Design-bid-build (DBB) is a traditional construction project delivery method that involves the

completion of three distinct phases in sequence. Construction does not begin until the design process is
complete (and a bid accepted), so there is no overlap between design and construction.

What is the Design-Bid-Build Project Delivery Method?

Design-bid-build (DBB) is a traditional construction project delivery method that involves the
completion of three distinct phases in sequence. Construction does not begin until the design
process is complete (and a bid accepted), so there is no overlap between design and construction.

Firmly established in construction, and the go-to approach in the industry for decades, if not
centuries, DBB, also known as design-tender, is clearly defined. Its advantages and
disadvantages are also well understood. The DBB method claims on transparency of costs
upfront–which is not to say that ballooning change orders will not add to the bottom line later–
and has made it a favorite in public contracts that are subject to rigorous oversight. The
construction industry too has dozens upon dozens of subspecialties, each of whom like to stay in
their lane, a process that DBB accommodates. The traditional DBB method has worked well for
years but is seeing competition from a more nimble approach, the design-build project delivery
method. Design-build compresses the project lifecycle and time by encouraging overlap between
the design and construction phases: construction can begin even when the design team is ironing
out certain aspects of the design. Despite design-build’s growing popularity, the traditional
design-bid-build approach continues to occupy key segments of the construction industry.

The Design-Bid-Build Process in Construction

As the name implies, DBB comprises three distinct phases:
Design

In this phase, the owner or the agency contracts a design engineer or architect to develop a
comprehensive set of construction drawings that forms the basis of the subsequent bidding
process. The architect or design engineer first works closely with the owner to understand vision
and translate that into a document. Design includes translation of these needs into a
comprehensive set of engineering drawings that contractors can use to build the desired structure.
An architect will sometimes work with other professionals such as plumbing and electrical
engineers on specific sections of the design documents. A thorough reiteration of the documents
then readies it for public bidding.

Bid (or tender)

General contractors bid on the design documents after consulting with subcontractors for various
aspects of the construction process, including HVAC installation, landscaping, insulation, and
more. The final bid typically outlines the cost of materials and labor. The scope for work might
be refined during the bidding process. During this stage, the roles of the various entities involved
are also well laid out. Once all bids come in by the specified date, the owner may decide to scrap
or modify the project or proceed with a specific general contractor.

Build

The general contractor begins and completes the construction of the project while supervising
and getting work done from a series of subcontractors. Work often executes in a specific
sequence. The general contractor signs on to a specific scope of work and design cannot be
altered at this late stage.

Design-Bid-Build vs. Design-Build

As opposed to DBB, design-build is a newer project delivery method that does not include clear
compartments between the owner and the builder. Contractors come in much earlier during the
process and collaborate with the design team.
Pros of Design-Bid-Build
The traditional design-bid-build project delivery method process is advantageous because
it has:

A Clear Distinction Between Teams

The architect or designer and the contractor each stay in their own lanes, which makes it easier to
hold professionals accountable for missed deadlines or ballooning expenditures.

Greater Transparency

Because roles are more clear cut in the DBB method, the project owner enjoys greater
transparency into the process and might therefore be able to spot potential problems faster.

More Opportunities for Fair Bidding

The bidding process is usually open to a wide set of professionals and the public bidding window
ensures competitive quotes, which is especially beneficial for large-scale public works projects.

Encourages Professionals to Play to their Strengths

DBB plays to designers’ and contractors’ strengths. In this project delivery method, they can
concentrate and build upon their niche, instead of trying to be all things to all people.

Greater Responsibility on Owner

The owner in the DBB process creates two separate contracts for the designer and the builder.
This can be an advantage where the owners need a greater say in project execution. However,
there is a downside too: Any snags in the execution ripple up to the owner.

Cons of Design-Bid-Build
The DBB process has its fair share of challenges. They include:

Possibility of Longer Timelines

Because the sequential DBB method waits for each party to completely finish its tasks before
moving on to the next one, the project might have a greater chance of being delayed.

Challenging Construction Implementations

Not all designs are easily constructed. Keeping construction professionals divorced from the
design process might encourage creativity but sometimes challenging designs can’t be easily
translated into finished projects. A lack of input from all stakeholders early on in the process can
highlight problems much further down the road and lead to more time crunches and expensive
redesigns and rebids.

Owner Bears Brunt of Project Challenges

Change orders, busted timelines all fall on the owner’s shoulders as they develop two separate
contracts–one with the designer and the other with the contractor. Since the owner supervises
both parties, they are also responsible for the problems associated with each.
Pros of Design-Build
The design-build project delivery method enjoys a few advantages as well. They include:

Shorter Timeline

Because the design-build process allows contractors to begin work on the project before the
designs have been firmly established, the method enables faster turnarounds.

Fewer Change Orders

The DB process leads to greater collaboration between the stakeholders and, equally important,
this collaboration takes place early in the project. As a result, all teams are able to put out any
potential fires early. This leads to fewer problems down the road and fewer troublesome change
orders and rework. Because of these efficiencies, design-build advocates also maintain that the
process is less expensive than the DBB approach.

Cons of Design-Build
While design-build is growing in popularity, it is not without its own set of challenges.
These include:
No ownership of problems

Because there is significant overlap between various stakeholders, it becomes easier for them to
pass the buck to the other party when problems do occur. It is more difficult to track mistakes
and find the entity responsible for the fix.

No competitive bidding

The design-build method leans on the design-builder to execute the project, which means the
owner might not always get the most competitive price as the bidding process gets sidelined.

Design-bid-build or Design-build: Which Method is Right

for your Project?
Since each approach to construction project delivery has both advantages and disadvantages, it
might be difficult to know which one to run with.
Examples of Design-Bid-Build Projects
As the following examples illustrate, DBB projects can take a variety of forms–from buildings to
arenas and infrastructure projects.

A few Design-Bid-Build examples include:

Renwick Gallery at the Smithsonian American Art Museum

Renovation for the Renwick Gallery at the Smithsonian American Art Museum in Washington,
D.C. Aging infrastructure and updated building codes along with a few other factors necessitated
a major renovation of the gallery, which has enjoyed a storied history. Design-bid-build was the
primary approach for the project.
Learn More

State Route 99 Tunnel | Seattle, Washington

A deep-bore tunnel to replace Seattle’s Alaskan Way Viaduct registered bids from multiple
contractors with one winning the $1 billion contract. The Seattle Tunnel Partners promised to
deliver a year ahead of schedule.
Learn More
Burj Khalifa | Dubai

The Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest skyscraper, in Dubai, opened to the public in 2010. It
followed the DBB model to realize the vision of leaning on the Islamic architecture of the region.
Design was a big focus and was delivered by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, the same firm that
delivered Chicago’s Sears Tower.

Learn More

The Impact of Design-Bid-Build on the Construction

Industry
Design-bid-build has been the dominant project delivery approach in the construction industry
for a long time. The lump sum upfront estimation, with clear delineation between design and
construction, have been the primary ways the construction industry has done business.

While DBB has been the traditional delivery approach, the industry itself is registering seismic
changes: projects that are rooted in sustainability and a call for compressed time cycles.
Construction is borrowing a few pages from the manufacturing industry. Modular construction,
for example, is treating each built unit like a module that can be manufactured elsewhere and
assembled onsite. In addition, projects themselves are growing in complexity to an extent that
divorcing construction and design phases from each other no longer seems to make much
operational sense.
A variety of such factors is moving the construction industry toward more flexible project
delivery approaches. As a result, DBB is slowly ceding market share to the newer design-build
method. DB is forecast to make up nearly half of construction spending in certain key
geographies in the United States in 2025. While design-build might be making steady progress,
do not expect the traditional design-bid-build approach to fade away. The time-tested method
will endure, but it will have to make room for alternative approaches–and that is a good thing.

Cloud-Based Construction Projects

No matter which project delivery approach you choose, cloud-based construction management
software involves all relevant stakeholders at the right stage and keeps everyone in the loop at all
times. Accessing updated information from the cloud ensures all parties are working with the
same data. This aids effective communication, faster approvals, and speedier completion of
projects. Trimble’s ProjectSight project management solution, along with the Trimble Connect
collaboration platform empowers construction professionals to collaborate and manage their
project easily and with the best outcomes.

Types of Building Contract Agreements

Sam Kubba Ph.D., LEED AP, in Handbook of Green Building Design and Construction, 2012

14.2.1 Design−Bid−Build

Design−bid − build (DBB) is the traditional method of project delivery and has been the most
widely used since ancient times. It is also the one with which project owners are most familiar.
DBB is a linear process where one task follows completion of another with no overlap. It
commences with an owner selecting an architect to prepare construction documents. Most often
the architect will release these documents either publicly to any general contractors or to a
select, prequalified group that are invited to bid what they believe the total cost of construction
will be. This bid is inclusive of various other bids from subcontractors for each specific trade,
and the general contractor's fee is generally built in. The majority of government contracts are
required to bid competitively using this method. Contractors bid the project exactly as it is
designed and the lowest responsible, responsive bidder is awarded the work. The design
consultant team is selected separately and reports directly to the owner. A DBB contract is most
suited for less complicated projects that are budget-sensitive but not necessarily schedule-
sensitive or subject to change. The owner can define and control the design through the
architectural consultant.

The Green Design and Construction Process

Sam Kubba PH.D., LEED AP, in Handbook of Green Building Design and Construction (Second
Edition), 2017

3.6 Traditional Green Design-Bid-Build Project Delivery

In most countries around the world, the traditional Design/Bid/Build (DBB) delivery method has
been the approach of choice in both public and private construction projects. It remains the
project delivery system that is most widely used today and which is still required by some states.
And because of its long history, the design-bid-build method is well understood by the majority
of owners, contractors and industry professionals. With this delivery system, risk is minimized
through the owner’s control and oversight of both the design and construction phases of the
project. The design-bid-build process usually provides the lowest first costs based on submitted
tenders, but takes the longest time to execute. However, this method has been somewhat
modified in addition to increasing complexity by the inclusion of green/sustainability features
into the equation.

Thus, when employing the traditional project delivery system, the owner contracts separately for
the design and construction of the project to a planned budget. The owner will typically contract
directly with a design professional for complete design of the project including contract
documents and professional assistance during the bidding stage. The design professional often
provides project oversight and continues to administer the construction phase of the project on
behalf of the owner. This involves reviewing shop drawing submittals, monitor construction
progress and check payment requests as well as processing contractor RFI’s re the construction
documents and addressing change order requests. When the plans and specifications (bidding
documents) are complete, they are released for bidding and solicitation of tenders to prequalified
contractors. Prequalification requires certain information that facilitates the selection of potential
constructors. This information includes proof of past experience in similar work, financial
capability, a record of exemplary performance by responsible references and current work in
hand to ensure that the contractor is not overloaded.

Allegations of owner favoritism (whether real or perceived) in the selection process can be
largely eliminated by allowing all qualified contractors to tender on an equal low-bid basis. The
design of the project must be completed prior to contractor bidding and selection. Once the
general contractor is selected (normally through a competitive bid process) which in most cases
is the lowest acceptable bidder, the owner enters into a separate contract with the general
contractor to build the project. This process is generally perceived to be a fair process for
contractor selection for the project. Under the design-bid-build project delivery system, the
owner retains overall responsibility for project management and all contracts are generally
executed directly with the owner. When a lump sum price is agreed to between owner and
contractor, the owner can usually rely upon the accuracy of the price and is able with the
assistance of the consultant designer to compare submitted bids to ensure that the best contract
price has been obtained. It should be noted that there is no legal agreement between the
contractor and the designer of record.

The design-bid-build process has several important advantages; e.g., it provides much needed
checks and balances between the design and construction phase of the project. It also provides
the owner with the ability to provide significant input into the process throughout the project’s
design phase. The traditional design-bid-build process also has some disadvantages, the main one
being that it is a lengthy and time-consuming process and the owner often has to address disputes
that may arise between the contractor and the design professionals due to errors or other
unexpected circumstances. With this process the ultimate estimated cost of construction is
unknown until bids are finalized, bearing in mind that the system encourages potential change
orders which will most likely increase costs. Moreover, there is no builder input during the
design process which opens the project to potential change orders. Also, there is zero owner
involvement through the bid process and normally the general contractor selects all
subcontractors, although generally there is no contractor buy-in to green process and concepts.
However, there is always the risk with this system that construction bids exceed the project’s
stated budget (because plans and specifications are completed prior to tendering the project), the
consequence of which is either being forced to abandon the project altogether or having to
redesign it to fit within the available budget. Another important consideration with this type of
delivery system is that the owner is normally required to make a significant financial up front
commitment in order to have a complete design in hand as part of the contract documents before
solicitation of tenders. According to Petina Killiany, Associate Vice President of PinnacleOne, a
leading construction consulting firm the design/bid/build approach is generally best suited for
projects that meet certain requirements such as:

The owner desires the protection of a well-understood design and construction process;

The owner desires the lowest price on a competitive bid basis for known quantity and
quality of the project;

The owner has the time to invest in a linear, sequential, design/bid/build process;

•
 The owner needs total design control.

Killiany also maintains that there are certain project success factors that owners sacrifice when
using the design/bid/build approach which are, “First, because there is no input from the
contractor during the design phase, their input is lost on what may provide the best value in the
trade-off between scope and quality. The construction contract is usually performed on a lump
sum basis, any savings are not returned to the owner. Design/bid/build projects normally do not
allow for fast track design and construction, and as a result, can take more time than those
delivered by other approaches.” It should be noted that should gaps be discovered between the
plans and specifications and the owner’s requirements, or errors and omissions are found in the
design, it is the owner’s responsibility to pay to rectify these mistakes.

Types of Building Contract Agreements

Sam Kubba PH.D., LEED AP, in Handbook of Green Building Design and Construction (Second
Edition), 2017

14.2.1 Design-Bid-Build

In Design/Bid/Build, also known as the general contracting project delivery method, the process
is linear, where one phase is completed before another phase is begun with no overlap. This is
the traditional method of project delivery and has been the most widely used construction
delivery method since ancient times. It is also the one with which most Owners are familiar.
Under the design/bid/build example, the architect is selected under a separate contract that is
based on a negotiated professional fee. It therefore commences with an owner selecting an
architect to prepare construction documents. Most often the architect will release these
construction documents publicly, or to a select group of invited prequalified general contractors,
who will be asked to bid on the project which reflects what they believe the total cost of
construction will be. This bid is inclusive of various other bids from subcontractor for each
specific trade. The general contractor’s fee is generally built into the bid cost. The majority of
government contracts are required to bid competitively using this method. Contractors bid the
project exactly as it is designed with the lowest responsible, responsive bidder awarded the work.
The design consultant team is selected separately and reports directly to the owner. This type of
contract is most suited for less complicated projects that are budget sensitive but not necessarily
schedule sensitive and not subject to change. The Owner can define and control the design
through the Architectural Consultant.

Prefabrication of the Substructure and Construction Issues

Mohiuddin Ali Khan Ph.D., [Link]., DIC, P.E., in Accelerated Bridge Construction, 2015

9.8.2 Design-bid-build

The traditional design-bid-build (D-B-B) process separates design and construction. The oldest
and most well-known contracting method for construction projects, D-B-B is still popular with
some owners. With D-B-B, the contractor does not enter the process until after the design is
complete. The drawings are put out for competitive bid to general contractors and the one with
the lowest price is typically awarded the project.

In the mid-1800s, many states adopted “low bid” requirements to protect taxpayers from
extravagance, corruption, and other improper practices by public officials. In 1938, the Federal
Highway Act required competitive bidding. In 1968, the Federal Highway Act revised Title 23
USC to award construction contracts only on the basis of the lowest responsive bid.

The general contractor coordinates and manages all subcontractors from start to finish, and often
self-performs critical portions of work to provide greater value to the owners, usually the
transportation agencies. There is at best a partial ABC requirement for an early project
completion and delivery using the D-B-B system. It is gradually being replaced by the design-
build (D-B) system.

Procurement of Energy From Waste Systems

Marc J. Rogoff PhD, Francois Screve Meng, MBA, in Waste-To-energy (Third Edition), 2019

9.2.1 Design, Bid, Build Approach

The DBB approach is the one most generally used for large public-benefit projects. For a typical
project, the government agency or private owner first procures the services of an architectural or
engineering (A/E) firm that is then responsible for preparing the plans or system specifications
and certain design elements of the particular project. These materials are then distributed by the
community as part of an advertised competitive-bid process.

Once the winning bidder is selected, the A/E firm, which prepared the project specifications and
plans, or another similar type of firm, is oftentimes retained by the community to monitor the
construction of the project, prepare operating manuals, and assist in the start-up and acceptance
testing of the project. Once the project is accepted by the community as meeting contractual
obligations, the community is then responsible for either operating the project itself or
contracting out this responsibility to a private firm. This approach requires multiple contracts
between the local government and its architect/engineer, general construction contractor, and
equipment suppliers.

This conventional DBB approach has been modified slightly by some local governments or
owners in their procurement of WTE projects. Unlike the traditional DBB approach of bidding
each individual piece of equipment for the project, the entire process line and turbine generator
equipment, commonly referred to as the “chute-to-stack” in mass burn facilities, is bid as a single
package. The A/E firm is still responsible for designing the ancillary facilities, which can then be
broken out as individual bid packages such as site civil and structural foundations, and building
construction to minimize contractor/vendor markups for profit and risk. This approach has the
advantage of minimizing the number of potential vendors that the local government or private
owner must deal with, while providing a mechanism for government for sharing the risk of
project performance with a private entity.
Typically, contractors responding to these design packages demand that their liabilities
(warranties, liquidated damages) under construction contracts be, at the outside, capped to their
own contract amount. That is, in the event the project is awarded through separate lots, any
contractor’s liabilities are capped in proportion with the value of each lot. Normally, contractors
usually refuse liability for indirect damage (loss of profit, financial loss, repute damage,
consequential damage, etc.). Therefore the owner has to look for insurance coverage of such
damage under this scenario. In that case contractors generally accept the burden of insurance
deductible. Further, within the limits of each contract value, contractors have to provide the
owner with relevant sureties (surety bond, performance bon, warranty bond). Contractors
generally require payment bonds from the owner, amounting to owner’s maximum or average
debt exposition.

Recommended publications

Automation in Construction

Journal

Safety Science

Journal

International Journal of Project Management

Journal
 

Energy and Buildings

Journal

The genesis of a construction project

Sidney M. Levy, in Construction Process Planning and Management, 2010

Considerations in selecting a project-delivery system

Some practitioners refer to design-bid-build more accurately as design-bid-redesign-rebid, which

is a costly process. Tracking design development with a realistic database of costs from either an
architect who is well versed in that type of construction, a builder, or an estimating service is key
to avoiding that recycling process of redesigning and rebidding.

The design-build delivery system appears to be best suited to an owner with past experience in
similar projects that can be accurately conveyed to the design-builder. But this does not rule out
the first-time owner who has a very clear picture of the company’s requirements. Discussions
with a construction-management firm as a new project is under consideration may either enforce
an owner’s opinion that CM is the way to go or direct him or her to look for other options.

Many problems that arise with all delivery systems can be traced back to whether a realistic
budget has been established in the first place. Consultation with an architect, builder, or
estimator early on is an important step to take.

Recent Developments in ABC Concepts

Mohiuddin Ali Khan Ph.D., [Link]., DIC, P.E., in Accelerated Bridge Construction, 2015

2.12 Design-build contracts and role played by the Design-Build Institute of

America

Design–build (or design/build, and abbreviated D–B or D/B accordingly) is a project delivery
system used in the construction industry. It is a method to deliver a project in which the design
and construction services are contracted by a single entity known as the design–builder or
design–build contractor. It is now commonly used in many countries and forms of contracts are
widely available. Design–build is sometimes compared to the “master builder” approach, one of
the oldest forms of construction.
The traditional approach for construction projects consists of the appointment of a designer on
one side and the appointment of a contractor on the other side.

In contrast to “design–bid–build” (also known as design–tender),

Design–build relies on a single point of responsibility contract.

It is used to minimize risks for the project owner.

It reduces the delivery schedule by overlapping the design phase and construction phase
of a project.

The design–build procurement route answers the client’s wishes for a single point of
responsibility in an attempt to reduce risks and overall costs.

Master builder concept: Comparing design–build to the traditional method of procurement, the
authors of the Design-build Contracting Handbook (2001, published by Construction Law
Library), Robert F. Cushman and Michael C. Loulakis, noted that “from a historical perspective
the so-called traditional approach is actually a very recent concept, only being in use
approximately 150 years.”

In contrast, the design–build concept–also known as the “master builder” concept, has been
reported as being in use for over 4 millennia.

2.12.1 Growth of the design–build method

A study from the US Department of Transportation (reference Special Experimental Project 14,
SEP-14) claims that

Design–build delivery has been steadily increasing in the U.S. public building sector for
more than 10 years, but it is still termed experimental in transportation. To date, under
Special Experimental Project 14 (SEP-14), the FHWA has approved the use of design–
build in more than 150 projects, representing just over half of the states.

•
 Proprietary manufacturing companies with many branches in USA and worldwide (as
listed in Section 2.1 of this chapter) have boosted the manufacturing of bridges and the
design–build system.

The European countries have used design–build delivery for longer than the United States and
have provided the scan team with many valuable insights. The primary lessons of projects using
design–build are:

Use of best-value selection

Percentage of design in the solicitation

Design and construction administration

Third-party risks

Use of warranties

Addition of maintenance and operation to design–build contracts

2.12.2 Debate on the merits of design–build versus design–bid–build

The results and cost associated with the two methods are not the same. Even if a fraction of 1%
savings is possible, it is worthwhile to research the pros and cons of the new method. It will also
help to develop comprehensive technical specifications and special provisions for year-around
work on hundreds of projects.

It will be noted that not every project’s administration is best suited for design–build.
Construction technology is geared to the size and magnitude of projects as well as the difficulties
of staged construction. The rise of design–build project delivery has threatened the traditional
design hierarchies of the construction industry. As a result, a debate has emerged over the value
of design–build as a method of project delivery. A recent example of this type of debate can be
seen in the June 2011 issue of Construction Digital.
2.12.3 Difficulties in implementation of design–build
•

Design–build limits clients’ involvement in the design.

Contractors are likely to make design decisions outside their areas of expertise.

It is also suggested that a designer, rather than a construction professional, is a better

advocate for the client or project owner.

By representing different perspectives and remaining in their separate spheres, designers

and builders ultimately create better buildings.

The design–build procedure is poorly adapted to projects that require a complex and
elaborate design for aesthetical or technical purposes.

Design–build does not always make use of competitive bidding in which prospective
builders bid on the same design.

2.12.4 Advantages of design–build

Proponents of design–build advocate the following:

Design–build saves time and money for the owner, while providing the opportunity to
achieve innovation in the delivered facility.

Design–build allows owners to avoid being placed directly between the engineer and the
contractor. Under design–bid–build, the owner takes on significant risks because of that
position.

•
 Design–build places the responsibility for design errors and omissions on the design–
builder, relieving the owner of major legal and managerial responsibilities. The burden
for these costs and associated risks are transferred to the design–build team.

The decisions can be made by the owner or the agency based on their confidence in the
performance and ability of contractors used in the past. The nature of the project and its size or
emergency fixing requirement may decide the responsibilities shared by the contractor and
designer.

A written General Contractor Agreement will prove invaluable in the event of disagreements,
misunderstandings, or litigation. (For useful publications such as “Design–Build Manual of
Practice” please, see DBIA Website.)

2.12.5 Performance of the Design–Build Institute of America

DBIA takes the position that design–build can be led by a contractor, a designer, a developer, or
a joint venture, as long as the design–build entity holds a single contract for both design and
construction.

The “design–builder” is often a general contractor but, in many cases, a project is led by a design
professional (engineer or other professional designers). Some design–build firms employ
professionals from both the design and construction sector.

Where the design–builder is a general contractor, the designers are typically retained directly by
the contractor. A partnership or a joint venture between a design firm and a construction firm
may be created on a long-term basis or for one project only.

There are incentives built into the payment clauses for early completion and disincentives if the
project is not completed in time. Unit costs for certain items are subject to increase due to
inflation. Payments are made as the job progresses. The quality of the work must be approved by
the owner’s engineers prior to payment.

2.12.6 Functions of design–build institutes

In 1993, the Design–Build Institute of America (DBIA) was formed. Its membership is
composed of design and construction industry professionals as well as project owners. DBIA
promotes the value of design–build project delivery and teaches the effective integration of
design and construction services to ensure success for owners and design and construction
practitioners. The Design-Build Institute of America is an organization that defines, teaches, and
promotes best practices in design–build. The following includes some of the tenets of the
Institute as currently reported by the Specialized Construction Institute.

DBIA will be the industry’s preeminent resource for leadership, education, objective expertise,
and best practices for the successful integrated delivery of capital projects. DBIA promotes the
value of design–build project delivery and teaches the effective integration of design and
construction services to ensure success for owners and design and construction practitioners.
Ethics and Values: Following these values should lead to quality performance and products.
They should lead to professionalism, fairness, and the highest level of ethical behavior.

Excellence in integrated design–build project delivery, producing high-value outcomes

An environment of trust characterized by integrity and honest communication

Mutual respect for and appreciation of diverse perspectives and ideas

A commitment to innovation and creativity to drive quality, value, and sustainability

Green Business Development

Sam Kubba Ph.D., LEED AP, in Green Construction Project Management and Cost Oversight,
2010

Negotiated

This type of contract is not dissimilar to the design-bid-build method in that the project’s design
and construction are performed by different firms. In some cases a negotiated contract may be
used in lieu of the tendering process, especially when an owner has had previous experience with
a certain contractor. That contractor may be invited to submit a proposal or offer to the owner or
the owner’s representative based on the contract documents. This is followed by negotiations
regarding price, scope of work, time to execute the project, and other contractual issues. If
agreement is reached, a contract is signed for constructing the project. Negotiations may also
form part of a tendering process. Upon evaluating the submitted tenders, a short list of top
ranking firms is created. This is followed by negotiations regarding work content, risk, liability
issues, and contract-related issues. If the owner decides on negotiating with the top ranking firms
after the tenders are opened and analyzed, this must be made clear to all via the invitation to
tender.

Girders
R.K. Bharil, in Innovative Bridge Design Handbook (Second Edition), 2022

2.4 Project development, delivery, and execution

The project delivery method—whether it is a conventional design-bid-build, design-build (DB),
engineer-procure-construct (EPC), PPP, or general contractor–construction manager (GCCM, or
construction at risk)—can have an impact on the bridge planning process, but this decision is
often deferred. In the past, the amount of project funding precluded certain types of project
delivery methods. For example, it used to be considered that DB procurement should be used
only for projects costing more than US $20 million, and PPP would be worth the additional
effort for projects exceeding US $100 million. However, such boundaries now no longer apply,
and the procurement methods are based more often on comfort level (e.g., agency size, prior
experience, etc.) and needs (e.g., urgency, resources, etc.) of the bridge owners rather than cost
and complexity of the project. The procurement method plays a much greater role in the final
design of bridges and delivery of the bridge project. By using DB delivery, the bridge owner is
no longer limited by the size of the available workforce. Often, outside consultants are hired as
the project manager and construction manager to facilitate such deliveries. Another method,
known as construction at risk or general contractor–construction manager (GCCM)–is where a
contractor is retained earlier in the design process, which helps to sync both the design and
construction together so that the cost of the project is more certain. An early determination of
probable project delivery methods can be very helpful in the planning process and very cost
effective for the bridge owners as well.

The other steps of the bridge project cycle, such as construction and preservation, are described
in later sections of this chapter.

Highway bridges
B.T. Martin, in Innovative Bridge Design Handbook (Second Edition), 2022

2.1.6 Project delivery system

In the recent past, most projects in the United States have used a design–bid–build project
delivery system. Even more recently, the United States, like most other countries of the world,
has started using a design–build delivery system. This is actually a return to the system used in
the early years of bridge building in the United States (Barker and Puckett, 2007). During the
great bridge-building era of the 19th century, an owner would express an interest in having a
bridge built at a particular location and then solicit proposals from engineers not only for the
design but also for the construction. In many cases, the engineer would recognize a need and
then present the concept to the affected parties. All services, in the areas of both design and
construction, were the responsibility of one entity.

The design–bid–build approach was meant to provide a quality product while also providing a
system of checks and balances between the designer/owner and the contractor. As is often the
case, the problem with design–bid–build is not the concept but its execution. Often, problems
that develop during construction result in an attempt to assign blame rather than seek a practical
solution that decreases the financial risks of all parties.

Because design–build more clearly defines lines of responsibility, this delivery system is being
used more and more in the United States. That being said, the successful application of this
delivery system is dependent on a knowledgeable owner that has staff capable of judging the
quality of work provided. This delivery system seems to work best on large bridge projects,
though it is being applied in some jurisdictions to smaller bridge projects that are consolidated
into a single contract.

Design-Build VS. Design-Bid-Build: What You Need to Know

There are two primary project delivery methods, design-build and design-bid-build. While the
names are similar, each process is very different.

They follow distinct methodologies, structure teams differently, and have unique advantages and
disadvantages. The right technique depends on the owner's goals and the project's size, risk, and
complexity.

Jump right to the section you’re interested in.

Quick Links

Design-Build Projects

What is design-build?

Advantages

Disadvantages

Design-Bid-Build Projects

What is design-bid-build?

Advantages

Disadvantages

Design-Build VS. Design-Bid-Build

Design-bid-build might be a better fit if…

Design-build might be a better fit if…

Design-Build Projects
What is design-build?

A single entity manages design-build projects. During this process, the builder and designer
work hand-in-hand to provide design, engineering, and implementation services. The early and
frequent collaboration between architects, engineers, estimators, trades, and construction
disciplines defines this method.

Project phases overlap and happen simultaneously.

Design-build projects makeup 44% of construction spending and is quickly growing in popularity. Due
to changes in project demands and owners’ needs, this project delivery method is anticipated to grow
18% in 2021.

Keep reading to see why.

 Project teams work together and collaborate often.

Design-Build Advantages

Quality of Work

If you pick a contractor upfront, you decide based on qualifications and quality, not price.
Quality builders exceed performance expectations instead of striving to meet minimum
requirements.

(Related: How Does ASD® Ensure Quality?)

Faster Timeline

Avoiding the bid process saves time. Using one team that collaborates from the beginning also
streamlines decision making. A CII study indicated that “An experienced design-build team has
the greatest opportunity of succeeding in achieving goals in schedule maintenance, construction
speed, and intensity.”
Consistent Budget

This method shifts some of the project costs to the early design phase. Yet, research shows that
getting the contractor involved in the beginning leads to a more reliable budget. Collaborating
early and often allows teams to voice concerns, identify issues, and share suggestions while still
in the conceptual phase. After all, what good is the lowest bid if the project's cost grows over
time?

Reduced Risk for the Owner

Parties are contractually obligated to deliver a design that meets the owner's needs. This
eliminates potential conflicts between owners, architects, and contractors. The owner is also
relieved from mediating the design hand-off from designer to builder.

Streamlined Communication

Many tasks are easier to complete when the designers and builders are present at the same time.
And you get better work when they can collaborate and work together throughout the process.
Design-Build Disadvantages

No Competitive Bids

Projects aren’t awarded based on the lowest bid, so the owner may not get the most competitive
pricing.

Harder to Price Shop

By bundling, you forgo the bidding process and chance to select a contractor based on price.
Also, many design-builders won't begin a detailed design until they've been hired, making it
harder to shop around.

Lack of Contract Flexibility

By "bundling" services, you're committing to a single provider. This requires a high level of
trust.

Less Creativity

Since the project timeline is faster with phases that overlap there is less time for creativity and
innovation. Design-builders typically provide a one-size-fits-all type of solution.

Design-Bid-Build Projects

What is design-bid-build?

Design-bid-build is the most traditional project delivery method and appeals to those looking for
low-cost bids. In this method, the owner contracts designers and builders separately. The design
firm delivers 100% complete design documents. Then the owner solicits bids from contractors to
perform the documented scope of work.
 Project phases are distinct and happen in a specific order.

Designers and builders have no contractual obligation to each other in a design-bid-build project.
The owner assumes the risk associated with the design document completeness.

Project teams operate in silos.

Design-Bid-Build Advantages

Competitive Bids

You will get the most competitive pricing since contractors are competing to win the job.

Architect Involvement

Architects have a professional responsibility to create a design on behalf of the owner. Since
there's no agenda on the build-out, it will likely provide the highest-quality and most objective
set of drawings. They're also more involved in construction administration to ensure the design is
executed correctly.

Distinct Roles

Since design and construction roles are independent, defining ownership is clear cut.
Responsibility and liability are apparent.

More Control

While both methods need owner input, design-build gives the owner much more control. They
get to pick their vendors every step of the way and have the freedom to make changes to that
lineup at any stage.
Design-Bid-Build Disadvantages

More Change Orders

Contractors will only bid on what is explicitly stated in the documents, so variations or mistakes
in the scope can cause problems. When there are gaps in expectations, accountability comes into
question, schedules get delayed, and costly change orders arise.

Late to Define Budget

Construction costs are not firm until the design stage is complete. If bids are over budget, the
owner must pay for redesigns, value engineering, and rebidding. This can cause significant
delays.

Extended Timeline

Adding in the bid step makes the design-bid-build process longer. Since the process is linear, a
delay in any phase will push the entire project back. Redesigns, change orders, and lack of
communication can also lead to project delays.
Lack of Product Logistics Insights

Since architects aren't involved in the execution and implementation phase they lack insight on
product availability, fluctuating market costs, and coordinating logistics. They may design a
solution without considering the current price of copper, systems that may be backordered, etc.
Not accounting for this can lead to delays and additional costs from expedited shipping and re-
designs.

Conflict Between Teams

Since teams work individually, they operate with only their best interest in mind. This can lead to
a breakdown in communication, collaboration, and comradery. Extra costs, delayed schedules,
and litigations can arise due to friction between parties.

Design-Build VS. Design-Bid-Build

The difference between design-build and design-bid-build lies in the relationship and
responsibilities of the construction team.

The two methods structure their teams differently.

Design-build projects bundle designers and developers under the same contract. Project phases
happen simultaneously.
Design-bid-build projects contract designers and builders independently. Project phases are
defined and happen sequentially.

Each project delivery method follows a different timeline process.

The University of Texas analyzed the performance of 75 design-build and design-bid-build

projects for the U.S. Navy. They found that “Design-build projects took less time, had less cost
growth, and were less expensive to build in comparison to design-bid-build projects.”

Another study by the Construction Institute found that design-build projects had a 6% reduction in
change orders, 102% faster delivery speed, and 3.8% less cost growth compared to design-bid-build.
 Which factors matter most to you?

Which method is right for your project?

Recently, the design-bid-build method has been challenged due to the disadvantages listed
above. Design-build is proving to deliver a better balance between cost and quality. Still, the
traditional design-bid-build method has a place.

Design-bid-build might be a better fit if…

 Your project is so simple that design changes are unlikely, and collaboration and subcontractor
expertise are unnecessary.
 Your project is so simple the only way to control cost is with competitive bidding.
 You’re comfortable managing the separate players and prefer each of them to “stay in their
lane.”
 You don’t mind a lengthier project timeline.
 You’re working on a public project that requires a fair bidding process.

Design-build might be a better fit if…

 You have a complex project that would go smoother with collaboration between players.
 You care greatly about the schedule or need to follow an expedited timeline.
 Your priority is cost and quality of deliverables.
 You want to reduce your risk and involvement.
If you're interested in getting a turn-key solution for your next project, ASD® provides design-
build services. Our team of experienced project managers and engineers can develop a plan that
fits your organization's needs, budget, and timeline.

If you're interested in pure, objective technology consulting, our daughter company NTI
provides design-only services.

Picking the right project delivery method is important; you need to be confident in your decision.
Whether you have questions about design-build, design-bid-build, or want to discuss your next
project, our team is ready to help. Contact us or call 800-222-5464 to speak with someone
right away.

Share

Tweet

Share