Owner's Representative Role in Construction: How OPM Firms Manage Projects on Owner's Behalf
Owner's representatives (OPMs — Owner's Project Managers) manage construction projects on owner's behalf. Specialty consulting firms representing owner interests across design, construction, and closeout. Distinct from architects (design focus) and contractors (construction execution). Substantial value for inexperienced owners or owners without internal construction expertise. Major firms include Hill International, Vanir, Faithful+Gould, others. Understanding OPM role helps construction firms work effectively with owner's reps.
This post covers owner's representative role.
Substantial responsibilities:
OPM responsibilities
- Project planning and budgeting
- Designer selection and management
- Contractor selection
- Construction oversight
- Schedule monitoring
- Cost control
- Closeout and turnover
- Owner advocacy throughout
OPM substantial responsibilities. Project planning and budgeting establishing project parameters. Designer selection and management procuring and managing architect/engineer. Contractor selection through procurement. Construction oversight during construction phase. Schedule monitoring ensuring timely completion. Cost control monitoring budget. Closeout and turnover at completion. Owner advocacy throughout entire process.
Multiple situations:
When owners use OPMs
- First-time construction owners
- Limited internal construction staff
- Substantial complex projects
- Geographic distance from project
- Specific expertise needed (healthcare, etc.)
- Augment internal team
- Specific to owner
Owners use OPMs in multiple situations. First-time construction owners without experience. Limited internal construction staff. Substantial complex projects exceeding internal capability. Geographic distance from project requiring local representation. Specific expertise needed (healthcare, education, government) where general staff insufficient. Augment internal team for capacity. Specific to owner needs.
Major OPM firms substantial:
Major OPM firms
- Hill International (substantial)
- Vanir Construction Management
- Faithful+Gould (Atkins)
- Heery International (CBRE)
- PMC (Program Management Consultants)
- Local and regional firms substantial
- Specific to market
Major OPM firms operate substantial businesses. Hill International substantial international OPM. Vanir Construction Management substantial US. Faithful+Gould (Atkins/AECOM) substantial. Heery International (CBRE) substantial. PMC and similar smaller national firms. Local and regional firms substantial in specific markets. Specific to market — different firms strong in different regions.
Compensation structures vary:
OPM compensation
- Lump sum (fixed fee)
- Time and materials
- Cost-plus with fixed fee
- Specific to project
- Typically 1-5% of project cost
- Specific to scope of services
Get AP insights in your inbox
A short monthly roundup of construction AP + accounting posts. No spam, ever.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
OPM compensation structures vary. Lump sum (fixed fee) for defined scope and duration. Time and materials for variable work. Cost-plus with fixed fee combining cost reimbursement with fixed profit. Specific to project. Typically 1-5% of project cost (varies substantially by complexity, scope, project size). Specific to scope of services from limited (single phase) to comprehensive (preconstruction through warranty).
OPM vs CM distinct:
OPM vs CM
- OPM: owner-side advocacy
- CM: construction-side management (CM-at-Risk)
- OPM no construction risk typically
- CM-at-Risk takes construction risk
- Specific contractual structures
- Sometimes overlap
OPM vs Construction Manager (CM) distinct. OPM owner-side advocacy without construction risk typically. CM (Construction Manager) construction-side management — CM-at-Risk takes construction risk like GC. CM-as-Agent (CM-as-Advisor) more like OPM — advisory without construction risk. OPM no construction risk typically vs CM-at-Risk substantial risk. Specific contractual structures distinguish. Sometimes overlap depending on project structure.
Working with OPMs:
Working with OPMs
- Communication through OPM (sometimes only)
- OPM authority (specified in contract)
- OPM advocacy may add scrutiny
- Substantial documentation requested
- Specific to OPM role
- Quality OPMs facilitate; poor OPMs hinder
Working with OPMs from contractor perspective. Communication through OPM sometimes only — OPM may filter all owner communications. OPM authority specified in contract — sometimes substantial, sometimes limited. OPM advocacy may add scrutiny vs working directly with owner. Substantial documentation requested by OPM. Specific to OPM role. Quality OPMs facilitate project; poor OPMs add friction without value. Specific to firm.
Quality OPMs substantially benefit projects through experienced owner advocacy. Poor OPMs add overhead and friction without value. Specific to firm and individuals. Contractors benefit when OPMs are construction-experienced and reasonable; suffer when inexperienced or excessively bureaucratic. Specific working relationship affects project success substantially.
Owner's representatives manage construction projects on owner's behalf with substantial responsibilities including planning, designer/contractor selection, oversight, schedule, cost, closeout. Owners use OPMs in multiple situations including inexperience, complexity, distance, expertise needs. Major OPM firms include Hill International, Vanir, Faithful+Gould, Heery, others. Compensation typically 1-5% of project cost. OPM vs CM distinct. Working with OPMs requires understanding role. For construction firms, OPMs substantial part of project landscape — quality OPM relationships support project success. Mature firms develop OPM expertise. Worth understanding for substantial commercial work.
Written by
Marcus Reyes
Construction Industry Lead
Spent twelve years running AP at a $120M general contractor before joining Covinly. Lives in the world of AIA G702/G703, retainage schedules, and lien waiver deadlines. Writes about the construction-specific workflows that generic AP tools get wrong.
View all posts