What Is Design Build vs. Design Bid Build?

I love this topic! Let’s dive into it. Sometimes, we still have to follow a design-bid-build contract delivery method, even though it’s far from ideal. In this blog, I’ll explain the key differences between these contract methods, why CM at Risk and Design-Build (and even Integrated Project Delivery or IPD) are superior, and what you need to be aware of for your career when dealing with these methods.

Understanding Design-Bid-Build vs. Design-Build

Design-bid-build and design-build are two vastly different contract delivery methods. Here’s some background: the design-bid-build method gained traction when regulations for construction began to tighten. As a result, the industry became siloed, leading to a fragmented, disjointed contract delivery process. In this method, there’s something called the “Spear in Gap,” which is the gap between the contractor’s obligation to build according to plans and specs and the designer’s obligation to design with reasonable care. This gap often becomes the owner’s problem to manage. In contrast, design-build and CM at Risk methods greatly reduce or eliminate this gap by bringing the contractor and designer under one roof, ensuring better integration and accountability. In design-build, the same entity is responsible for both the design and construction, making it impossible to pass blame or avoid responsibility.

How Design-Bid-Build Causes Project Failure

Let’s break down why design-bid-build often leads to failure. In this method, the owner and designers work in isolation without the contractor’s input. The project is then sent out for bidding, often leading to the selection of the lowest bid, not necessarily the most competent contractor. This siloed approach with minimal integration, poor planning, and a focus on the lowest cost rather than quality sets the project up for failure. The result? Change orders, disputes, and a race to assign blame. Choosing a low-cost contractor may seem like a win, but it often results in poor quality, delays, and budget overruns due to change orders and miscommunications.

Why Design-Build is Superior

On the other hand, design-build offers a highly integrated approach. The designers and builders collaborate from the very beginning as one team, leading to greater accountability, faster project delivery, and fewer disputes. Since the same entity is responsible for both the design and construction, owners have one point of contact, making the process smoother and more efficient. Additionally, this method promotes better collaboration, enabling real-time problem-solving, streamlined communication, and fewer delays. Plus, with design-build contracts often working from a fixed or guaranteed maximum price, cost overruns are minimized.

Phase Design in Construction

When using phase design in a project, you need to ensure that each design phase is fully coordinated and completed before construction starts on that phase. Poorly executed phase design can lead to rework and delays. Done correctly, though, phase design can help accelerate the project timeline without compromising quality.

Conclusion: Choose Integration, Not Division

To sum up, choosing the right delivery method is crucial for the success of a project. Design-build and IPD encourage integration and collaboration, leading to better project outcomes, faster delivery, and higher accountability. Design-bid-build, on the other hand, often leads to delays, disputes, and cost overruns. If you must use the design-bid-build method, ensure you give the contractor adequate time to plan the project effectively.