready to be turned over?
6
Any
outstanding
accounts or
issues?
CONTRACTING PROCESS
B Proposed contracting process establishes a consistent risk

based approach to enhance project outcomes
Steps
Select a Delivery Model
Goals
Actions
Who to
involve
Establish a Contracting Strategy

Playbook for optimizing cost/
schedule/quality aligned with
State regulations and CU Boulder
past experience
Understand how alternative

models (bundling, PPP, IPC)
could be utilized to better spread
risks
Understand CU Boulder desired

role (skill building)
Select a Contractor
Integrate Contractor
selection process into
Contracting Strategy
Playbook to best utilize
process to meet cost,
schedule or quality based
outcomes
Determine Contract Terms

and Sign
Transfer project risks to align
objectives between owner and
contractors, not to outsource them
Ensure the terms of the
performance contract are
pragmatic, clear, and
measurable
Develop Contracting Strategy
Integrate contractor
Develop standard language
PD&C
Legal
Procurement
Vice Chancellor
Contractor Rep
Design Team Rep
PD&C
Legal
Procurement
Vice Chancellor
Contractor Rep
Design Team Rep
PD&C
Legal
Procurement
Vice Chancellor
Playbook working group to

explore best delivery options of CU
Boulder projects
selection methods into

Contracting Strategy
Playbook
Formalize Contractor Score
Card
added to State contracts to

provide a fair and equitable
balance of risk on large
Capital Projects
TRANSPARENCY
C CU Boulder requires a systematic approach to building

transparency among stakeholders in project delivery
Description
Define key
data and clear
C1 KPIs for
project
delivery
Create an
C2 accessible KPI
dashboard
Provide a
forum for
C3
decision
making
CU Boulder should define Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) at a

project level based on project categories defined (i.e. Major, Minor, and
Outlays) with clear targets across each
An individual should also be identified as a responsible party for
reporting and meeting the KPI target (may be different individuals)
Clear direction and training should be provided on how to calculate and
report the KPI
KPI dashboard should be accessible at multiple levels (e.g. project
level and portfolio level) to the relevant stakeholders
The accessible dashboard can be communicated widely to build
transparency among all stakeholders (e.g. users, administration,
PD&C) and increase project accountability
KPI dashboards can be used as a tool in a regular forum of
stakeholders (e.g. a Project Review Board) to discuss project progress
Project Review Boards will also help resolve issues proactively as it
will:
Enable decision makers to have the right information
Allow PMs to raise concerns at right time
KPI dashboard is designed at both project and portfolio level

Source: Expert interviews, Team Analysis
PROJECT MANAGER PERFORMANCE
D
D Project manager performance is the single most influential
driver of construction project profitability
Highest priority
Skills
Project performance is not

correlated with:
Geography
Asset class
Complexity
Customer
Project manager age or tenure
(grey hair)
Source: Interviews, Team analysis
II
III
IV
Mgmt
capabilities
Financial
astuteness
We have found that project

performance is highly correlated
with project manager capabilities
Commercial
orientation
Org
capabilities
We have run an analysis of 10,000

projects, checking the correlation of
project performance with different
factors
High performing PMs excel at these skills
Train
Sustain
1.
1
Optimizing schedule, scope, and cost

dimensions
2
1.
Planning & tracking project performance
3
1.
Managing internal and external teams
4
1.
Understanding financial statements
5
1.
Mitigating project risk
6
1.
Maintaining project lifecycle view
1.
7
Overseeing contractors effectively
8
1.
Mastering contract details
1.
9
Leveraging organization resources
1.
10 Managing client needs (e.g.
change orders)
D A field and forum format ensures appropriate balance between

effort, effectiveness, and reach
ILLUSTRATIVE
Forum
Classroom
setting where
skills are
taught by
experienced
PMs and
standard
setters
Preparation
for forums
Select
participants
Plan
curriculum and
field work
Set expectations
through program
overview
Deliver first series of
workshops
combining activities
and pure lecture
modules
Outline field work
assignments
#1 (1 day)
Celebrate stories of
success from field
work
Establish forum for
PMs to discuss what
worked and what
was challenging
Deliver next set of
lectures and field
work
#2 (1 day)
Train
Sustain
Session sequence
Forum 1 Overseeing contractors
effectively and Mitigating project risk
Forum 2 Planning & tracking project
performance
Forum 3 Managing client needs
Forum 4 Managing internal & external
teams
#4 (1 day)
2016
Q4
Source: Team analysis
Skills
Repeat defined forum format
#3 (1 day)
2015
Field
Practice
application of
lessons and
coaching
sessions to
help PMs
operate with
excellence
Q1
Q2
Field work
(~12 weeks)
Fill out KPIs and use

to have discussions
with management,
clients, and contracts
on the progress and
performance of
projects
Partnering with training provider

can help reduce timeframe
required for field work
Q3
Field work
(~12 weeks)
Provide workshops
for clients on
PD&Cs processes
Perform project
kick-off with client
Use transparency
tools throughout
project
Q4
Field work
(~12 weeks)
Leverage contracting
playbook during
contracting
Create risk
assessments before
project on critical
areas and develop
mitigation plans
Field work
(~12 weeks)
Coach new PMs in

process
Engage with
internal/ external
teams to develop
improved working
processes
Applying capital productivity levers can increase CU Boulders

effectiveness and improve its organizational health in the project
delivery functions
Applying capital productivity levers can achieve
substantial efficiency in capital deployment.
in addition to multiple other benefits to

University of Colorado, Boulder
Estimated savings of 15% of the overall capital

spend based on select levers of streamlining
project delivery:
Stage-Gate process: move through multiple
fund and scope approval gates across lifecycle
allocating full funding when with a higher
degree of cost certainty
Contracting: select the project delivery method
and contract terms to match the project goals
and share risks
Transparency: add project controls and
tracking to provide right information at the right
time
Project Managers: spread project
management best practice to create consistent
approach
Grow a transparent and trust-based

relationship across all stakeholders (Board of
Regents, Administration, Planning, Design &
Construction, and Users) involved in project
delivery
Increase morale, accountability, and ownership

of projects in project delivery functions
Better able to attract and retain top talent in the

project delivery functions at CU Boulder
Better able to manage the pipeline of upcoming

projects from an internal resource perspective
Attract best contractors to engage in project

delivery of complex and base projects
Better able to anticipate and resolve project

performance related issues
Estimated savings of 30% based on all capital

levers across project prioritization, streamlining
delivery, and making the most of existing facilities
Maintain and enhance the beauty of the unique

campus architecture in a cost effective manner
Source: Expert interviews, Team Analysis
PM
Tools
Transparency
Contracting
Stage gate
CU Boulder has started initiatives that address aspects of the four

recommendation focus areas
Initiative
Description
Involving PM earlier in the

process
Involving PM earlier at project conceptualization instead of

Design Development phase
Leverage technology for

permitting and inspections
Implementing electronic permitting technology to ensure

tracking of permitting and inspection
Engaging contractors with

performance specifications
Investigating use of performance-based specifications to

transfer risk to contractor and design team
Simplifying campus design

formats
Redeveloping campus design standards to more concise

format
Detailing project plans through

Project Charter
Providing an executive summary of Program Plan covering

agreed budget, schedule, and scope, signed by PD&C and
Administration
Creating Key Performance

Indicators dashboard
Developing preliminary set of project KPIs dashboards with

Office of Performance Improvement
Investing in software tools and

solutions
Undergoing an evaluation of software options to be used

across Facilities Management (e.g. developing database for
smaller projects to provide better cost estimates)
Source: CU Boulder Master Plan and Interviews
Overall implementation plan

Phase 1: quick wins & critical actions
PRELIMINARY
Phase 2: building excellence
Activity
A. Stage gate process
Share plan and create SG working group
Define stage-gate process for CU
(roles, deliverables, etc @ each gate)
Major projects
Complex Minor and Outlays
Syndicate with key stakeholders
Launch: pilot, adjust, scale to all complex projects
Assess results and define next steps (e.g. extend
to base Minor and Outlays projects)
B. Contracting strategy
Identify CS working group
Create contracting strategy playbook
Launch: pilot, adjust, scale to all projects
Assess results and define next steps
C. Transparency
Syndicate version 1.0 of transparency
measures (dashboard and PRB)
Implement version 1.0 for all Major projects
Design, pilot, and adjust PRB & dashboard v2.0
Scale v2.0 to all projects
D. Project Managers
Identify mode for PM trainings (internal/external)
Map needed PM skills (and current state)
Design program (curriculum and format)
Launch field and forum trainings
Define & implement policy to ensure sustainment
(e.g. training refreshers, assessments, etc.)
Assess results of PMs and define next steps
E. PMO for implementation
2015
2016
Oct Nov Dec
Jan
Phase 3: sustaining excellence
Feb Mar
Apr
Phase 4: future considerations
May Jun Jul
Aug Sep Oct
Nov Dec
Implementation of 1.0 continues until v2.0 is scaled to all
Workshop(s) to share recommendations and future plan

Appendix
Contents
Organization context
Athletics project review
Overall diagnostic
Recommendations
Value at stake
Implementation plan
Planning Design & Construction is a ~65 FTE organization within

Facilities Management that manages project delivery for CU Boulder
Department of Facilities Management Planning, Design and Construction
Facilities Management
PD&C
Facilities Planning
(7)
Facilities Engineering (12)
CAD/Document
Management/ CASP (6)
Design &
Construction (37)
Office
Administration (3)
Manages and
directs the
planning and
design of
campus facilities
and grounds
Maintains the
space database
Processes
official requests
for space
Performs space
utilization/needs
analyses
Reviews designs for

compliance with codes,
UCB standards, good
engineering practices
Provides engineering
support to the facilities
maintenance and
operations staff, design
guidance to UCB project
managers, and designoversight of consultants.
Develops and maintains
university standards,
design guidelines, and
construction-requirements
lists in cooperation with
maintenance staff.
Ensures code compliance
Source: CU Boulder organizational chart and PD&C website
Maintains library of
campus site and
building engineering
drawings
Catalogs and
archives campus
project documents
and related materials
Updates achieve
drawings accurately
reflect the campus
and its structures.
Develops and
maintains campus
GIS and maps
database
Provides
administrative,
management and
professional
services required
to facilitate and
accomplish
projects on the
campus
Coordinates the
bidding process
procuring
consulting services
Administers and
maintains
contracts, budgets,
and schedules
Supports
PD&C
PD&C uses the following capital construction process for Major

BCPC = Boulder Campus Planning Commission
projects (1/2)
CCHE = Colorado Commission on Higher Ed.
FM = Facilities Management
Project Initiation
and Feasibility
Program Planning
Defines the
basic scope
and likely cost
of the project
Informs the
administration
about the
project
Secures
campus
administration
approval to
proceed with
development
of a program
plan
Outcome:
Approval to
prepare a
Program Plan
Source: Colorado.edu
Defines the
programmatic
requirements for
the designer
Defines limits of
work, including site
and infrastructure
requirements
Builds consensus as to
scope, cost and time
line of the project
Defines the financial
plan and sources of
funds
Outcome:
Campus agreement on
scope of project and a
funding plan identifying
sources of revenue
Approvals
Secures Approval
from Board of
Regents and CCHE
Incorporates project
into larger capital
financial planning of
university and state
Develops support
for the project at all
levels of state
government
Architect Selection
Concept and
Schematic Design
Selects the mostqualified architect

and engineering
firms to do the
project
Confirms and
enhances
program plan
requirements
Encumbers money
to begin the project
Generates
concept for final
building
Contractors are
selected for some
delivery methods
Provides room
by room layout
of spaces
Secures
approval of DRB
and review by
BCPC of
schematic plans
Secures funding for

State-funded project
Outcome:
Authorization to begin
expending money on
a capital construction
project
Outcome:
A design team is
contracted to design
the entire project
Outcome:
Schematic design
is approved and
project budget is
confirmed
PD&C uses the following capital construction process for Major

BCPC = Boulder Campus Planning Commission
projects (2/2)
CCHE = Colorado Commission on Higher Ed.
FM = Facilities Management
Design
Development
Develops
detailed room
requirements
Integrates
infrastructure
systems into the
building design
Provides pricing
documents for
contractor
Secures final
DRB approval
and other
entitlements
Outcome:
Design Development is approved
within the
contract budget.
Source: Colorado.edu
Construction
Documents
Translates the design

intent into documents
from which a builder
can construct the
project
Describes the
quantity and quality
of the materials to be
provided by the
contractor
Provides final
estimates of the
project prior to
bidding
Outcome:
A complete set of plans
and specifications is
produced that describes
the design fully.
Bidding &
Negotiation
Initiates
procurement
processes for
all trades
Produces a
final construction price
Construction
Occupancy and
Warranty Period
Contractor constructs the

project
FM ensures that the building

is built per plans and specs
and meets building codes
The building is
occupied by the
users for which it
has been
designed
FM monitors the
project to identify
and correct any
construction
defects
Contracts
with builders
to construct
the project
Outcome:
Final contract
for construction
Outcome:
The project is realized
Outcome:
The building is
accepted and
available to
move in
Contents
Overall diagnostic
Recommendations
Value at stake
Implementation plan
Athletics Complex has been a challenging program and continues

to be a source of concern for CU Boulder
Original Program Plan called for a phased approach and was envisioned to be
completed August 2016/17
Accelerated timeline and performing all phases concurrently has created additional
stress on delivery model
Internal misunderstanding in early phases between Athletics and PD&C resulted in

ongoing project changes and cost escalations
Lack of team continuity, both internal and external, created hand-off challenges and
eventually coordination and communication challenges
GMP was not executed, despite constant assurance provided by Mortenson and an
agreed upon scope and budget that led to an agreement in GMP
GMP agreement of USD 141 M achieved in April 2015
In May 2015 Mortenson refused to sign
Quality assurance during project closeout is an important final step in Athletics

Complex project in order to prevent future costs and may require additional support
to supplement capacity of existing team structure
Current closeout process is mainly safety focus and user has already discovered
some closeout issues
Introduction to the Folsom Field Athletic Complex upgrade plan

Athletic Complex project was intended to modernize and
advance CUs facilities among growing talent competition
Phases were intended to help reduce cost and inconvenience of

a full blown construction site but would have taken longer
Phase 1: 4th
Floor Buildout
Phase 2:
Indoor facility,
practice field,
and parking
Last major construction effort in 1991 with addition of Dal Ward

Upgrade to the facilities was an effort to increase recruitment
success of top-performing student athletes which were being
drawn to nearby schools with more advance facilities
Original Program Plan (and original cost) called for a phased
approach with the following phase split:
Phase 1: 4th Floor Build-Out to serve as Olympics Sports
Offices (USD 6.1 M)
Phase 2: Indoor facility, practice fields, site development, and
above ground parking lot (USD 117.9 M)
Phase 3: Dal Ward renovation1 (USD 15.8 M)
Original occupancy date was estimated August 2016/17
Contract was drafted as a Design/Build with a Guaranteed

Maximum Price (GMP) but clause was not executed
Under design/build contract, lead contractor is tasked with

developing designs for the end building and executing on that
design
GMP clause is a clause which sets an upper budgetary limit
which project is expected not to surpass. Costs which exceed that
limit are not to be paid by the client and is an effective risk
mitigation tool
GMP clause was never formally executed by Mortenson
Contract form is ideal for fixed and known project scope,
situations similar Folsom Field Athletic Complex with evolving
scope is not best suited
3
1
2
Phase 3: Dal
Ward
Winners of contract were contractor Mortenson and

architectural engineering firm Populous
Role on
project
Team
Governance
Site
presence
Winning contractor,
led contractor
relationship with CU
Design part of bid

team, essentially
worked for Mortenson
Final decision-maker
for build team
Made recommendations which needed

Mortensons approval
Multiple staff flying in

as needed
Select staff moved to

Boulder, others
1 Includes Space for Olympic Sports teams and their support spaces, training table, and renovated and expanded academic support center
Source: Interviews, Athletic Complex Program Plan
Athletics Complex has been impacted by high rates of personnel

turnover both at CU and Mortenson
Lack of continuity has significantly impacted progress of the project
Group
Position
Active period
2013
Athletics
Department
Planning,
Design, &
Construction
Administration
Mortenson
Athletic Director
AD 1
Assistant AD
AAD 1
Campus Architect,
Director of PDC
CA 1
Project Manager
User Rep
2014
2015
Present
AD
AAD 2
CA 2
PM 1
UR 1
PM 2
No replacement
Dir of Project Dev
Dir 1
Dir 2
C&D Liaison
CDL 1
Lead estimator
LE 1 and CDL 2
VP, Gen Manager
VP 1
SR Proj Manager
PM 1
Project Manager
PM 1
Lead Designer
LD 1
Multiple PMs
Populous
Source: Interviews
Changes represented a significant upward budgetary push, which

were offset by cost cutting initiatives in other areas of the project
PRELIMINARY
USD millions
Increases driven by twelve significant scope evolutions, but those increases were controlled by three reductions
1
Indoor
Parking1
24
Focus of
changes only
on significant
changes to
scope
Does not
include
required
changes to
schedule,
manpower,
and other
changes
required to
support scope
change
2
IPF2
Track
11
Rooftop
Design
3
5
IPF2
Height
Reduct
-1
5th
Floor
Add-on
0.3
Dal
Ward
-6
Total
12
Footprint
Aud/
Vis
13
10
Rooftop
bridge
0.4
Grounds
Temp
Kitchen
Brand
0.2
IPF2
Sprinklers
Total
0.7
Total
Total
Total
0.2
Total
14
-0
15
16
Tenant
Finish
Value
Eng
-2
DAS
Systems
Total
Total
-2
Total
-2
3
2
1
Feb
Jun
Jul
Apr
Total
Mar
May
Sep
Dec
Jan
2014
2015
1 Separate project but had schedule and cost implications on Athletics Complex 2 IPF = Indoor Practice Field
Source: Interviews
Going forward, there are three important considerations for the

Athletics Complex project
1 As of December 2015, the project is 93% of budget (USD 140

M) has been released to Mortenson
2 Current closeout process has strong administrative and safety
focus, no identifiable quality assurance closeout plan is in
place and may require additional support capacity
3 Throughout the project, Mortenson provided constant
assurance to CU personnel that project was on track with
agreed upon budget and timeframe
Source: Interviews, Press Search, Mortenson
Contents
Overall diagnostic
Recommendations
Value at stake
Implementation plan
Overall capital program diagnostic

Quantitative performance on CU Boulders capital portfolio over the past 5 years shows overruns
and delays for a set of Major projects as well as underruns for Minor and Outlay projects
Major projects (projects above $2M) comprise of 80% of the spend. Approximately 8 projects
requiring additional spending limit were typically those impacted by accelerated timeline, scope
changes, or decision delays
Significant portion of the spend, ~$250M, is still outstanding and provides an opportunity to
improve project delivery in on-going projects
Though market conditions impacted the overall cost of projects since 2009, there is no immediate
impact on attractiveness of CU projects based on bid analyses
More than half (>1000 projects) of all Minor and Outlay projects are completed at 5% or more
under the original target cost, similar to other public agencies
Qualitative analyses and review of select Major projects show that CU Boulders capital program
faces challenges in both strategy and project delivery with the following key opportunities:
Capital planning: Meet target costs by rethinking approval process to match the release of funds to
the maturity level of the project
Contracting methodology: Manage owner risk through clear guidelines on selection project delivery
method or contracting terms
Communication: Manage risks proactively by increasing project tracking and clarity in

communicating progress with appropriate stakeholders
Project Manager workforce: Increase consistency in PM workforce through structured training and
onboarding processes and a decrease in turnover
Over the past 5 years, CU Boulders capital spend has been

concentrated on Major projects with a valued budget of ~$870M
PRELIMINARY
Number of
projects
Total budget on projects1
Examples
Project size range
Total value
302
Major
Category I
Range $2-$50
Total value $318M
Category II
Range $50-$100
Total value $240M
Category III
Range $100+
Total value $308M
$867M
Range $500K-$1M
Total value $42M
980
Minor
Range $25k-$500K
Total value $91M
$171M
Range $1-$2M
Total value $39M
957
Outlays
Projects over $2M

Athletics Complex
Systems biotechnology
building
Recreation facilities
improvements
Projects between $25k$2M

Food service renovation
Replace boilers, roof
Lab renovation
$8M
Projects under $25k
Sound proofing
Temporary cooling
Fire alarm upgrade
1,967
Total
$1,046M
1 Representative project scale but not exhaustive. Current budget for projects from March 2010 after the implementations of the CP module to September 2015 across all stages of
development from planning (~$30 M) to closed. Budget defined as most recently approved budget in FAMIS as of mid-September 2015
2 Two grants listed as separate projects were merged with their associated projects. Three projects out of the 30 are ESCO with combined project value of USD ~21 M
Projects requiring additional spending limit were typically impacted

by accelerated timeline, scope changes, or decision delays
PRELIMINARY
NON-EXHAUSTIVE
USD Million
Initial
legislative
spending limit2
Athletics Complex1
142
System Biotech
Projects
impacted
by
significant
scope or
timeline
fluctuations
160
113
Campus Utility1
SEEC1
USD Change in
legislative
spending limit
18
169
75
91
60
56
16
112
53
% Change in
legislative
spending limit
50%
21%
88%
28
37
10
35%
SB Academic Wing1
22
28
28%
Ketchum1
13
23
10
75%
Ekeley Middle Wing
12
14
17%
SPSC - Data room
12
N/A
N/A
N/A
0%
0%
64
64
43
43
EUCLID1 (CASE)
Wilderness1
18
20
14%
IBS
14
16
13%
Bball/ Vball Practice
11
11
2%
Wilderness - Recom
0%
Stad - Video Board
0%
0%
Glenn Miller Ballroom
10%
Hallett Renovation
0%
Atmospheric Lab
0%
GIPF Bldg
(Athletics) 1
Detailed next
12%
JILA
Rec Facilities
Normal
projects
Current
legislative
spending limit3
Observed difference
in performance
between projects
which are pursued
as expected and
those impacted by:
Accelerated
scheduling
Significant or
constant scope
changes
Delayed timing in
decision-making
1 Ongoing project | 2 Initial legislative approval | 3 Current legislative approval
Specific context of building projects reveal important details about

on the dynamic process of design and construction (1/3)
Athletics Complex
System Biotech
Driver for cost change: Accelerated project timeline,

insufficient time for program planning complex project
Additional context
Accelerated timeline provided limited time for
planning efforts to which external consultant was
hired to supplement
Inadequate familiarity/attention to capital process
and requirements by new campus staff
Important changes and decisions were being
made as late as construction
Driver for cost change: Unforeseen construction

escalation in laboratories and need to master plan the
building site for East Campus
Additional context
Efforts were required to master plan the site for
East Campus impacting the budget and schedule
Laboratory facilities required more advanced
features than expected
Additional design fees for LEED certification
Campus Utility
SEEC
Driver for cost change: Delayed approval and new

environmental requirements
Additional context
Original program plan developed in 2007 which
set budget in dollars for that market
Original plan called for $134 M project but
program was only approved for $75 M plan was
reworked
Approved 2011 plan operated in a more expensive
market; student support for continued CoGen
Driver for cost change: Delayed funding, changed

site and program fluctuation
Additional context
Program planning efforts began in 2002 and were
paused, restarted and finalized in 2008
Series of approval delays and program plan
amendments led to the escalation of cost
compared to original budget request
Nature of the building and the market costs
changed significantly from 2008 to 2015

JILA
Systems Biotechnology Academic Wing
Driver for cost change: Delayed federal funding and

unforeseen construction needs
Additional context
Original project cost estimated in 2007 but federal
funding was not available until 2009
Unforeseen existing conditions around hazardous
materials were discovered underground (e.g. aged
plant fuel storage tanks)
High sensitivity of research equipment required
advanced vibration-prevention features
Driver for cost change: Delayed funding availability

Additional context
Educational wing of this facility delayed from 2006
to 2015-16 due to the demand for state capital
construction funding and economic hardship
Original cost was completed before the
construction upswing in the Denver area
Increase of cost driven by higher market demand
and inflationary cost which occurred between
2008 and present day
Ketchum
Ekeley
Driver for cost change: Scope significantly evolved

from original capital renewal scope
Additional context
First state funding request was in 1998 which was
only for capital renewal of the building; Circa 1938
building
Appropriated design funds rescinded along with
construction phase funding in 2007-08
2014 funding was granted for a complete overhaul
with an expanded program plan
Driver for cost change: Delayed funding and

inflationary impact of costs
Additional context
Project plan originally scoped in late 1990s
Appropriated design funds rescinded along with
construction funding in 2007-08
Inflationary cost pressures from the original
funding approval impacted the budgetary needs of
the project

SPSC Data Room
Driver for cost change: Cost decreased significantly due to
dramatic technological innovation in market

Additional context
Original plan was to develop a facility to hold data servers
to back-up crucial university information
Popularization of online cloud memory capabilities
significantly drove down the need to purchase devices to
support data needs of university
Project costs were dramatically reduced
Denver market conditions impact project performance (both

positively and negatively) and need to be accounted for in planning
4,500
6,890
6,985
7,010
7,078
7,000
4,450
6,341
6,384
4,450
4,400
6,500
4,300
5,000
4,500
4,250
4,000
4,150
4,178
Recession
recovery
3,500
Growth
period
3,000
4,092
4,100
Observations:
Denver area market
experienced growth
increase in prices over
the past five years
From June 2009 to July

2010 the compound
aggregated growth rate
was 1.91% for BCI and
3.04% for CCI
Further pricing pressure

may existing due to
scarcity of labor at
subcontracting levels
and increasing project
demands coming online
2,500
2,000
4,050
4,000
CCI
5,500
4,317
4,200
BCI
6,000
4,342
4,350
7,500
1,500
3,975
1,000
3,950
500
3,900
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
NOTE: The ENR indexes measure how much it costs to purchase the following hypothetical package of goods compared to what it was in the base year. The CCI uses 200 hours of common
labor, multiplied by the 20-city average rate for wages and fringe benefits. The BCI uses 68.38 hours of skilled labor, multiplied by the 20-city wage- fringe average for three trades
bricklayers, carpenters and structural ironworkers. For their materials component, both indexes use 25 cwt of fabricated standard structural steel at the 20-city average price, 1.128 tons of
bulk portland cement priced locally and 1,088 board ft of 2x4 lumber priced locally.
Source: Engineering New Record, Team analysis
Analysis of bids reveal CU projects are attractive to general market

Project
Construction
start
Project budget
(USD M)
Total
interested
bidders
13
Total
qualified
bidders
Highest
Lowest Spread
(%)
11%
Second Lowest
Lowest Spread
(%)
3%
IBS
Jun 09
Sys biotech
Sep 09
B/V Ball
Apr 10
11
WLRD Rec
May 10
HLET
May 10
Jila
May 10
East Elect
May 11
Video board
Apr 12
Rec facility
Jun 12
Utility syst
Aug 12
EKLC
Apr 12
Comp data
Aug 13
12%
3%
Atmos lab
Aug 13
12%
1%
MAC
Dec 13
Athletics
Apr 14
GM Ballrm
May 14
GIPF Blg
Sep 14
Ketchum
Jan 15
Wilderness
Mar 15
Ecme Hvac
Sep 15
Euclid
Oct 15
E-wing
Jan
161
1 Expected construction start
Source: PD&C, Team Analysis
143
32%
10%
32
13
0%
14%
6
5
5%
24%
4%
23%
6%
41%
18%
64
10
86
13
14
91
23%
4
14
32
3
10
2
43
13%
23%
2
6
8
6%
40%
3%
6%
11
2
17%
46%
22
25%
10
148
6%
32%
3%
2%
35%
5%
40%
13%
22%
1%
0%
17%
4%
40%
23
No
discernable
trend can be
identified
when
reviewing
past history
of Major bids,
while total
number of
interested
bidders is
trending
lower in 2nd
half of 2015
15%
8
Minor and Outlay projects are routinely under budget

Total budget over/underrun USD Millions
Minor projects1
N = 7862
Outlay projects1
N = 6102,3
342
55% of projects
USD 20.2 M
underrun
64% of projects
USD 1.5 M
underrun
214
186
106
5-20
20-50
50+
0.6
3.1
3.1
15
>-20 -20- -5
-5-5
5-20
20-50
50+
Percentage over/under budget

14.7
Underruns in Minor
and Outlay projects
amount to ~$22M,
less than 2% of
overall capital
budget over five
years
Underruns are
expected given low
project values and
lack of knowledge
on existing field
conditions
99
Percentage over/under budget

-0.2
Majority of projects
were under budget
by more than 5%
(55% of Minor and
64% of Outlay)
122
24
-5-5
176
1092
10
>-20 -20- -5
PRELIMINARY
-0.1
0.2
0.5
0.8
1 Includes Substantial Completion, Post Construction, and Closed Representative from March 2010 after the implementations of the CP module to
September 2015
2 Excludes projects with USD 0 spend, Minor = 11 and Outlay = 12
3 Excludes 215 closed projects with a budget of USD 0 but representing USD 890 K of actual spend
Source: PD&C, Team Analysis
Among other public organizations, regular underruns for Minor and

Outlays are not uncommon but may constrain user
PRELIMINARY
access to capital
Underrun represents approximately 18% of total
budgeted amount for Outlay and Minor projects1
Outlay
USD Millions
129
-22
2
which is in line with other public organizations

setting budgets for similar projects
Average % budget underrun
Minor
21
107
1
0
Public org 1
14-18%
0
Up to
30%+
Public org 2
120
CU
Budgeted
Underrun
Overrun
Spend
18%
Potential to unlock limited value by tightening

budget estimation processes or employing staged
release of funds during project execution
Lower underruns may allow greater budget to
perform more projects
Performance metrics need to capture user
satisfaction, delivery schedule, and execution cost
1 Includes Substantial Completion, Post Construction, and Closed Representative from March 2010 after the implementations of the CP module to
September 2015
Source: PD&C, Team Analysis, Press search
Rapid diagnostic evaluates the effectiveness of CU Boulders

Capital program across the following dimensions
Best practice area
Formal mechanisms for ensuring corporate strategy implementation
Risk/return appetite estimation
Establishing corporate/group level risk and return expectations
Capital headroom calculation
Calculation/simulation of cash generation and investment ability
Portfolio review
Top down review of project portfolios, including improvement

potential
Portfolio allocation
Selecting projects for execution, understanding interactions, risk
Ongoing returns tracking
Evaluating how results match to risk/return appetite
Opportunity Origination
Initial scoping of opportunities and preparation for project success
Business case optimization

and concept selection
Development and testing of concepts against a reference case for

most effective selection
Design, procurement, &

contracting
Detailed project design, planning, and procurement
Construction & Execution
Tactical project execution including scope changes
Comm. & Ramp-up
Startup and handoff to ongoing operating team
Project control
Assessing project outcomes, establishing feedback loops
Organization
Organization structures and standards applied to capital
Mindsets and capabilities
Personnel attitudes and skill sets devoted to capital
Processes and tools
Enabling systems applied to capital budgeting and delivery
Capital Strategy Strategy translation
Portfolio
Strategy
Project
Delivery
Enablers
Description
Source: McKinsey Capital Productivity Practice
Rapid diagnostic based on interviews and select project reviews

reveals that strategy as well as project delivery are below
industry average at CU Boulder
PRELIMINARY
Enablers
Project delivery
Opportunity
origination
Concept
selection
Project
definition
and
approval
Project
execution
Project
ramp-up
Project control
Commissioning and
ramp-up
Organization
4.0
Processes and tools

Mindsets and
capabilities
3.0
2.0
Construction and
Execution
Design. procurement.
and contracting
Business case
definition and concept
Strategy translation to
asset base
1.0
0.0
Risk/Return appetite
Industry average = 2-3
Opportunity origination
Ongoing returns
tracking
Capital headroom
calculation
Capital Strategy
Portfolio review
Portfolio allocation
Portfolio Strategy
Source: Based on 40+ interviews with PD&C
Based on 40+ interviews, select project reviews, data analysis, and

focus groups we identified a set of opportunities
Opportunities to increase efficiency and effectiveness
Cross-cutting
Project
execution
Contracting
Design
Capital
Planning
More consistent Program Planning efforts, aligned with paced project schedule to decrease
owner risk
Address backlog in maintenance through improved capital allocation
Enhance integrated portfolio view with clear project prioritization
Rethink approval process to match the release of funds to the maturity level of the project
Augment alignment between PD&C and administration in regards to project budget estimates
and timelines
Continue with recently launched effort for early engagement of Project Manager in project
lifecycle
Emerging themes for

developing excellence
Develop a clear, welldocumented, and scalable

stage gate process to
drive capital investment
success
Adopt clear guidelines in

contracting strategy to
address project risk based
on project scope, target
cost, expected delivery
schedule, market
conditions, and internal
capability
Refine choice in contracting strategy (choice of delivery model, contract type, award process) to
align to scope, project schedule, market conditions, and owner execution capability
Consistently enforce contract terms in the field leading to lower owner risk
Standardize project execution processes

Adopt and enforce tools and as a standardization method
Increase ownership of project controls (i.e., cost and schedule tracking)
Deploy project controls

to drive transparency of
cost, schedule, and
milestones during project
execution thus increasing
consistency
Enhance communication on project progress

Celebrate success
Leverage performance monitoring (e.g., lessons learned at project completion) as source of
insight
Provide training for onboarding new employees and continuous development
Train and retain the

Project Manager
workforce to ensure best
practices adoption and
execution in project
management
Source: Interviews
Contents
Overall diagnostic
Recommendations
Value at stake
Implementation plan

the four themes to begin developing excellence
Emerging theme
Stage-Gate process:
how do projects
move through
A multiple fund and
scope approval
gates through the
lifecycle?

Clear guidelines on
to best manage
owner risk

capability
on cost, schedule
and milestones for
each project

timely manner
Standardized
processes with
capability building
training to ensure

Source: Interviews, Expert interviews, Team analysis
VGI-AAA123-20090508-

of a project



1 Delivery
model

3 Contract
terms
2 Award
proces
s
SJO-AAA123-20110525-
Create/ update
plan
Process step
Users
Progress
measurement
Provide timely,
accurate inputs
Help in identifying
critical milestones
Create WBS
Identify critical
milestones
Create/ update
plan
Publish plan
Customized
analysis
Provide timely,
accurate inputs
actions
Monitor & report

project progress
Recommend
focus actions/
area
Publish report
Identify required
analyses
Provide timely,
accurate inputs
Roles
Printed
Single and
comprehensive
capital investment
framework
Project Managers:
how well is project
D management best
practice followed?
Printed 4/6/2011 4:32:15 PM
Transparency: how
do project controls
C allow for right
information at the
right time?
Description
Contracting: how
are selected
Best practice
Planning
team
Recommend &
perform required
analyses
Publish analysis
report
STAGE GATE PROCESS
A Existing CU Boulder approval process for Major projects does

not match project maturity with funding commitments
# Funding gate
# Review-only gate
Current Process
Project
Initiation/
Concept
Development
Consultant and
Contractor
Selection
Program
Planning
1
Schematic
Design
Design
Development
Construction Documents
Bidding
and Negotiation
Construction
Close Out
and
Warranty
Period
2
Project obtains board approval and is funded
Cabinet review and authorization

Observations
Unclear project pipeline prioritization process leads to suboptimal use of resources in developing Program Plans
Consensus must be built across many campus departments to xdevelop a Program Plan which requires considerable investment
of time and effort from the PD&C planning staff
100% of project target cost is established and committed before design is adequately developed
Length of time from project approval at funding gate 2 to project bidding exposes CU Boulder to market conditions as project
estimates no longer reflect the current market conditions
Project Managers enter the process after critical project decisions regarding scope and schedule are made
Continued scope development occurs in the schematic design and design development stage through user input
Source: CU Boulder PD&C website and interviews
STAGE GATE PROCESS
A Adding stage gates to existing Capital Project Process will focus

University resources and increase control for Major projects
# Funding gate
From...
# Review-only gate
Operations
Project
Initiation/
Concept
Development
Consultant
and
Contractor
Selection
Program
Planning
Schematic
Design
Design
Development
Construction
Documents
Bidding and
Negotiation
Construction
Close Out
2
Project Obtains Board Approval and is Funded
Cabinet Review and Authorization
to

Project
Initiation/
Concept
Development
Program
Planning/
Scope
Selection
Is this needed? Is it a
priority?
2a
Consultant
and
Contractor
Selection
Schematic
Design
Design
Development
Construction
Documents
2b
Is the best option still viable after scoping?

Freeze Scope. Release full budget.
Develop feasible options. Release seed money.
Source: Expert interviews, Team analysis
Bidding and
Negotiation
Construction
Start-up/
Commissioning
Close Out
Is the project ready to begin operation?
Is option still viable given the refined estimate?
Is the project ready to be turned over?
6
Any
outstanding
accounts or
issues?
STAGE GATE PROCESS
A Proposed process splits the funding gate and provides an

opportunity to develop the design prior to committing total funds
# Funding gate
Consultant and
2a Contractor
Selection
Project Initiation
Program
and Concept
1
Planning
Development
Cabinet Review and
Authorization pre-design
Schematic Design
Select best option or set of

alternatives to further develop
2b
# Review-only gate
Design
Development
Release full project funds with

stronger confidence
Estimate Accuracy1
Percent
Share of total
Percent
30%
>50
50
100% of funding
committed
40
30
25
30
20
20
0.5 10% of
funding
committed
10
0
15
-10
5-15%
-20
10%
10
-30
5%
-40
-50
0.5%
Funding required (percent of total investment cost)
5
2%
Engineering complete
Estimate accuracy
1- Cost estimate accuracy increases (narrows) as design progresses, even as the cost estimate mid-point fluctuates as design progresses.
STAGE GATE PROCESS
A Stage-Gate Process for complex projects at CU Boulder will

help manage resources and provide more financial control (1/2)
Stages
# Funding gate
Project Initiation and 1

Concept Development
Activities
Someone identifies a
project
Options are generated

with order of magnitude
estimates
Program
Planning
2a
A/E and/or
Contractor
Selection
Schematic Design
# Review-only gate
2b
The best option Design Team and/or Contractor Selected

is selected and
funds are
allocated to
complete
preliminary
engineering
either in a temporary (Paid competition/initial

design phase contract) or permanent basis
depending on project and delivery method
selected
Basic engineering is conducted to create a
decision-worthy estimate
Review gate 1
Funding gate 2a
Funding gate 2b
Gate questions:
Is the project need legitimate?
Is it a priority?
Gate questions:
Do feasible options exist that
match the intended purpose?
Gate questions:
Is the best option still viable after
scoping?
Stakeholders:
User
PD&C (Planning)
Vice Chancellor, Administration
Board of Regents (Informed)
Stakeholders:
User
PD&C (Planning and PM)
CFO
Finance
BCPC (Informed)
Stakeholders:
User
PD&C (PM, Eng., Shops)
Design Team & Contractor
BCPC
Board of Regents
Final approval authority:

Vice Chancellor

CFO

Board of Regents
STAGE GATE PROCESS
A Stage-Gate Process comparison for the Wildlife Place project

# Funding gate
Existing Process
Contractor
Selection/Schematic Design
% Design
Complete
0%
5%
Project
Estimate
--
$17.9M
Funding
Required
Program Plan
Funding
100% of project
estimate
Board of
Regents
--
Board approves
full capital spend
Proposed Process
Program
Planning
Program
Planning
Contractor
2a Selection/Schematic Design
% Design
Complete
0%
5%
Project
Estimate
--
$9M - $26.9M
($17.9M)
Funding
Required
Board of
Regents
Program Plan
Funding
--
$2.2M (12.5%
of Estimate)
Board informed
of design start
Design
Development
# Review-only gate
Construction
Documents
After Funding:
Increase to $22.4M at 100% DD estimate
VE and ESCO engaged, schedule slips
Board of Regents approves additional $2.5M (Total $20.4M)
Additional funding required to achieve project scope
Design
Development
2b
Construction
Documents
30-50%
Project estimate tightens through SD ($19M - $25.8M )

VE to reduce cost, based on need and function, retain quality
$20.2M (mid-point of estimate less $2.2M from Stage 2a
funding gate)
Board of Regents approves capital spend for remaining

unfunded portion of project (~80-90%)
STAGE GATE PROCESS
A An internal stage gate working group of stakeholders can

design processes and develop necessary documentation
Detailed next (sample)
Stage Gate documentation: suggested table of contents

Stage Gate
Playbook creation process
Suggested working group:
PD&C (3)
Planning
Representative
Project Manager
Engineering
Vice Chancellor
Potential Participants (at
key intervals):
Users
Legal
Activities:
Conduct a series of
workshops to address
each section of the stage
gate playbook
Review playbook with key
stakeholders to validate
approach
Stage Gates
Decision and funding gates for:
Base Projects
Complex Projects
Gate 1
Objectives for Gate
Key Deliverables for Gate
By Function
Timeline
Critical Functions of Team
Summary Process Map for Gate
Project Managers Roles in completing
Gate
How to ensure success at Gate 1
Gate 2a
Objectives for Gate
By Function
Project Managers Roles in completing
Gate
How to ensure success at Gate 2a
Gate 2b
Objectives for Gate
By Function
Timeline
Project Managers Roles in completing Gate
How to ensure success at Gate 2b
Gates 3-6
Objectives for Gate

By Function
Timeline
Project Managers Roles in completing Gate
How to ensure success at Gate 2b
Appendix
Alternative Gates for Special Projects

CU Boulder Standard forms
STAGE GATE PROCESS
A Stage 1 Project Initiation and Concept Development

Objectives, key deliverables, and critical functions
ILLUSTRATIVE
Objectives
Key deliverables
Select best scope
Explicit reconciliation of variances
alternative that meets

the CU Boulders needs
and objectives
Define all scope

elements to a level
enabling sound decision
making
Define project execution

plan to meet targets as
required
against project requirements
Complete scope identification and

selection of a single option for all scope
elements
Complete draft of a project execution

plan
Initial risk assessment

Cost estimate with an accuracy of
Planner - lead
Users
Engineering
Operations / Shop support
Outside support:
Estimating
Scheduling
50%; and a first estimate at an

operations expenditure budget
Develop an initial schedule through

completion, including resources for
next phase
Critical functions
Support functions
Finance
Vice Chancellor
STAGE GATE PROCESS
A Stage 1 Project Initiation and Concept Development (1/2)

Deliverables by function
ILLUSTRATIVE
Function
PD&C (Planning
and Project
Manager)
Deliverable
Project charter
Issue record of decision for alternative selection
Provide detailed scope
Conduct analysis to facilitate key decision points(e.g., site, execution
strategy)
Develop initial project execution plan (scope / change management plan;
project team and resources; contracting strategy; risk management;
project controls (KPIs); estimate (50%), quality, procurement, testing
and close out, schedule; communication plan; contractor management
Engineering
lead
Evaluate technical alternatives analysis and provide recommendation

Complete basic engineering data requirements (e.g., load requirements,
equipment sizing, energy use, etc.)
Implement optional value improving practices (VIPs):
Types of plant and equipment
Concept optimization
Constructability reviews
Regulatory
Assign code representative, if applicable

Assign environmental representative, if applicable
STAGE GATE PROCESS

Deliverables by function
ILLUSTRATIVE
Function
Contracting
Strategy
Operations and
Maintenance
Quality
assurance
Finance
Legal
Deliverable
Define delivery method, contract award method, and contract terms
Provide OPEX cost estimate, if applicable

Assign operations representative for next phase, if applicable
Define maintenance requirements, if applicable
Define quality oversight
Review estimate, validate financial view calculation

Input project into the budget
Provide support, as required
STAGE GATE PROCESS

Summary process map
ILLUSTRATIVE
Form core
project team
Review
business case
Clarify roles and
responsibilities
Identify targets
as per CU
Boulder needs
Review project
charter
Identify
additional
resources
required
Project manager
assigned
Initiate
conceptual
engineering
User
requirements
Preliminary
massing
Assess
infrastructure
requirements
Identify financial
and logistical
issues
Narrow down
potential sites (if
applicable)
Narrow down
building concept
and potential MEP
systems
Update
conceptual
engineering
Include massing
Process control
strategies
Apply value
improvement
practices
Finalize
programmed
areas
Agree on
standards and
specifications
Conduct
process
simplification
and/or value
engineering
Conduct early
constructability
analysis
Scope and
document the
best option:
Conduct formal
evaluation of
alternatives
including fatal
flaws analysis,
and select best
available option
for application
Document
record of
decision
STAGE GATE PROCESS

Summary process map
ILLUSTRATIVE
Develop
operations and
maintenance
strategies
Decision Gate
Estimate OPEX
Recycle
Proceed to Stage 2a
Conduct
preliminary
equipment
sizing
Finalize and
review scope of
work
Develop Plans
for Completing:
Basic
engineering
Detailed
engineering
Procurement
Construction
Contracting
Project controls
Reconcile
project
objectives
Develop
schedule to
reach Stage
2a and
detailed
milestone
schedule for
execution
phase
Develop
resource
requirements
for Stage 2a
Cancel/postpone
Develop
detailed
risk matrix
Update
Campus project
budget
Issue record of decision

Confirm business objectives, risks
and uncertainties and confirm
compliance with both CU Boulder
and user requirements and
strategies
Prepare
factored
estimate
(50%)
Confirm project objectives,

priorities, trade-offs
Confirm scope to be developed
and compliance with University
objectives
Present cost and schedule
Confirm basic
engineering
requirements
Develop
renderings
Review
engineering
requirements for
permits
Summarize project execution

strategy and plans
Identify resource requirements for
next phase and through project
completion
STAGE GATE PROCESS
A Though the proposed stage-gate process is currently defined

for Major projects, CU Boulder can extend the process to
complex and eventually all Minor and Outlay projects (1/2)
Rough cost of
project
Major
Project
Threshold
2,000,000
Complex
projects
500,000
Base Projects
can continue to
utilize existing
stage gate
process,
potentially adding
key QA/QC steps
Complex and
Major Projects
should use
proposed stage
gate process
Definition of
thresholds should
be agreed
through StageGate working
group
Base
projects
150,000
Low
Med/High
Complexity
STAGE GATE PROCESS
A Though the proposed stage-gate process is currently defined

for Major projects, CU Boulder can extend the process to
complex and eventually all Minor and Outlay projects (2/2)
Expansion of stage
gate process
Phase 3
(2 months)
Phase 2
(3 months)
Phase 1
(4.5 months)
All Minor/Outlay Projects:

Applicable processes from
Phases 1 and 2
New processes, etc. with a
focus for streamlining
Develop and Implement Process for

Complex Minor Projects ($0.5M-2M):
Applicable processes from Phase 1
New processes, templates, agendas,
reviews required for Phase 2
Develop and Implement Stage Gate Process

for Major Projects ($2M and over) including:
Pre-work required for each gate
Templates
Agenda for stage gate meetings
Reviews required
Time line of stage gate rollout
STAGE GATE PROCESS
A University capital project funding thresholds vary widely but are

typically higher than CU Boulders
USD Millions
Delgated budget threshold

60
Initial
project
approvals
thresholds
Observations
40
2
10
CU Boulder has low approval

thresholds even after
accounting for expected
regional cost variations (e.g.
UC expected $/sqft costs are
1.6-1.8x CU expected costs, but
UC initial approval thresholds
are 10x CU thresholds)
Delegated approval systems

require up-front Board approval
of Long Range Development
Plans and thereafter allow
Campuses to act autonomously
up to a larger cap
Percentage of budget expansion

varies widely, with common aim
to keep projects moving in
uncertain circumstances
Smaller campuses networks

have smaller thresholds
15
5
10
20
Percent of initial cost

30%
25%
Change
approval
thresholds
# of
academic
campuses
Expected $/
sqft1
10%
10%
5%
185-305
185-305
NA
265-395
10
340-490
1 Hard construction costs $/GSF for University buildings in select US cities, Rider Levett Bucknall Quarterly Construction Report, 2nd Quarter 2015
Source: Press Search

Emerging theme
Stage-Gate process:
how do projects
move through
A multiple fund and
scope approval
gates through the
lifecycle?

Clear guidelines on
to best manage
owner risk

capability
on cost, schedule
and milestones for
each project

timely manner
Standardized
processes with
capability building
training to ensure

VGI-AAA123-20090508-

of a project



1 Delivery
model

3 Contract
terms
2 Award
proces
s
SJO-AAA123-20110525-
Create/ update
plan
Process step
Users
Progress
measurement
Provide timely,
accurate inputs
Help in identifying
critical milestones
Create WBS
Identify critical
milestones
Create/ update
plan
Publish plan
Customized
analysis
Provide timely,
accurate inputs
actions
Monitor & report

project progress
Recommend
focus actions/
area
Publish report
Identify required
analyses
Provide timely,
accurate inputs
Roles
Printed
Single and
comprehensive
capital investment
framework
Project Managers:
how well is project
D management best
practice followed?
Printed 4/6/2011 4:32:15 PM
Transparency: how
do project controls
C allow for right
information at the
right time?
Description
Contracting: how
are selected
Best practice
Planning
team
Recommend &
perform required
analyses
Publish analysis
report
CONTRACTING PROCESS
Steps
B Existing process shows opportunity for an integrated

contracting strategy to mitigate and share project risks
Observations
Current tools
Limited range of delivery models

for large capital projects available
to CU Boulder per State
requirements
Inconsistency in application of
delivery models across capital
projects
Lack of institutional experience
in alternative delivery models
(Public Private Partnerships,
Integrated Project Delivery) as not
commonly used for mega projects
Go to strategy is design build or
CM at risk delivery model with a
GMP
State procurement guidance

documents
PD&C staff experience (CU and
previous experience)
PD&C internal discussion to
determine appropriate contact
type
Determine contract terms

and sign
Select contractor(s)
Select a delivery model
Complex award process due to

state rules and regulations
Competitive bids required
contracts over $20k
Contractor interest is based on
guaranteed payments and
prestigious projects, however
perception of CU Boulder as
challenging client due to
regulation burden
State procurement guidance

PD&C staff experience (CU and
past work experience)
PD&C internal discussion to
determine appropriate contact
type
Cost, performance, schedule, and

disruption to campus operation
are strongly considered, but
unclear how terms are
incorporated into contract terms
CU Boulder is often the natural
owner of risk, with contractors
able to leverage schedule and
change orders to their advantage
State limits the ability to include
incentives in contracts
CU Boulder often not in a
position to enforce contracts
(liquidated damages) due to lack
of authority, tracking, and quality
assurance/quality control
State contracts
CONTRACTING PROCESS
B Optimal contracting strategy decisions should aim to maximize

project success within known constraints
Optimal contracting
strategy should aim to
maximize project success
Schedule
Project
Success
while being constrained by three major elements
Project
risks
Cost
Internal
capabilities
Quality/
operation
efficiency
Market
capabilities
How does this project fit into CU Boulders capital

strategy and what are they trying to achieve with it?
How complex is the project? How much experience

does CU Boulder have with this type of project? What
are the associated risks?
What are the risks associated with each step of the

project? Who can manage them best?
What elements of the project can CU Boulder manage

themselves? (skills and availability of resources)?
What can be done better by other parties?
What systems and processes does CU Boulder have

in place to support the contracting strategy?
What are the capabilities of available contractors?
Where can CU Boulder leverage them?
Is the level of competition sufficient to ensure
appropriate negotiation power?
CONTRACTING PROCESS
Steps
B Proposed contracting process establishes a consistent risk

based approach to enhance project outcomes
Goals
Who to
involve
Actions
Determine Contract Terms and

Sign
Select a Contractor
Select a Delivery Model
Establish a Contracting Strategy

Playbook for optimizing cost/
schedule/quality aligned with
State regulations and CU Boulder
past experience
Understand how alternative
models (bundling, PPP, IPC)
could be utilized to better spread
risks
Understand CU Boulder desired
role (skill building)
Develop Contracting Strategy

Playbook working group to
explore best delivery options of
CU Boulder projects
PD&C
Legal
Procurement
Contractor Rep
Design Team Rep
Integrate Contractor selection

process into Contracting
Strategy Playbook to best utilize
process to meet cost, schedule
or quality based outcomes
Transfer project risks to align
objectives between owner

and contractors, not to
outsource them
Ensure the terms of the
performance contract are
pragmatic, clear, and
measurable
Integrate contractor selection

methods into Contracting
Strategy Playbook
Formalize Contractor Score
Card
Develop standard language

added to State contracts to
provide a fair and equitable
balance of risk on large Capital
Projects
PD&C
Legal
Procurement
Contractor Rep
Design Team Rep
PD&C
Legal
Procurement
CONTRACTING PROCESS
B An internal contracting working group of stakeholders can

develop a Contracting Strategy Playbook
Contracting Strategy Playbook: suggested table of contents
Contracting strategy
playbook creation process
Suggested working
group:
PD&C (3)
Planning
Representative
Project Manager
Engineering
Legal (1)
Procurement Team (1)
Potential Participants (at
key intervals):
Contractor
Representatives
Architect
Representatives
Activities:
Conduct a series of
workshops to address
each section of the
contracting playbook
Review playbook with key
stakeholders to validate
approach
Delivery method
Preferred delivery methods for:
Base Projects
Complex Projects
Delivery methods to maximize:
Cost
Schedule
Quality
Key considerations for delivery methods and
project types:
Operator experience required
Pool of experienced contractors available
Ability of contractor to integrate with others
Ramp-up/Turnover consistency
Single execution voice
Project controls
Contracting risk exposure
Project Managers Roles for each Delivery
Method
Project Managers Role for each

Contractor Selection Method
Contractor Score Card
Contracting terms
Selecting contract terms to maximize:
Cost
Schedule
Quality
Project Managers Role for each
contract type
Appendix
Standard Delivery Models
CU Boulder Contract forms
Contractor selection
Appropriate contractor selection process for:
Base Projects
Complex Projects
Selection process considerations per Delivery
Method
CONTRACTING PROCESS
B Contracting strategy playbook example: selecting preferred

contract given decision making posture
ILLUSTRATIVE
Preferred contract form
Type of Project
Nice to have
Must have
Implication to owner
Base
Design-BidBuild (DBB)
Base
Complex
Design-Build
(DB)
Complex
Complex
Construction
Management /
General
Contractor (CM/ Hybrid DB and
CM/GC
GC)
Lowest quality with significant

potential delays and cost overruns
Complex
Provides highest quality project with

minimum or no delay, under budget
Public Private
Partnerships
(PPP)
Rationale
1 Operator
experience
Larger number of contractors has a higher

probability of engaging an experienced
contractor on the project to achieve quality
2 Pool of
experienced people
Larger pool of companies to pull resources

from reduces risk of schedule slippage
3 Ability to integrate
with others
Smaller number of interfaces reduces the

risk of team misalignment affecting schedule
and quality
4 Ramp-up/turnover
consistency
Higher risk of schedule slippage when

multiple contractors are responsible for
commissioning and ramp up
5 Single execution
voice
Lower risk of schedule slippage with a single

company approach to solicitation strategy
6 Project controls
Fewer companies to align on tools reduces

the risk of delays and budget overruns due
to documentation and budget management
Contracting risk
exposure
Late contractor
involvement
could lead to redesigns
Overall score
Most compatible Moderately

with owner
compatible with
strategy
owner strategy
Contractor
driven cost
savings
undermines
quality
Late involvement
from subs leads
to cost and
schedule
overruns
If terms are not

well defined
could lead to
cost, schedule,
quality issues
Lack of CU
Boulder
experience could
lead to cost,
schedule, and
quality issues.
Less compatible Moderately

with higher owner compatible with
risk
owner strategy
Least compatible
with owner
strategy

Emerging theme
Stage-Gate process:
how do projects
move through
A multiple fund and
scope approval
gates through the
lifecycle?

Clear guidelines on
to best manage
owner risk

capability
on cost, schedule
and milestones for
each project

timely manner
Standardized
processes with
capability building
training to ensure

VGI-AAA123-20090508-

of a project



1 Delivery
model

3 Contract
terms
2 Award
proces
s
SJO-AAA123-20110525-
Create/ update
plan
Process step
Users
Progress
measurement
Provide timely,
accurate inputs
Help in identifying
critical milestones
Create WBS
Identify critical
milestones
Create/ update
plan
Publish plan
Customized
analysis
Provide timely,
accurate inputs
actions
Monitor & report

project progress
Recommend
focus actions/
area
Publish report
Identify required
analyses
Provide timely,
accurate inputs
Roles
Printed
Single and
comprehensive
capital investment
framework
Project Managers:
how well is project
D management best
practice followed?
Printed 4/6/2011 4:32:15 PM
Transparency: how
do project controls
C allow for right
information at the
right time?
Description
Contracting: how
are selected
Best practice
Planning
team
Recommend &
perform required
analyses
Publish analysis
report
TRANSPARENCY
C CU Boulder requires a systematic approach to building

transparency among stakeholders in project delivery
Description
Define key
data and clear
C1 KPIs for
project
delivery
Create an
C2 accessible KPI
dashboard
Provide a
forum for
C3
decision
making
CU Boulder should define Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) at a

project level based on project categories defined (i.e. Major, Minor, and
Outlays) with clear targets across each
An individual should also be identified as a responsible party for
reporting and meeting the KPI target (may be different individuals)
Clear direction and training should be provided on how to calculate and
report the KPI
KPI dashboard should be accessible at multiple levels (e.g. project
level and portfolio level) to the relevant stakeholders
The accessible dashboard can be communicated widely to build
transparency among all stakeholders (e.g. users, administration,
PD&C) and increase project accountability
KPI dashboards can be used as a tool in a regular forum of
stakeholders (e.g. a Project Review Board) to discuss project progress
Project Review Boards will also help resolve issues proactively as it
will:
Enable decision makers to have the right information
Allow PMs to raise concerns at right time
KPI dashboard is designed at both project and portfolio level

TRANSPARENCY
C1 Defining relevant data and KPIs will help prioritize efforts

in developing a practical dashboard for project delivery
Cost
Major
Schedule
Scope
Quality
Health
Safety
KPI / data
Unit
Where does it live?
Legend:
Who
reports?
EAC at initial approval
$M USD
Board Meetings docs?
Current approval amount
$M USD
Current EAC
Data
KPI
PRELIMINARY
How to report?
Target
Planner
Shared excel?
N/A
Planner?
Shared excel?
N/A
$M USD
Latest GC update
PM
Shared excel?
N/A
Cost variance (Current EAC/

EAC at initial approval)
Calculated
PM
Shared excel?
<5%
ECD at initial approval
Date
Planner
Shared excel?
N/A
ECD at contract signing
Date
Contract documents
PM
Shared excel?
N/A
Current ECD
Date
Latest GC update
PM
Shared excel?
N/A
Schedule variance (current

ECD initial ECD)
weeks
Calculated
PM
Shared excel?
<4 weeks
Size at initial approval (new,

renovation split)
Sqft
Planner
Shared excel?
N/A
Current size (new vs ren)
Sqft
Latest A/E update
PM
Shared excel?
N/A
# of change orders (cumul, new)
N/A
Changes log?
PM
Shared excel?
N/A
# of total RFIs to date:
RFI log
PM
Shared excel?
# of re-inspections:
Inspection log
Permitting?
Shared excel?
As-Built dwg progress
CAD team update?
CAD?
Shared excel?
100%
Team morale
Stakeholder engagement
L,M,H
Days
Survey responses
Meeting minutes
PM
PM
Shared excel?
Shared excel?
High
5
Total # of reportable injuries:
Latest GC update?
PM
Shared excel?
# Lost man-hours due to

injuries:
PM
100%
Note: see definitions for all metrics above

TRANSPARENCY
C2 Simplified dashboards can be used to effectively manage

communication and proactively identify issues (1/2)
Project Review Board: meeting on mm.dd.yyyy
Project name:
Project Manager:
Project description: 1-2 sentences
Comments since last update
Data or KPIs
Past changes in cost with identified drivers

Expected changes in cost (forward looking)
EAC at initial approval: $##

Current approval amount:
EAC at completion:
Cost variance:
Progress on last milestone:

Next milestone:
Key changes since initial approval:

Key changes in scope since last update:
Identify issues faced by / progress made by the inhouse inspection staff
# of total RFIs to date:

# of re-inspections:
As-Built progress:
Safety
Any initiatives or targets by contractor
# of reportable injuries to date:

Lost man-hours due to injuries:
Health
Team wellbeing:
Stakeholder engagement
Survey score:
Number of days beyond regular cadence:
Help needed from leadership: specify actionable help from leadership (PD&C, Administration, or other)
here
Project view: Major
Cost
Schedule
Scope
Quality
Overall
Rating
ECD at initial approval:

ECD at construction contract signing:
Current ECD:
Schedule variance: (-ve if delayed)
Size at initial approval (new, ren.):
Current size (new, ren.):
# of change orders (cumulative, since last update):

TRANSPARENCY
C2 Simplified dashboards can be used to effectively manage

communication and proactively identify issues (2/2)
To discuss
Portfolio view
Major
Project Review Board: meeting on mm.dd.yyyy

Stage
Current EAC
In $M USD
Cost (-/+)
In percent
ECD
mm/yy
Schd.(+/-) Overall
In weeks Rating
Project name
Project 1
PM name
PM 1
CON
Projects with cost overrun

<10%
No delay
>20%
0-1 month
>1 month
Minor
10-20%
Projects with schedule overrun
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
Outlays
Portfolio size
In $M USD, # of projects
##
##
##
##
##
##
##

TRANSPARENCY
C2
Sample team barometer questionnaire can provide useful insights

to morale and barriers to progress
Introduction page:
Thank you for your participation in this online survey.
The team barometer is a feedback tool used to
monitor team satisfaction. We will discuss the results
every other week as a group, to celebrate successes
and align on actions needed to improve the team's
experience and/or performance.
Time required to complete: 5-10 minutes
Deadline: The survey will open every other Thursday
and will close the following Monday.
Likely scale response options:

Strongly agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
N/A
If the respondent disagrees with any statement, a
dynamic comment box appears to allow
respondent to enter (optional) additional detail.
Body of survey:
1. I am clear about the objectives and end products of the team.
2. I am excited to be working on the team.
3. I am building new skills on this project.
4. The team has an atmosphere of trust and openness.
5. The team works collaboratively. Together we arrive at better solutions.
6. The team communicates well with one another.
7. Team meetings are engaging.
8. This week, the team created relevant, high-quality content that moves
us toward our objectives.
9. Our work is moving us toward our objectives at an appropriate pace.
10. I am able to maintain a good balance between our work and my
private life on this project.
11. I clearly understand my role on the team.
12. I clearly understand the roles of my fellow team members.
13. I am confident our efforts will ultimately result in significant
improvements to our project and to the business.
What is the team doing well?
What could the team do better in order to have more impact?
TRANSPARENCY
C3 A systematic Project Review Board would help address the

communication gaps and leverage KPI dashboards
Potential audience and cadence
Key questions to consider
Lead: Director of PD&C

Chair: CFO
Participants:
CFO
Vice Chancellor of Facilities Management
Director of PD&C
Optional: dial-in/listen in for PMs and
Which stakeholders should be invited
Owners representatives
Distribution: to all PD&C, owners rep, and users
Cadence: minimum monthly
Triggers for discussing a project
At the following defined triggers:

When overall rating is red
At each stage gate
At signing of contract amendments
Requested by leadership
Requested by PD&C Project Manager
to attend the Project Review Board

(from PD&C, Administration, User)?
Who should lead and chair the
Project Review Board meeting?
Who should own the final decision in
the Project Review Board?
Should PMs be invited to listen-in to
the meeting?
What frequency is ideal for Project
Review Board?
Should the KPI dashboards be
distributed to a wider audience? If so,
who?
Who should consolidate and prepare
the dashboard for Project Review
Board discussions?
TRANSPARENCY
C3 Key Definitions for the KPI dashboard
Key definitions
EAC (Estimate At Completion): total value of the project (including

contingencies)
ECD (Estimated Completion Date): estimated substantial completion date

Cost variance: current EAC / EAC at initial Board Approval
Schedule variance: (current ECD ECD at initial Board Approval)
Stage: stages defined to be consistent with stage gate process (e.g.
construction, or business case justification)
Overall rating definitions:

Red: high risk to project success with immediate attention from leadership
Yellow: medium risk to project success where mitigation is managed
within PD&C for now
Green: low to no risk to project success

Emerging theme
Stage-Gate process:
how do projects
move through
A multiple fund and
scope approval
gates through the
lifecycle?

Clear guidelines on
to best manage
owner risk

capability
on cost, schedule
and milestones for
each project

timely manner
Standardized
processes with
capability building
training to ensure

VGI-AAA123-20090508-

of a project



1 Delivery
model

3 Contract
terms
2 Award
proces
s
SJO-AAA123-20110525-
Create/ update
plan
Process step
Users
Progress
measurement
Provide timely,
accurate inputs
Help in identifying
critical milestones
Create WBS
Identify critical
milestones
Create/ update
plan
Publish plan
Customized
analysis
Provide timely,
accurate inputs
actions
Monitor & report

project progress
Recommend
focus actions/
area
Publish report
Identify required
analyses
Provide timely,
accurate inputs
Roles
Printed
Single and
comprehensive
capital investment
framework
Project Managers:
how well is project
D management best
practice followed?
Printed 4/6/2011 4:32:15 PM
Transparency: how
do project controls
C allow for right
information at the
right time?
Description
Contracting: how
are selected
Best practice
Planning
team
Recommend &
perform required
analyses
Publish analysis
report
D Project Manager capability building design focused on three

crucial questions which influenced skill selection & delivery
design
1 What are important skills to be a successful PM and

which should we focus on?
2 What format should we use to train PMs on those
important skills?
3 What do we need to do to make the benefit of those
important skills sustainable?
D Project manager performance is the single most influential

driver of construction project profitability
Highest priority
Skills
Project performance is not

correlated with:
Geography
Asset class
Complexity
Customer
Project manager age or tenure
(grey hair)
II
III
IV
Mgmt
capabilities
Financial
astuteness
We have found that project

performance is highly correlated
with project manager capabilities
Commercial
orientation
Org
capabilities
We have run an analysis of 10,000

projects, checking the correlation of
project performance with different
factors
High performing PMs excel at these skills
Train
Sustain
1.
1
Optimizing schedule, scope, and cost

dimensions
2
1.
Planning & tracking project performance
3
1.
Managing internal and external teams
4
1.
Understanding financial statements
5
1.
Mitigating project risk
6
1.
Maintaining project lifecycle view
1.
7
Overseeing contractors effectively
8
1.
Mastering contract details
1.
9
Leveraging organization resources
1.
10 Managing client needs (e.g.
change orders)
D Clear understanding of exceptional performance is required

before PM training can begin
PM capability
Planning & tracking

project performance
Managing internal &

external teams
Mitigating project
risk
Overseeing
7 contractors
effectively
10
Managing client
needs
Skills
Definition of exceptional performance behavior
Train
Monitoring project progress, ensuring stage gate milestones are achieved in an

acceptable timeframe and at an appropriate quality level
Raising timeline and budget obstacles to project timelines well in advance of
occurrence
Sustain
Communicating project updates and important milestones in a regular and

timely manner
Engaging with partnering organizations to improve project delivery methodology
for joint activities
Leveraging owners representative more to navigate clients context
Identifying and assessing risk factors at project start and reviewing risk
evolution regularly
Creating mitigation plans to successfully resolve project challenges and including
appropriate internal and external personnel
Establishing clear performance metrics and communication standards
Maintaining independent budget tracking documents to provide adequate
project control
Ensuring project delivery and quality is aligned with contract terms
Ensuring client understanding of PD&Cs processes and providing sufficient
clarity on project lifecycle
Managing clients input and needs into project delivery while ensuring budgetary
tradeoffs
Providing regular progress updates focusing on budget and project milestones
To be matched against needs of CU Boulder PMs
Examples are general best practice
Source: Team analysis, Expert interviews
ILLUSTRATIVE
NON-EXHAUSTIVE
D Overview of potential capability modules topics and
support tools which may be considered to improve skills
Skills
Planning
Workshoip module topics
Planning & tracking

project performance
Planning through uncertainty

an approach to planning
under various uncertainties
Understanding market
trends to strengthen plan
scenario assumptions
Capturing lessons from

performing post-mortem
plan analysis
Identifying project support

needs and staffing project for
excellence
Developing legally savvy

contracts a primer to
engaging legal resources
Bringing the best of CU

Boulder to a project
navigating CU Boulders
resources
Identifying potential risk

areas in your upcoming
project
Shifting risks and owning

risks: risk management
approach to contracting
Seeing the smoke signs

developing mitigation
plans and stopping risks
before they start
Developing a view of
contractors performance
before the RFP is released
Setting the tone starting

projects on the right foot
with contractors
Ensuring quality with

commissioning,
developing plans to
minimize after-build costs
Educating clients/ users to

construction and PD&Cs
approach to building
Partnering with client to

ensure client-specific
needs are met while
constructing excellence
Creating clarity to project

progress
Managing client needs
throughout project lifecycle
Project cost modeling

spreadsheets
Stage gate forms
Contracting playbook
Project pipeline
management
Stage gate approval process
Mitigating project
risk
Managing client
needs
Support tools
Tools
Processes
Source: Team Analysis
Train
Sustain
Managing internal &

external teams
Overseeing
contractors
effectively
Design & construction
Contracting
Contracting process to
align with playbook
Project KPI dashboard
Project review board
Tools &
processes
required
not
exhaustive
D Training models for skill-building span across three levels of

involvement
Skills
Train
Sustain
SEE
DO
Providing information
Role-modeling work
in classroom settings
covering specific
skills and leveraging
knowledge experts
and practitioners to
spread best-practices
alongside employee
in an effort to create
experiential learning
to develop and
spread skills among
workforce
TEACH
Developing PMs into

skill and content
masters, then
enlisting their support
in teaching fellow
PMs how to develop
and apply new skills
D Sustainable capability building and maintenance requires a

clear process supported with updated policies
Skills
Train
Sustain
Train new
Project
Managers
Train select
Project
Managers
Review
display
of mastery
and
provide
next
level
training
Ensure
standard
baseline
understanding
of department
approach to
building and
individual
capabilities
are achieved
Offer existing Project Managers

should have access to two
types of training:
Initial: first time introduction
to capability or process
Maintenance: refresher or
rebuilding existing
knowledge
Source: Team Analysis
Provide
Project
Managers
opportunities to
display
abilities
through
project
execution
Sustain policy
and procedures
change
Determine next step of Project Managers

training journey either furthering a new
capability or practicing an existing capability
Train
Field and
Forum
approach
Sustained
capability building
will require
policy and
procedures to
support the
ongoing training
needs of both
new and existing
PMs
Provide sufficient
opportunity for
Project Manager to
demonstrate
mastery of capability
or understanding of
department policy
D A field and forum format ensures appropriate balance between

ILLUSTRATIVE
effort, effectiveness, and reach
Forum
Classroom
setting where
skills are
taught by
experienced
PMs and
standard
setters
Preparation
for forums
Select
participants
Plan
curriculum and
field work
Set expectations
through program
overview
Deliver first series of
workshops
combining activities
and pure lecture
modules
Outline field work
assignments
#1 (1 day)
Celebrate stories of
success from field
work
Establish forum for
PMs to discuss what
worked and what
was challenging
Deliver next set of
lectures and field
work
#2 (1 day)
Train
Repeat defined forum format
Sustain
Session sequence
Forum 1 Overseeing contractors
effectively and Mitigating project risk
Forum 2 Planning & tracking project
performance
Forum 3 Managing client needs
Forum 4 Managing internal & external
teams
#4 (1 day)
2016
Q4
Q1
Q2
Field work
(~12 weeks)
Fill out KPIs and use

to have discussions
with management,
clients, and contracts
on the progress and
performance of
projects
Partnering with training provider

can help reduce timeframe
required for field work
#3 (1 day)
2015
Field
Practice
application of
lessons and
coaching
sessions to
help PMs
operate with
excellence
Skills
Q3
Field work
(~12 weeks)
Provide workshops
for clients on
PD&Cs processes
Perform project
kick-off with client
Use transparency
tools throughout
project
Q4
Field work
(~12 weeks)
Leverage contracting
playbook during
contracting
Create risk
assessments before
project on critical
areas and develop
mitigation plans
Field work
(~12 weeks)
Coach new PMs in

process
Engage with
internal/ external
teams to develop
improved working
processes
D Retaining strong PMs can be supported through empowerment,

training, and fostering a culture of sharing best practices
PRELIMINARY
Empower the PMs

to provide
authentic
authority to match
responsibility
Provide support
to PMs through
before, during,
and after project
duration
Create a culture
of exchange
where best ideas
are raised up
Communicating clearly PMs role to stakeholders with

reinforcement from top levels of CU Boulder
Creating the machine that perpetuates the holistic

apprenticeship program, ensures curriculums are up-to-date
and provides certification to qualified project managers
Developing tools that are simple, relevant, practical and usable
Skills
Train
Sustain
Designing and implementing rigorous performance

measurement on projects
Supporting PMs in all stages of project

Before e.g. training, estimating, planning, and agreeing
scope
During e.g. cost tracking, client management, change order
management
After e.g. project closeout focused on quality assurance
Fostering culture of exchanging ideas between PMs and

institutionalizing best ideas across all teams to reduce
variability experienced by clients and to increase ownership
and adherence to process by PMs
D Alternatively, CU Boulder can consider partnering with external

professional PM firms for high-value, complex projects
Category
Cost
Benefits
Considerations
Team size flexibility based on upcoming
Direct costs of project management on per
pipeline of projects
Low performing external PM firms more
easily replaced with less impact to
organization
Project deliverable likely quality higher
Project
delivery
due to fewer constraints and higher

specialization
Focus less spread across multiple
domains (e.g. capital, non-capital,
maintenance)
Control of project is external which may

increase decision and reaction time
State administrative requirements
Institutional
knowledge
Risk
project increases
Overhead cost to oversee program
increases
remain, no benefit provided from external

PM firms
Priorities mismatch may occur with
external firms
Learning curve to operate within CU
organization may result in inefficiencies,
especially in non-repeatable projects
Processes and policies used in external
Building-specific knowledge and expertise
Execution risk of project management
Misalignment of incentives if partnering
contracting organizations can be

incorporated into CU
can be reduced by shifting performancerelated activities externally

Quality assurance of extern firms provides
an independent review of work
performed
Source: Team analysis, Expert interviews
from performing project management will

dissipate over time
firm seeks to maximize one-time profit from

project
Reduced oversight into actions and
behaviors of external firms employees and
partners
Firm-specific risk may arise if external firm
goes through bankruptcy, strategic sale, key
individuals leave, or other business
continuity risks
Important
considerations
Initial project
selection important
for signaling
considerations to
PD&C staff
Ideal project
would be highly
complex and
atypical of
PD&Cs
projects
Benefits will be
actualized by PD&C
staff, not
administration so
complete buy-in at
all levels of CU
organization
required
High degree of
clarity required for
what activities
external PM should
perform compared
to internal activities
PM
Tools
Transparency
Contracting
Stage gate
CU Boulder has started initiatives that address aspects of the four

recommendation focus areas
Initiative
Description
Involving PM earlier in the

process
Involving PM earlier at project conceptualization instead of

Design Development phase
Leverage technology for

permitting and inspections
Implementing electronic permitting technology to ensure

tracking of permitting and inspection
Engaging contractors with

performance specifications
Investigating use of performance-based specifications to

transfer risk to contractor and design team
Simplifying campus design

formats
Redeveloping campus design standards to more concise

format
Detailing project plans through

Project Charter
Providing an executive summary of Program Plan covering

agreed budget, schedule, and scope, signed by PD&C and
Administration
Creating Key Performance

Indicators dashboard
Developing preliminary set of project KPIs dashboards with

Office of Performance Improvement
Investing in software tools and

solutions
Undergoing an evaluation of software options to be used

across Facilities Management (e.g. developing database for
smaller projects to provide better cost estimates)
Source: CU Boulder Master Plan and Interviews
Contents
Overall diagnostic
Recommendations
Value at stake
Implementation plan
Though current recommendations focus on streamlining project

delivery, CU Boulder can engage in a broader set of available
strategies for capital excellence to address its spend
900-1,100
Suggested efforts
Full set of available strategies4

CU has the opportunity to engage in the
full set of capital excellence strategies to
address its upcoming project portfolio:
Future Capital
Projects
(2015-2020)1
550-650
Current capital
projects unspent
budget1
250
Minor3
Capital Outlay3
170
PRELIMINARY
Improving project section / optimizing

portfolio: use precise selection criteria
that ensure proposed projects meet
specific goals; develop sophisticated
evaluation methods to determine costs and
benefits; and prioritize projects at a system
level, using transparent, fact-based
decision making
Streamlining project delivery: improve
cost and schedule performance of projects
via targeted efforts including investing
heavily in early stages of projects;
improving project controls; and
harmonizing processes across multiple
agencies
Making the most of existing facilities:
leverage current capacity by boosting
asset utilization, optimizing maintenance
planning, and expanding the use of
demand-management measures
Applying suggested capital

management best practice within
streamlining project delivery
will already begin developing
excellence at CU Boulder:
Stage-Gate process: move

through multiple fund and scope
approval gates across lifecycle
allocating full funding when with
a higher degree of cost certainty
Contracting: select the project
delivery method and contract
terms to match the project goals
and share risks
Transparency: add project
controls and tracking to provide
right information at the right
time
Project Managers: spread
project management best
practice to create consistent
approach
Current portfolio
1 Future capital projects includes CAMP (2014) and all projects not completed on the 20 year Proposed Capital Projects List (2011); Current capital projects unspent budget includes projects
in planning, deisgn, pre-construction, and construction phase with unspent budget | 2 17% average project budget overrun per Major project performance based on PD&C FAMIS system
data | 3 Minor and Capital Outlay numbers are sum totals from 2010-2015 taken from the PD&C FAMIS system and assumed to be consistent for 2015-2020
4 Infrastructure productivity: How to save $1 trillion a year, McKinsey Global Institute, Jan13
Applying capital productivity levers can increase CU Boulders

effectiveness and improve its organizational health in the project
delivery functions
Applying capital productivity levers can achieve
substantial efficiency in capital deployment.
in addition to multiple other benefits to

University of Colorado, Boulder
Grow a transparent and trust-based relationship

across all stakeholders (Board of Regents,
Administration, Planning, Design & Construction,
and Users) involved in project delivery
Increase morale, accountability, and ownership

of projects in project delivery functions
Better able to attract and retain top talent in the

project delivery functions at CU Boulder
Better able to manage the pipeline of upcoming

projects from an internal resource perspective
Attract best contractors to engage in project

delivery of complex and base projects
Better able to anticipate and resolve project

performance related issues
Maintain and enhance the beauty of the unique

campus architecture in a cost effective manner
Estimated savings of 15% of the overall capital

spend based on select levers of streamlining
project delivery:
Stage-Gate process: move through multiple
fund and scope approval gates across lifecycle
allocating full funding when with a higher degree
of cost certainty
Contracting: select the project delivery method
and contract terms to match the project goals
and share risks
Transparency: add project controls and
tracking to provide right information at the right
time
Project Managers: spread project
management best practice to create consistent
approach
Estimated savings of 30% based on all capital
levers across project prioritization, streamlining
delivery, and making the most of existing facilities
Contents
Overall diagnostic
Recommendations
Value at stake
Implementation plan
For each of the recommendations, there is a phased approach that

leads to excellence
Phase 4: Future
considerations
Map of phased overall implementation plan
Phase 3: Sustaining
excellence
Phase 2: Building
excellence
Phase 1: Quick wins

and critical actions
Set the foundation

for future success
and create
momentum through
quick wins
Build foundational
processes and
capabilities
Pilot new
processes and
adjust based on
results before
scaling to all
projects
Scale new
processes to all
applicable project
types and project
delivery functions
Distribute and onboard personnel
on required
documentation
and tools to help
follow the new
processes
Assess progress
and take
comprehensive
stock of
achievements and
next steps
Evaluate results
and consider more
fundamental
changes
Re-evaluate
organization
strategy at later
stage based on
evolving needs
Overall implementation plan

Phase 1: quick wins & critical actions
PRELIMINARY
Phase 2: building excellence
Activity
Share plan and create SG working group
Define stage-gate process for CU
(roles, deliverables, etc @ each gate)
Major projects
Complex Minor and Outlays
Launch: pilot, adjust, scale to all complex projects
Assess results and define next steps (e.g. extend
to base Minor and Outlays projects)
B. Contracting strategy
Identify CS working group
Create contracting strategy playbook
Launch: pilot, adjust, scale to all projects
C. Transparency
Syndicate version 1.0 of transparency
measures (dashboard and PRB)
Implement version 1.0 for all Major projects
Design, pilot, and adjust PRB & dashboard v2.0
Scale v2.0 to all projects
D. Project Managers
Identify mode for PM trainings (internal/external)
Map needed PM skills (and current state)
Design program (curriculum and format)
Launch field and forum trainings
Define & implement policy to ensure sustainment
(e.g. training refreshers, assessments, etc.)
Assess results of PMs and define next steps
2015
2016
Oct Nov Dec
Jan
Phase 3: sustaining excellence
Feb Mar
Apr
May Jun Jul
Phase 4: future considerations
Aug Sep Oct
Nov Dec
Implementation of 1.0 continues until v2.0 is scaled to all
Workshop(s) to share recommendations and future plan

STAGE GATE PROCESS

PRELIMINARY
A Stage Gate Implementation Plan

2015
Activity
Oct Nov
2016
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug

Establish Stage Gate Focus
Group to revise current Planning
Process
CU Boulder Funding Review Boards:
Establish an internal Review Board and Procedures
to evaluate need for Projects (Stage 1, prior Stage 2b,
and optional Stage 3)
Clarify Campus Priorities:
Review 10 year campus master plan and 2030 plan
to determine Capital Project prioritize over next 2 years
Funding Analysis:
Determine 2 year project pipeline and estimate
Stage 2a funding requirements
Define Base vs Complex project type
Determine if funding comes from CU Boulder or
from initial Board of Regents approval
CU Boulder Policy and Process:
Focus on Construction QA/QC Procedure (optional Stages
4 and 5) and Close Out Procedure (optional Stage 6) to
maximize quality and timely accounting closure
Develop Stage Gate Playbook:
Focused on pre-work required for each gate, templates,
agenda for stage gate meetings, Reviews required.
Launch New Stage Gate Process
Playbook and Process Rollout:
Rollout to PD&C Team and larger user group
Trial Playbook and Process:
Utilize Playbook on two new projects
Constant Improvement:
Provide feedback after each use at each gate
STAGE GATE PROCESS

PRELIMINARY
A Stage Gate Implementation Plan

2015 2016
Activity
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

Establish Stage Gate Working Group:
defines stage gate process for CU
(roles, deliverables, etc at each gate
Clarify Campus Priorities and Funding Needs:
Review 10 year campus master plan and 2030 plan
to determine Capital Project prioritize over next 2 years
CU Boulder Funding Review Boards:
Establish an internal Review Board and Procedures
to evaluate
Define Base vs Complex project type
Determine if funding comes from CU Boulder or

from initial Board of Regents approval
CU Boulder Policy and Process:
Focus on Construction QA/QC Procedure (Stages
4 and 5) and Close Out Procedure (Stage 6) to
maximize quality and timely accounting closure
Develop Stage Gate Playbook for Major Projects
Develop Stage Gate Playbook for Complex
Minor and Outlay Projects
Launch New Stage Gate Process:
Pilot, adjust, scale to all complex projects
Asses results and define next steps
(e.g. extend to base Minor and Outlay projects)
CONTRACTING PROCESS
PRELIMINARY
B Contracting Implementation Plan

2016
Activity
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
A. Contracting process
Establish Contracting Strategy Playbook Working Group to
develop preferred delivery methods for complex projects
Create Contracting Strategy Playbook:
Delivery Methods:
Evaluate delivery methods that match a mix of project goals.
Evaluate against State requirements
Contractor Selection Methods:
Determine contractor selection methods against selected
delivery methods and State requirements.
Contract Language:
Develop standard contract language to match Delivery
methods, risk division, and mix of project goals.
Evaluate against State requirements.
Launch New Contracting Strategy Playbook
Pilot and Adjust:
Educate PD&C Team and larger user group
(Legal, etc) to new tools and processes moving forward
Scale to all projects:
TRANSPARENCY
C Transparency implementation plan

2015
Activity
Oct
PRELIMINARY
2016
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Review Project Review Board format
With Administration
With PD&C leadership
With (select) PMs
Any other stakeholders
Pilot & scale v1.0
Identify PMs and projects to pilot

transparency measures v1.0
Conduct at least 2 pilot PRB meetings

and iterate over the format
Scale v1.0 to all Major projects and

Capital PMs
Scale v1.0 to all Minor and Outlays
Design and scale v2.0
Identify technological solutions to

automate and scale the data collected
for Project Review Board
Design version transparency 2.0 for

all projects
Pilot transparency v2.0 with select

Major, Minor, and Outlays project
Adjust v2.0 per feedback from pilot

Scale to entire capital program
(including Minors and Outlays)
D Preparation for module deliver must happen well in advance of

Ongoing support provided
actual workshop modules
through fieldwork
Activity
A. Develop new PM
training modules
Confirm necessary
PM skills and
definition of excellence
Select first batch
of PM trainees, confirm
in participation
Create workshop
module content
Review module content
with internal and external
PMs and experts
Revise module content
based on senior PM review
B. Train new PMs on
identified skills
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Workshop series 1
Workshop series 2
Workshop series 3
Workshop series 4
C. Sustain program through
policy and procedure page
Identify skill development
needs of PMs
Provide workshop
to develop skills
Workshops completed on a quarterly

basis on Field and Forum approach
Perform quarterly
Perform as needed
The Steering Committee would support change management efforts

and resolve any obstacles
Members involved
Session objectives
Cadence
Core team members, every

meeting
CFO
Interim Vice Chancellor,
Administration
Interim Assistant Vice
Chancellor, Administration
Director, PD&C
TBD
Track progress on various
Initial set-up (Months 1-3)
initiatives
Guide teams on critical
decision points
Provide support in
obstacle resolution
Celebrate success and
provide change
momentum
Every 2 weeks during

months 1-3 while work
streams kick off
Steady state (Months 3+)

Monthly until with option
to adjust cadence as
needed
Supporting experts, as
needed
PD&C Change Agents
Initiative Champions
PMs, Planners
Others
Immediate next steps for CU Boulder
Agree on a timeline for
implementation among relevant

stakeholders (PD&C, Administration,
etc.)
Establish a leadership task force to

oversee the implementation
Communicate the findings and plan

widely with all impacted organizations
Begin to identify champions for each

of the recommendation

McKinsey & Company Report On CU Construction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

McKinsey & Company Report On CU Construction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developing Capital Excellence

Pre-Decisional - Proprietary and Confidential

Executive summary (1/2)

Executive summary (2/2)

Pre-Decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 2

Over the past 5 years, CU Boulders capital spend has been

Total budget on projects1

Projects over $2M

Projects between $25k$2M

Source: PD&C, Team analysis

Pre-Decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 3

Projects requiring additional spending limit were typically impacted

Ekeley Middle Wing

SPSC - Data room

Bball/ Vball Practice

Stad - Video Board

Glenn Miller Ballroom

1 Ongoing project | 2 Initial legislative approval | 3 Current legislative approval

Source: Team Analysis, PD&C

Pre-Decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 4

Based on 40+ interviews, select project reviews, data analysis, and

Emerging themes for

Develop a clear, welldocumented, and scalable

Adopt clear guidelines in

Standardize project execution processes

Deploy project controls

Enhance communication on project progress

Train and retain the

Pre-Decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 5

CU Boulder can adapt best practices in capital management across

Stage-gate process matches the release of

Selecting contracting strategy (delivery model,

Project controls dashboards enable PMs and

Establishing standardized methods, training for

Contracting strategy entails defining 3 linked elements

Key questions to be considered

Should I own the asset or are other ownership structures more

Into how many contracts should the project scope be split?

Award process (How do I select my contractors?)

How can the effectiveness of existing award process be enhanced ?

Contract terms (How do I ensure most optimal contracting terms?)

4 Planning and scheduling process

Monitor & report

W orking Draft - Last Modified 07-Sep-11 6:35:55 PM

Printed 4/6/2011 4:32:15 PM

W orking Draft - Last Modified 9/7/2011 3:32:09 AM

McKinsey & Company | 5

Pre-Decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 6

STAGE GATE PROCESS

A Adding stage gates to existing Capital Project Process will focus

PD&C Project Manager Led Process

Project Obtains Board Approval and is Funded

Cabinet Review and Authorization

PD&C Project Manager Led Process

Is the best option still viable after scoping?

Develop feasible options. Release seed money.

Is the project ready to begin operation?

Is option still viable given the refined estimate?

Source: PD&C process, Expert interviews, Team Analysis

Is the project ready to be turned over?

Pre-Decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 7

B Proposed contracting process establishes a consistent risk

Select a Delivery Model