Choosing a Project Delivery Method - Design-Build Done Right Primer

This primer focuses on the project delivery method selection. Read more about the commonly used project delivery methods and key considerations when choosing delivery methods.

DESIGN-BUILD DONE RIGHT PRIMER | 1
April 2015
Choosing a Project
Delivery Method
A Design-Build Done Right Primer

2 | DESIGN-BUILD DONE RIGHT PRIMER
April 2015
Choosing a Project Delivery Method
A DESIGN-BUILD DONE RIGHT PRIMER
A DESIGN-BUILD INSTITUTE OF AMERICA PUBLICATION
Project Delivery is a comprehensive process including planning, design and construction
required to execute and complete a building facility or other type of project. Choosing a proj
delivery method is one of the fundamental decisions owners make while developing their
acquisition strategy.
Items listed in alphabetical order.
It is important for the owner to consider all three of these areas – and the options within eac
This primer focuses on the project delivery method selection.
Determining the project delivery method is one of the most important decisions made by
Choosing the best method for any project must start with a good understanding of choices a
the impact of each choice, because the delivery method establishes when parties become e
relationships; and it influences ownership and impact of changes and modification of project
minimum of three parties involved: owner, designer and contractor. It is important to choose
needs of each owner and their project.
Project considerations have fundamental impacts on the delivery method selected. These c
that includes a reasonable performance period, a responsive and quality design process, a r
appropriate parties and a recognition of the level of expertise within the owner’s organizatio
Commonly Used Project Delivery Methods 1 :
Construction Management at Risk (CMR)2
Design-Bid-Build (DBB) or traditional
Design-Build (DB)
Multi-Prime (MP)
An owner has several areas of concern when embarking on a project. The chosen project de
multiple delivery methods. Each of these delivery methods establishes different relationship
different levels or risk.
1 Not included here is “Integrated Project Delivery” or “IPD” which refers to a contractual model where the owner, constructor, designer and potentially othe
enter into a single, multi-party contract. The contract forms currently available anticipate that the owner, constructor and designer will enter into the same ag
share some of the risks and rewards of the contract and potentially limit the liability among the parties. Due to the limited history of IPD, it is not included in t
commonly used project delivery systems. 2 Construction Management as Agent (Agency CM) is not a project delivery method. It is a service that the owner m
help with management of the project delivery methods such as multi-prime or design-bid-build.
What Project
Delivery System?
What
Procurement
Method?
What
Contract Format?
Construction Management at Risk
(CMR) also known as CM/GC
Design-Bid-Build (DBB)
Design-Build (DB)
Multi-Prime (MP)
Best Value (BVS)
Low Bid
Negotiated
Qualifications-Based (QBS)
Sole Source (or Direct Select)
Cost Plus Fee
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)
Lump Sum (or Fixed Price)
Target Price
Unit Price
Project Delivery Systems Procurement Methods Contract Formats

DESIGN-BUILD DONE RIGHT PRIMER | 3
April 2015
Delivery Methods Defined
Construction Management at Risk (CMR) (also
called CM at-Risk or CM/GC) – This delivery method entails
a commitment by the CMR for construction performance to deliver the
project within a defined schedule and price, either a fixed lump sum or a
guaranteed maximum price (GMP). The CMR provides construction input
to the owner during the design phases and becomes the general contractor
during the construction phase.
Design-Bid-Build (DBB) – The traditional U.S. proje
method typically involves three sequential project ph
phase, which requires the services of a designer who
of record” for the project; the bid phase, when a con
and a build or construction phase, when the project i
selected (typically low bid) contractor. This sequence
sealed bid, fixed-price contract.
Design-Build (DB) – This method of project delivery
includes one entity (design-builder) and a single contract with
the owner to provide both architectural/engineering design services
and construction.
Multi-Prime (MP) – Although similar to design-bid-b
to the three sequential project phases, with MP the o
directly with separate specialty contractors for specifi
elements of the work, rather than with a single gener
contractor.
Owner
Design-Build Entity
Structural Agreements
Integrated Design-Builder Firm
Contractor Led
Designer (A/E) -Led
Joint Venture
28%
54%
13%
5%
Source: Zweig White

4 | DESIGN-BUILD DONE RIGHT PRIMER
April 2015
key considerations when choosing
delivery methods:
Construction Management at Risk (CMR)
• Three linear phases: design, bid, build or may be fast tracked.
• Three prime players: owner, designer and CM-constructor.
• Two separate contracts: owner to CM-constructor and owner to designer.
• Owner warrants the sufficiency of the plans and specs to the CM-Constructor:
• Owner is responsible for the “details” of design.
• Owner is liable for any “gaps” between the plans and specs and the owner’s re
Key Considerations:
• Designer works directly for owner.
• The owner gains the benefit of having the opportunity to incorporate a contractor’s
design decisions:
• More professional relationship with contractor.
• Earlier knowledge of costs.
• Earlier involvement of constructor expertise.
• Project delivery typically faster than traditional design-bid-build.
• A primary disadvantage in CMR delivery involves the lack of direct contractual rela
designer, placing the owner between those entities for the resolution of project iss
• Disagreements regarding construction quality, the completeness of the design
may arise.
• As with the design-bid-build system, adversarial relationships may result.
Design-Bid-Build (DBB)
• Three linear phases: design, bid and build.
• Three prime players: owner, designer and contractor.
• Two separate contracts: owner to designer and owner to contractor.
• Owner warrants the sufficiency of the plans and specs to the contractor:
• The contractor is responsible to build the project as designed.
• The designer is responsible to design to the professional standard of care.
• Owner is responsible for any “gaps” between the plans and specs and the own
Key Considerations:
• This method is widely applicable, well understood, and has well-established and cle
• This method is presently a very common approach for public owners due to procur
• The owner has a significant amount of responsibility for the success or failure of th
features are fully determined and specified prior to selection of the contractor (Ow
• The contractor works directly for the owner.
• The designer works directly for the owner.
• Process may have a longer duration when compared to other delivery methods sin
solicitation of the construction bids.
• Construction may not begin until the design and procurement phases are com
• The absence of construction input into the project design may limit the effectivene
Important design decisions affecting the types of materials specified and the mean
without appropriate consideration from a construction perspective.
• There is no contractual relationship between the contractor and the designer.
• There is no opportunity for collaboration during the design phase.

DESIGN-BUILD DONE RIGHT PRIMER | 5
April 2015
• The owner generally faces exposure to contractor change orders and claims over des
owner accepts liability for design in its contract with the contractor.
• Change orders: owner is liable for any “gaps” between the plans and specs.
• This traditional approach may promote adversarial relationships rather than cooperat
contractor, the designer and the owner.
Design-Build (DB)
• Integrated process: overlapped design and construction – typically fast tracked.
• Two prime players: owner and design-build entity.
• One contract – owner to design-builder with single point of responsibility.
• Entity can take on many forms including:
• Integrated design-build firm;
• Contractor led;
• Designer led;
• Joint venture; or
• Developer led.
• The design-builder is responsible to design and construct the project to meet the perf
in the contract.
• With respect to any prescriptive designs or specifications, the design-builder is respon
between the prescriptive requirements and the performance standards and the owne
reconcile the inconsistent standards.
Key Considerations
• Cost efficiencies can be achieved since the contractor and designer are working toget
• Fewer changes, fewer claims and less litigation.
• Earlier knowledge of firm costs.
• Change orders typically limited to owner changes.
• DB can deliver a project more quickly than conventional DBB or CMR.
• Owner can, and should, specify performance requirements in lieu of prescriptive spec
• Ability to enhance project coordination.
• Ability to reduce project claims.
• DB team qualifications are essential for project success; owner must be willing to plac
portion of the selection process.
• Owner must be willing to allow the DB team to handle the design details.
• Owner’s entire team must make the “mental shift” to a different way to deliver their p
Multi-Prime (MP)
• Three linear phases: design, bid and build.
• Multiple-prime players: owner, designer and multiple prime and/or speciality contract
• Many separate contracts: owner to designer and owner to multiple prime and/or spec
• Owner performs general contractor role.
• Owner warrants the sufficiency of the plans and specs to the contractors:
• Owner owns the “details” of design.
• Owner is liable for any “gaps” between the plans and specs and the owner’s requ
Key Considerations
• Owner has control over the entire process.
• Designer works directly for owner.
• All contractors work directly for owner.
• Some states mandate its use for public sector projects.

6 | DESIGN-BUILD DONE RIGHT PRIMER
April 2015
• The very nature of this delivery system establishes some primary disadvantages:
• No central point of contractor coordination and responsibility for all trades. By
responsibility.
• This method may fail due to the absence of overall authority and coordination
construction.
• A need for increased coordination in the development of the separate bid package
leading to the potential for omitted or duplicated scope.
• The final cost of the project is not known until all prime contracts are procured.
• Problems primarily arise from lack of coordination and contractor delay issues.
• Potential for numerous claims among various contractors.
• Generally lacks the direct contractual authority to dictate the schedule of another
Choosing the best method
Summary of owner considerations:
Owner Control
• Desire to control design details.
• Desire to control project outcome.
• Desire to have control of all prime contractors.
• Desire to empower more innovative project solutions.
• Desire for design excellence.
Owner Relationships
• Desire to have direct relationship with designer.
• Willingness to establish a more professional relationship with contractor.
• Desire to avoid adversarial relationships.
• Ability to enhance project coordination.
• Ability to reduce project claims.
• Desire to integrate the “voice” of the contractor in the planning process.
Project Budget
• Adversity to change orders.
• Need to establish budget at earliest possibility.
• Best value for funds invested.
Project Schedule
• Timing to establish definitive project scope.
• Timing to establish definitive construction cost.
• Ability to fast track a project.
• Total project duration.
• Desire to avoid delays due to disputes or claims.
Owner Risk
• Adversity to change orders.
• Owner’s ability to make timely key decisions.
• Ability to reduce gaps between services.
• Liability for the success or failure of the design.
When these factors are properly evaluated, a good decision can be made on the selection of
and requirements of the owner and the project.
DBIA offers a free Owner Ho
for any owner interested in m
information or with question
Call or email: ownerhotline@d
1-866-USE-DBIA (1-866-873-

PHOTO CREDITS
Photo 1:Buckman Direct Diversion
Project, Owner: City of Santa Fe,
County of Santa Fe and Buckman Direct
Diversion Board, 2012 Design-Build
Honor Award2:Colonel James Nesmith
Readiness Center, Owner: Oregon
Military Department,2013 National
Design-Build Award3:SPU South
Transfer Station, Owner: Seattle Public
Utilities,2013 Merit Award Winners
4:Charnock Well Field Restoration
Project, Owner: City of Santa Monica,
California, 2012 Design-Build Merit
Award5:San Diego International
Airport Green Build Landside Project,
Owner: San Diego County Regional
Airport Authority, 2013 Design-Build
Honor Award6:Henry M. Jackson
Federal Building Modernization,
Owner: U.S. General Services
Administration (GSA), 2014 Design-
Build Merit Award7:Wayne N. Aspinall
Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse
Owner: U.S. General Services
Administration, Rocky Mountain
Region, 2014 Design-Build Merit Award
8:UC Irvine Contemporary Arts
Center,Owner: University of California,
Irvine,2013 Design-Build Honor Award
9: I-15 Corridor Expansion I-15 CORE,
Owner: Utah Department of
Transportation, 2013 National Design-
Build Award10:Governor George
Deukmejian Courthouse, Owner:
State of California Judicial Council,
Administrative Office of the Courts, 2014
Design-Build Merit Award
Award-Winning Design-Build Projects
1
2
3
5
6
7
4
8
9
10

DESIGN-BUILD DONE RIGHT
PRIMER
A DESIGN-BUILD INSTITUTE OF AMERICA PUBLICATION
Copyright © April 2015
DBIA extends a special thanks to all of the industry leaders who helped shape t
A special thanks is extended to DBIA’s Tools and Resources Committee Thoug
Daniel D. Rawlins, RA, DBIA of InterDesign, Bill Godwin, DBIA, LEED AP of BACAR
and the full Tools and Resources Committee.