A Detailed Report on Design-Build vs Traditional Procurement System

This report provides a comprehensive overview of construction project delivery methods, contrasting the design-build approach with the traditional design-bid-build system. It traces the historical evolution of project delivery from the era of the Master Builder to the modern separation of design and construction functions. The report highlights the disadvantages of the traditional approach, such as adversarial relationships and potential for increased costs due to change orders. It details various construction contracting methods including Competitive Sealed Proposal, Construction Manager-Agent, and Construction Manager-At-Risk, emphasizing the advantages and disadvantages of each. The report focuses on the design-build system, outlining its benefits such as single-point responsibility, accelerated project delivery, and early budget establishment. It also addresses potential drawbacks, including the need for a more involved initial selection process and the absence of checks and balances between the architect and general contractor. Finally, the report touches on current and future trends like Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and Hybrid Design-Build/CMaR arrangements. Desklib offers this and many other solved assignments and past papers.

Construction Project
Delivery Methods

How we got here
(History)

The Master Builder of ancient
times was not an architect,
engineer, or general contractor,
but was instead a combination
of all three.

The Master Builder approach held
sway from the Middle Ages through the
early years of the Renaissance.
However, as the Renaissance
progressed, the functions of design and
construction began to diverge,
becoming separate tasks.

The Industrial Revolution encouraged
further separation between the design
and construction functions. Specialized
design and construction expertise was
needed to address unique production
and facility needs.

By the end of the nineteenth
century, the notion of the Master
Builder was long gone.

Most people would agree that cheaper
is not always better. Yet, during the
mid-twentieth century, it became law in
virtually every state in the United States
that construction contracts would be
awarded on the basis of lowest price, at
least in the public sector.

As price became the driving factor
for contractor selection, the
construction industry responded by
working hard to eliminate every
extra service or product that might
add an extra dollar to the project.

This “you only get what you pay for”
attitude set the stage for a progressive
deterioration of the design-contractor-
owner relationship. Change orders,
claims, and litigation became the
standard methodology for managing
risks and protecting profits.

“The way we have always done
things” is getting in the way of
“getting things done.”

Project Delivery Historical Perspective
1795
B.C.
Code of
Hammurabi
1456141240
B.C.
Brunelleschi –
quintessential
design-builder
Alberti – First
modern day
architect
1960s 1980s
Private Sector
Design-Build
Miller Act
Separation
Design &
Construction
Establishment
of DBIA &
MOP
1993
Passage of
Federal
Acquisition
Reform Act
1996
CURT
1st WP Calling
for Wholesale
Change
AIA-CC
IPD Model
DBIA
Designation
Program
Vitruvius – 1st
Doc. Of
Design &
Construction
Rise of
Professional
Societies
1850s
Public Sector
Design-Build
1935 2002 2004 2006 2011
Master Builder Separation Integration
Renaissance Industrial
Revolution Information Age
Brooks
Act
1972

Suddenly, a heated exchange took place between
the king and the moat contractor.