When starting a construction project, one of the most critical decisions you’ll face is choosing the right project delivery method. Two common approaches are design-build and design-bid-build (also known as the traditional method). Each method has its own benefits, challenges, and implications for your project’s timeline, cost, accountability, and risk management. Understanding the differences between the two can help you decide which is the best fit for your specific needs.

What is Design-Build?

The design-build method streamlines the construction process by integrating both the design and construction phases under a single contract. In this model, the owner works with one entity—a design-build team—that handles everything from initial design concepts to the final build. This method allows for greater collaboration between architects, engineers, and contractors from the start, potentially leading to faster project delivery and fewer miscommunications.

What is Design-Bid-Build?

The design-bid-build method is the more traditional construction process, where the project is broken down into three distinct phases: design, bidding, and construction. First, the owner hires an architect or design firm to complete the project design. Once the design is finalised, contractors are invited to submit bids for the construction phase based on that design. After reviewing bids, the owner selects a contractor to execute the construction. This method creates a clear separation between the design and construction phases. As Emmanuel “Manny” Kavouklis, President of CMK Construction, explains: “Design-bid-build offers clarity and structure, but owners must be prepared for longer timelines and potential change orders.”

Design Build vs Design Bid Build: Key Differences

Now that we understand the basics of each approach, let’s compare the two methods across four critical areas: project timeline, cost efficiency, accountability, and risk management.

1. Project Timeline

• Design-Build: One of the key advantages of the design-build method is its ability to reduce the overall project timeline. Because the design and construction teams work together from the start, the construction phase can begin before the design is fully complete, a process known as “fast-tracking.” This overlap between design and construction can result in faster project delivery. Additionally, having a single point of contact streamlines decision-making, reducing delays caused by communication gaps.

• Design-Bid-Build: In contrast, the design-bid-build method is more linear, with no overlap between the design and construction phases. The project must be fully designed before the bidding process begins, and construction only starts once a contractor has been selected. While this allows for more clarity and detail in the design, it can significantly extend the project timeline. Any issues with the design may also cause delays during the construction phase, as changes will need to be relayed back to the design team for revisions.

Verdict

If speed is a priority, design-build may be the better option due to its streamlined, overlapping phases.

2. Cost Efficiency

• Design-Build: The design-build method can be more cost-efficient because of the close collaboration between designers and contractors. Since the design and construction teams work together from the start, they can proactively identify cost-saving opportunities, value engineering solutions, and potential design flaws that could lead to expensive changes later. Additionally, the single contract structure simplifies billing, and fewer changes or disputes are likely to arise, which helps to control costs.

• Design-Bid-Build: While the design-bid-build approach may appear cost-effective initially due to competitive bidding, this method can often result in unforeseen expenses. Since the design and construction are handled separately, any design flaws or omissions discovered during construction will likely require change orders, which increase both the timeline and the budget. Furthermore, because contractors are brought in after the design is completed, they have less opportunity to offer cost-saving suggestions during the design phase.

Verdict

Design-build tends to offer more opportunities for cost control, whereas design-bid-build may lead to additional expenses due to changes and rework.

3. Accountability

• Design-Build: One of the standout benefits of the design-build method is the clear accountability it provides. With only one entity responsible for both design and construction, there’s no finger-pointing between architects and contractors if something goes wrong. The design-build team is fully accountable for the project’s success or failure, making it easier for the owner to address concerns and resolve issues efficiently.

• Design-Bid-Build: In the design-bid-build method, accountability is divided between the design team and the contractor. If design issues arise during construction, it can lead to disputes between the parties over who is responsible. This can create confusion for the owner, who must mediate between the design firm and the contractor to determine the root of the problem and the solution. This separation of responsibilities can result in delays and conflicts.

Verdict

Design-build offers greater accountability with a single point of contact, making it a more streamlined choice in terms of responsibility.

4. Risk Management

• Design-Build: The design-build method is typically seen as less risky for the project owner because the design-build team assumes most of the risk. With one contract governing both design and construction, there’s reduced potential for miscommunication and disputes between different parties. Additionally, the early collaboration between designers and builders helps prevent costly mistakes and reduces the likelihood of errors that might occur if the design and construction phases were handled separately.

• Design-Bid-Build: In a design-bid-build scenario, the project owner assumes more risk. Because the design and construction teams are hired separately, there’s an inherent risk that issues will arise as construction progresses. If a problem is traced back to a flaw in the design, the owner may face additional costs and delays as the parties work to resolve the issue. Moreover, the traditional method often requires more oversight and involvement from the owner to ensure the project stays on track.

Verdict

Design-build generally offers better risk management, as the design-build team shares responsibility and works cohesively to address any issues.

Which Method is Right for Your Project?

When deciding between design build vs design bid build, the best choice depends on the specific needs of your project.

• If you’re looking for a faster project timeline, more efficient cost management, and greater accountability, design-build is likely the right choice for you. It provides a streamlined, collaborative process with fewer risks and complications.
• On the other hand, if you prefer a more traditional approach with a clearly defined separation between design and construction, and are willing to invest the extra time for a detailed design and competitive bidding, then design-bid-build may be a suitable option.

Ultimately, understanding the unique needs of your project and weighing the pros and cons of each approach will help you make an informed decision that leads to a successful construction process.