Mega projects rarely fail due to “unknown unknowns.” More often, they unravel under predictable pressures: overloaded CM at Risk scopes, brittle procurement sequencing, interface risk that no single party owns, and contractual structures that promise risk transfer, but deliver misalignment and claims. As project scale and complexity increase, some owners have concluded that traditional delivery models no longer provide sufficient control over schedule, coordination, or outcomes.
This session examines two structurally different–but philsophically aligned–delivery methods: multi-prime delivery supported by a Construction Management as Agent (CMA) and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD). While executed differently, both represent deliberate, owner-led strategies to centralize coordination while intentionally decentralizing risk.
Under a multi-prime CMA model, owner holds all design and trade contracts and, with the support of the CMA, orchestrates sequencing, phasing, acceleration and claims managment across dozens of fixed cost contractors. IPD achieves similar alignment through the opposite contractual mechanism: a single, multi-party agreement in which owner, designer, contractor, and trades participate in a shared risk and reward pool tied to project performance.
Drawing on real world case studies, this session frames multi-prime and IPD as different paths to the same destination: increased owner control, earlier problem solving, and intentional risk sharing.
