Construction management at risk is a project delivery method in which an owner brings on a construction manager early in design to provide preconstruction and construction services, typically under a guaranteed maximum price that shifts key cost and schedule risk to the builder. Owners and contractors across North and South Carolina are increasingly turning to Construction Management at Risk for complex healthcare, education, and commercial projects. Markets like Charlotte, Raleigh, Charleston, and Greenville are seeing strong pipelines in institutional and healthcare expansion, even as office and traditional retail activity remains cautious. ABC Carolinas’ 2026 Charlotte market briefing confirms this bifurcation: healthcare systems, university campuses, and infrastructure programs are driving demand for delivery methods that prioritize schedule certainty, cost control, early collaboration, and risk mitigation.
For project owners, commercial construction firms, contractors, specialty trade partners, and service providers evaluating or participating in CM-at-risk work in the Carolinas, this article functions as both a practical explainer and a market example. It breaks down the CMAR model and core concepts, how it differs from design-bid-build and design-build, and how the process runs from preconstruction through closeout, while also examining what the delivery method means for specialty contractors and how ABC Carolinas supports member success. It also spotlights ABC Carolinas member Rodgers Builders as a live example of merit shop growth in CM-at-risk, with a dual ENR ranking advancement that signals sustained operational momentum rather than a one-off spike.
Construction Management at Risk, commonly abbreviated as CM-at-risk or CMAR, also called manager at risk CMAR, is a project delivery method in which a construction manager is engaged early to provide preconstruction services and then delivers the entire project under a guaranteed maximum price, taking on financial risk for cost and schedule. The owner selects the construction manager before the bid stage, allowing the manager to serve as a consultant during the design and planning phases and provide valuable input on estimating, scheduling, constructability, and logistics before a single shovel hits the ground.
CMAR uses a two-contract approach for design and construction, unlike more traditional setups with multiple contracts. Owners maintain a separate contract with the designer while entering a separate construction management contract with the CM. As the project moves into the construction phase, the construction manager holds trade and subcontractor agreements, centralizing project management under one construction manager who serves as a single point of accountability.
The guaranteed maximum price is central to the CMAR method. The GMP typically covers trade-contractor costs, general conditions, the CM’s fee, allowances, and contingency. It is usually set once project scope is well defined, often during design development or early construction documents. As a risk method, CMAR shifts cost-overrun exposure to the construction manager, giving owners protection against budget overruns when scope is stable. CMAR promotes transparency in project costs through an open-book approach, meaning owners see detailed breakdowns of how money is allocated across every trade package.
The construction manager’s role spans the preconstruction phase through closeout, encompassing estimating, scheduling, constructability review, phasing, field management, safety leadership, quality control, and cost tracking.
Many Carolinas owners compare three primary delivery methods when structuring construction contracts: traditional design-bid-build, design-build, and construction management at risk. Each carries different implications for risk management, cost control, project timelines, and collaboration. The comparison below is framed from an owner’s perspective but written for both owners and contractors active in the construction industry.
Design-bid-build is the long-standing model in which the design process is completed first, the project is bid, and construction is awarded to the lowest responsible bidder under a lump-sum contract. The project owner holds separate contracts with the designer and the general contractor. In this structure, separate contracts increase risks for project owners because design and construction are procured sequentially, and cost control relies primarily on competitive bidding at the end of the final design rather than early collaboration.
By contrast, in the CMAR delivery method, the construction manager joins during the design phase, influencing constructability, phasing, and estimates. The CM can provide input on materials, sequencing, and project budget alignment well before the construction process begins. CM-at-risk can often overlap design and early construction packages for site work, structural, or concrete scopes, which is attractive for projects with tight project completion dates such as academic calendars or hospital commissioning windows.
Design-build is a single-contract delivery method where one entity is responsible for both project design and construction, typically with a performance-based scope. Both design-build and CM-at-risk aim to improve collaboration and reduce change friction versus design-bid-build, but they differ in contractual structure and cost transparency. CM-at-risk keeps designer and builder under separate contracts with the owner, which many public and institutional owners favor for checks and balances between the owner and design team.
CM-at-risk commonly uses open-book cost reporting and shared preconstruction decisions, giving owners more granular visibility into project costs than some design-build arrangements. However, design-build construction is 61% faster than the CMAR delivery method on average, making it attractive when speed is the overriding priority. A potential trade-off is that CMAR’s separate design team structure can sometimes lack incentive for innovation among separate teams compared to integrated design-build entities. Each approach suits different project goals and budget constraints.
Typical CM-at-risk users in the Southeast include health systems, universities, community colleges, and commercial developers delivering multi-phase or occupied-campus construction projects. CMAR is popular in commercial construction for its focus on risk management and cost control, and CMAR projects are especially suited for large and complex construction projects where phasing, infection control, and live operations demand tight coordination.
CMAR promotes collaboration among the owner, architect, and contractor from the early stage of project planning. Risk mitigation is a key feature of CMAR, reducing the owner’s financial exposure to projects that pose challenges such as material escalation, constrained trades, and campus logistics. Owners in the Carolinas consistently cite these priorities:
The cmar process follows a sequence: selection of the construction manager, preconstruction services, establishing the GMP, construction execution, and closeout. Early involvement of the construction manager is where the delivery method’s value is most visible. This roadmap helps owners and specialty trade partners align expectations on real projects.
Owners typically shortlist and select a construction manager based on qualifications, CM-at-risk experience, relevant market sector expertise, safety performance, and financial strength. The construction manager is selected before the bid stage through a best-value selection process that combines technical proposals, interviews, and fees rather than pure low-bid. The CM’s trade-partner network and prequalification process directly affect quality and schedule. ABC Carolinas members can showcase STEP safety performance, workforce development programs, and merit shop credentials during this phase.
Core preconstruction services include conceptual and detailed estimating, value engineering, constructability reviews, phasing and logistics planning, schedule development, and early procurement strategies. CMAR can improve constructability by identifying potential issues before construction begins, and early CM involvement enhances cost control and project management through iterative cost modeling during schematic design, design development, and contract documents.
CMAR streamlines communication among project stakeholders from the start, ensuring the entire team is on the same page. In the Carolinas, where constrained trades in electrical, mechanical/HVAC, low-voltage/controls, and structural concrete are pressing realities, early trade engagement and prefabrication strategies during preconstruction help manage project risks and reduce costly change orders. This open communication supports better decision-making across the entire project.
The GMP is typically established late in design development or early in construction documents, once project scope, performance criteria, and key assumptions are well defined. CMAR involves a guaranteed maximum price that includes trade costs, general conditions, construction manager fee, contingencies, and allowances, with transparent assumptions documented for all project stakeholders.
Under CM-at-risk, the construction manager assumes the risk of cost overruns beyond the GMP, placing real financial risk on the firm rather than the project owner. This allows better risk management by shifting cost overruns to the CM. The owner’s trust in the CM’s pricing is critical due to GMP negotiations, making this phase a test of the relationship between owner risk tolerance and the CM’s estimating discipline. Construction begins once the GMP and design are finalized, though CMAR can lead to faster project delivery by allowing construction to start before design completion on early work packages.
Once the building process begins, the Construction Manager at Risk transitions into a general contractor role, serving as the prime contractor and managing safety, quality, schedule, and cost in the field. The CM monitors the construction process to ensure compliance with plans and specifications. Robust communication rhythms, including weekly OAC meetings, look-ahead schedules, and transparent cost reporting, keep the project team aligned.
For specialty contractors, well-structured CM-at-risk jobs offer clearer scopes, earlier trade engagement, and more coordinated schedules. However, CMAR projects can lead to costly change orders if scope is not tightly managed, and CMAR can create schedule delays due to change orders when assumptions shift. Mature CM-at-risk construction manager firms deploy practices that include model coordination, field collaboration tools, and a rigorous safety culture to save money and maintain project execution quality.
The CM oversees project close-out and final documentation, including commissioning, training of owner staff, as-built documentation, O&M manuals, and warranty coordination. Well-run CM-at-risk teams track punch list, testing, and documentation from early in the project lifecycle rather than treating closeout as a rushed final step. Many institutional owners evaluate future CM-at-risk selections based on closeout performance, making this phase strategically important across the entire project for contractors and trade partners pursuing repeat work.
Rodgers Builders, Inc., headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, is a long-time ABC Carolinas member delivering complex work across the Southeast. In ENR’s 2026 rankings, Rodgers advanced to No. 145 on the Top 400 Contractors list, climbing 28 spots from No. 173 in 2025. Simultaneously, Rodgers rose to No. 64 on the Top 100 Construction Management-at-Risk Firms list, up 21 positions from No. 85 the prior year.
Both rankings are based on construction revenue generated in 2025. Rodgers reported $835.4 million in CMAR revenue alone. Moving up significantly on both the overall Top 400 and the dedicated CM-at-risk list in the same cycle signals sustained revenue growth and expanded CMAR project delivery capacity, rather than a methodological fluctuation or a single large project inflating the numbers.
ENR ranks contractors by annual construction revenue, providing owners and lenders with an independent benchmark of operational scale. A higher position on the Top 400 reflects volume, multi-market presence, and capacity to deliver larger or more numerous projects simultaneously. ENR’s Top 400 total revenue reached approximately $671.4 billion in 2025, up 11.8 percent year over year.
The specialized Top 100 Construction Management-at-Risk Firms list reveals where a firm focuses its mix of delivery methods. Among top-ranked firms nationally, many derive 70 to 100 percent of revenue from CM-at-risk or design-build work, underscoring the shift away from pure low-bid or other delivery methods. For owners evaluating proposals, seeing a contractor advance on both lists is independent confirmation that the firm is handling more CM-at-risk work without sacrificing scale or risk management capability. For specialty contractors, these rankings signal which general contractors are likely pursuing the next wave of complex projects in the region.
Rodgers operates regional offices in Charlotte, N.C. (including a center city Charlotte office), Charleston, S.C., Greenville, S.C., Raleigh, N.C., and Wilmington, N.C. This five-office footprint provides proximity to major healthcare campuses, university systems, coastal commercial growth, and urban mixed-use districts across both states.
The firm’s core portfolio spans healthcare, education (K–12 and higher education), commercial and mixed-use, senior living, adaptive reuse, and concrete services. Each of these sectors aligns with typical CM-at-risk usage: complex hospital expansions, occupied-campus renovations, multi-phase academic facilities, and urban infill projects demanding tight schedule coordination and sophisticated cost control. Local presence supports faster decision-making, stronger trade relationships, and deeper community engagement on CM-at-risk work.
When a general contractor climbs materially on both ENR’s Top 400 and CM-at-risk lists, it reflects an ability to absorb larger and more complex project volume. This growth creates more prequalification opportunities, bid invitations, and design-assist scopes for mechanical, electrical, plumbing, low-voltage, structural concrete, and other specialty trades.
ABC Carolinas’ Charlotte market briefing notes that electrical, mechanical/HVAC, low-voltage/controls, and structural concrete are particularly constrained trades where a CM-at-risk contractor like Rodgers will be actively seeking reliable merit shop partners. Trade contractors should view a rising CM-at-risk contractor’s pipeline as a chance to deepen relationships, align on safety and workforce standards, and pursue repeat work across multiple Carolinas markets. Practical steps include maintaining current safety metrics, investing in workforce development, and building familiarity with CM-at-risk documentation and schedule expectations.
For hospitals, universities, and commercial developers evaluating CM-at-risk proposals, Rodgers’ dual advancement on revenue-based ENR lists offers third-party evidence of operational scale, financial throughput, and experience managing complex risk profiles. Owners balancing multiple projects, such as system-wide hospital upgrades or campus capital plans, favor a construction manager that can staff several sites while maintaining safety and quality standards.
In the Carolinas, this means phasing around academic calendars, managing work in active healthcare environments, and adhering to local regulatory frameworks. ENR rankings are one data point among many; owners should also consult ABC Top Performers data, STEP safety performance, and project references when selecting a CM-at-risk partner to meet their specific project goals.
Rodgers Builders’ president and CEO, Eric Reichard, was named to the Charlotte Business Journal’s 2026 Most Admired CEOs list. For owners and trade partners, leadership recognition of this kind signals stability, culture, and commitment to community engagement, factors that matter when selecting a CM-at-risk partner for multi-year, mission-critical work.
This recognition aligns with ABC Carolinas priorities: ethical project delivery, investment in people, and safety-driven leadership. On CM-at-risk jobs, leadership culture directly influences communication quality, decision-making speed, safety expectations, and workforce development across the entire team.
CM-at-risk delivery rewards contractors and trades that demonstrate strong safety records, reliable workforce capacity, and collaborative preconstruction capabilities rather than relying solely on lowest initial price. This connects directly to ABC Carolinas’ merit shop philosophy: projects should be awarded based on performance, value, and expertise through open competition among merit-based firms.
CM-at-risk project teams integrate design-assist, early package buyout, and prefabrication strategies, opening scope opportunities for members with specialized technical capabilities. Regional trends, from data center-adjacent utility work to healthcare-intensive MEP systems, create growing demand for trade contractors who can provide input during the preconstruction phase and deliver reliably through the construction phase.
ABC Carolinas programs equip members to compete on CM-at-risk projects:
The ABC Top Performers framework complements ENR’s revenue-based lists by focusing on verified work hours, safety performance, and AQC credentials as indicators of reliability, helping owners and CMs identify qualified trade partners.
For owners considering CM-at-risk:
For general contractors and specialty contractors:
Rodgers Builders’ movement to No. 145 on ENR’s 2026 Top 400 Contractors list and No. 64 on the Top 100 Construction Management-at-Risk Firms list underscores the depth of CM-at-risk capability within the ABC Carolinas community. This trajectory reflects sustained revenue growth, expanded CM-at-risk capacity, and consistent delivery of complex projects across healthcare, education, commercial and mixed-use, senior living, and adaptive reuse in the Carolinas.
The firm’s rise is built on merit shop principles: projects won and delivered based on performance, safety, expertise, and workforce investment. Member firms across the Carolinas can learn from this trajectory and connect at upcoming ABC Carolinas events to explore partnership and teaming possibilities with fellow members driving the region’s construction forward.
As CM-at-risk continues to grow across the Southeast, ABC Carolinas will continue to provide the advocacy, education, and networking that members need to compete and succeed on merit. The opportunity is here. The question is whether your firm is positioned to capture it.
While CM-at-risk is common on large hospitals, universities, and major commercial projects, it can also be effective on mid-sized work where phasing, campus operations, or schedule risk justify early contractor involvement and enhanced control over the building process. The decision should hinge on project complexity, operational constraints, and the owner’s appetite for collaboration rather than project size alone.
Ask for recent CM-at-risk project examples similar in scope and complexity, including references from owners and trade partners, safety performance metrics, and evidence of robust preconstruction processes. Use ABC Top Performers data, STEP certification level, and Accredited Quality Contractor status as additional indicators of a firm’s capability and culture beyond revenue-based rankings.
Expect more detailed scopes, earlier design-assist input, and stronger documentation requirements around safety, scheduling, and cost breakdowns compared with traditional low-bid jobs. Establish clear communication channels with the construction manager’s preconstruction and field teams and understand how contingencies, allowances, and potential conflicts will be managed throughout the cmar contracts.
Many public entities in the Carolinas have statutory authority to use alternative delivery methods, including CM-at-risk, for certain project types and dollar thresholds, but specifics vary by jurisdiction. Public owners should consult legal counsel and procurement policies, and engage with ABC Carolinas for education on typical CM-at-risk procurement frameworks used in the region.
ENR ranks contractors primarily by annual construction revenue, providing a picture of market scale and project budget capacity. ABC Top Performers rankings rely on verified work hours, safety, and quality credentials. Owners and contractors benefit from using both perspectives: ENR for understanding scale and capacity, and ABC Top Performers for insight into safety, workforce practices, and sustained performance on merit across the project lifecycle.
