Construction Resources

Design-build or DB, simplifies projects for owners who are only contracted with a single firm in this method. One contract covers both the design and construction phases, and the project usually progresses as an integrated process, with the two phases overlapping.

This system speeds everything up, and designates a single leader—the design-builder— who is responsible for meeting the contract requirements. The design-builder is also responsible for spotting inconsistencies between prescriptive requirements and performance standards and reporting those to the owner and other stakeholders.

Pros:

• Simplifies the entire process under a single agreement
• Cost efficient
• Project can be fast-tracked for quicker completion

Cons:

• Important to select a qualified design-builder as this individual carries so much responsibility
• Owner must yield control of design details to the design-builder and team
• Often an unfamiliar delivery method, meaning owners must mentally adjust

DB can be a great fit for projects without complex designs, such as infrastructure or road projects, and any building projects that the owner and design-builder have previous experience with.

The most popular delivery method in the U.S. is the design-bid-build (DBB), to the extent that you’ll often see it referred to as the “traditional” method. As a first step in a DBB project, the owner selects an architect to design the construction project. The team then gathers construction bids and selects a general contractor from among the bidders.

The DBB method requires two contracts in the design and planning phases—one to cover design and the other for construction. Responsibilities are divided between the three main parties, with the contractor ensuring the project proceeds according to design, the designer defining and enforcing a professional standard of care, and the owner covering any differences between specifications and performance requirements.

Pros:

• Well-known, familiar to most construction professionals
• Often has the lowest up-front costs
• Owner retains ample input about design
• Design must meet professional standards, such as those defined by the American Institute of Architects

Cons:

• Architect and general contractor don’t collaborate during the design phase, often resulting in discrepancies and change orders—which can slow down the project’s progress
• Owner is responsible if there are problems with the designer’s drawings
• Lack of collaboration throughout the process may result in more conflict, confusion, and disagreements between involved parties

DBB is a good choice for traditional construction projects where design and final details are more important than timeline.

An offshoot of the DBB process, CMAR takes a similar approach, but the owner hires a construction manager (CM) to oversee the project. The CM becomes the owner’s representative, supervising every phase from design to construction.

During design, the CM calculates a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) and submits it to the owner for approval. If the project is completed for less than the GMP, the owner will often reward the CM—but if the project ends up costing more, the CM might have to make up the difference.

Pros:

• Owners can work directly with designers
• Builders are part of the collaboration from the beginning, helping to develop more accurate budget expectations and speeding project delivery
• Owners can take more of a hands-off approach to management

Cons:

• There’s no direct contract between designer and contractor in this method, meaning the owner must bridge the gap to resolve problems
• Owner is responsible for the success of the design plans
• Finding a trustworthy and experienced CM is essential—if the owner fails in this, the entire project could become a nightmare

CMAR is a great option for busy owners who don’t want to be involved in every phase of the construction project—as long as they can find a good CM to be their representative.

Known as an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) project delivery method, JOC is an open-ended approach allowing multiple projects to fall under a single long-term contract. Instead of sending individual projects to a bidding process, owners gather bids from contractors once and can then use their services as long as the contract lasts.

JOC uses a catalog of pre-priced tasks known as the Construction Task Catalog® (CTC). Contractors agree upon their rates and they are listed in the catalog, making it easy for owners to choose a bidder and award the contract.

Once under contract, the contractor may be called upon to fulfill tasks for the owner at any time along the way. Individual projects start out with meetings between owners and contractors to determine scope and budget expectations. This method speeds up the procurement process from several months to just a few weeks, also reducing costs and administrative overhead.

Pros:

• Time-efficient and cost-efficient
• Less administrative work
• Allows owners to complete many projects under a single contract, with only one bidding cycle

Cons:

• If the Construction Task Catalog (CTC) is unclear or includes unspecific listings or misleading prices, it can create confusion and potential headaches for the owner—and slow down the project
• Not ideal for complex, one-time construction projects

The JOC approach works best for small or medium-size projects and owners who complete a high volume of projects every year. It simplifies the bidding and contracting process and can save a considerable amount of time and money, when done right.

Like DBB, CMMP includes three project phases—design, bid, and build. But with CMMP, the owner establishes individual contracts with general and trade contractors for specific elements of the work, such as plumbing, architecture, and electrical needs. The owner acts as the general contractor on the project, overseeing the plans and specs and taking responsibility for design details.

Pros:

• Owner has control over the entire project through individual contracts with trades and contractors
• Designer and contractors work directly for the owner

Cons:

• There’s no central coordination for contractors, so the owner must play this role
• The many different contracts might lead to confusion and lack of coordination between trades and contractors
• Overall budget can be difficult to calculate and oversee because of the many individual contracts

CMMP may be a good choice for experienced owners who want to be involved at every level of the project. It also might be the only choice available in some states for public sector projects.

One of the most popular newer project delivery methods, IPD is built on ideas of teamwork and shared responsibility and pairs well with the lean construction management approach to projects.

With IPD, a single contract is established between owner, designer, and general contractor. When the contract is set up before the project begins, that means all contractors, subcontractors, and trades are in communication with the owner from the outset. The owner often sets incentives for design and construction teams, with the aim of fostering collaboration and goal alignment.

Pros:

• Increased collaboration and teamwork between stakeholders
• With the use of digital tools and lean methodology, IPD can provide better communication and efficiency
• Project risk is shared equally among stakeholders

Cons:

• IPD is still new, and many traditional construction professionals are unfamiliar (and potentially uncomfortable) with it, meaning there’s a bigger learning curve at the outset
• Getting the contract right is essential for IPD’s success, consuming more effort and time before the project begins
• Owners must be prepared to anticipate whether team members will work well together—or clash

IPD can be an excellent option for construction firms already pursuing a lean construction management approach, as it pairs well with this methodology.