Design–bid–build (or design/bid/build, and abbreviated D–B–B or D/B/B accordingly),

also known as Design–tender (or "design/tender") traditional methodor hardbid, is a

project delivery method in which the agency or owner contracts with separate entities

for the design and construction of a project.

Design–bid–build is the traditional method for project delivery and differs in several

substantial aspects from design–build.

There are three main sequential phases to the design–bid–build delivery method:[1]

 The design phase

 The bidding (or tender) phase

 The construction phase

Design phase[edit]

In this phase the owner retains an architect (or

consulting engineer for infrastructure works) to design and produce bid documents,

including construction drawings and technical specifications, on which various general

contractors will in turn bid to construct the project. For building projects, the architect will

work with the owner to identify the owner's needs, develop a written program

documenting those needs and then produce a conceptual and/or schematic design.

This early design is then developed, and the architect will usually bring in other design

professionals including a structural engineer, sometimes a civil

engineer, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineers (MEP engineers), a fire

protection engineer and often a landscape architect to help complete the construction

drawings and technical specifications. The finished bid documents are coordinated by

the architect and owner for issuance to general contractors during the bid phase.
Design fees are typically between 5-10% of the total project cost.[1]

Bid (or tender) phase[edit]

See also: Construction bidding

Bidding can be "open", in which any qualified bidder may participate, or "select", in

which a limited number of pre-selected contractors are invited to bid.

The various general contractors bidding on the project obtain copies of the bid (or

tender) documents, and then put them out to multiple subcontractors for bids on sub-

components of the project. Sub-components include items such as the concrete work,

structural steel frame, electrical systems, HVAC, and landscaping. Questions may arise

during the bid (or tender) period, and the architect will typically issue clarifications or

corrections to the bid documents in the form of addenda. From these elements, the

contractor compiles a complete bid (or "tender price") for submission by the established

closing date and time (i.e., bid date). Bids can be based on the quantities of materials in

the completed construction (e.g., as in the UK with bills of quantities), the operations

needed to build it (e.g., as in operational bills), or simply as a lump sum cost; however,

these bid requirements are elucidated within the bid documents.

Once bids are received, the architect typically reviews the bids, seeks any clarifications

required of the bidders, investigates contractor qualifications, ensures all documentation

is in order (including bonding if required), and advises the owner as to the ranking of the

bids. If the bids fall in a range acceptable to the owner, the owner and architect discuss

the suitability of various bidders and their proposals. The owner is not obligated to

accept the lowest bid, and it is customary for other factors including past performance
and quality of other work to influence the selection process. However, the project is

typically awarded to the general contractor with the lowest bid.

In the event that all of the bids do not satisfy the needs of the owner, whether for

financial reasons or otherwise, the owner may choose to reject all bids. The following

options become available to the owner:

 Re-bid (or re-tender) the construction of the project on a future date when the

owner's needs are met, such as when money becomes available and/or construction

costs go down.

 Abandon the project entirely.

 Issue a work order to have the architect revise the design (sometimes at no cost to

the Owner, if previously negotiated), so as to make the project smaller or more

efficient, or reduce features or elements of the project to bring the cost down. The

revised bid documents can then be issued again for bid (or re-tendered).

 Select a general contractor, such as the lowest bidder, or an experienced cost

estimator to assist the architect with design changes aimed at cost reduction. This

process is often referred to as value engineering. The revised bid documents can

then be issued again for bid (or re-tendered).

Construction phase[edit]

Once the construction of the project has been awarded to the contractor, the bid

documents (e.g., approved construction drawings and technical specifications) may not

be altered. The necessary permits (for example, a building permit) must be achieved

from all jurisdictional authorities in order for the construction process to begin. Should

design changes be necessary during construction, whether initiated by the contractor,

owner, or as discovered by the architect, the architect may issue sketches or written

clarifications. The contractor may be required to document "as built" conditions to the

owner.

In most instances, nearly every component of a project is supplied and installed by sub-

contractors. The general contractor may provide work with its own forces, but it is

common for a general contractor to limit its role primarily to managing the construction

process and daily activity on a construction site (see also construction management).

During the construction phase the architect also acts as the owner's agent to review the

progress of the work as it relates to pay requests from the Contractor, and to issue site

instructions, change orders (or field orders), or other documentation necessary to

facilitate the construction process and certify that the project is built to the approved

construction drawings.

Potential problems of design–bid–build[edit]

 Failure of the design team to be current with construction costs, and any potential

cost increases during the design phase could cause project delays if the

construction documents must be redone to reduce costs.

 Redesign expense can be disputed should the architect's contract not specifically

address the issue of revisions required to reduce costs.

 Development of a "cheaper is better" mentality amongst the general contractors

bidding the project so there is the tendency to seek out the lowest cost sub-

contractors in a given market. In strong markets, general contractors will be able to

be selective about which projects to bid, but in lean times, the desire for work

usually forces the low bidder of each trade to be selected. This usually results in
 increased risk (for the general contractor) but can also compromise the quality of

construction. In the extreme, it can lead to serious disputes involving quality of the

final product, or bankruptcy of a sub-contractor who was on the brink of insolvency

desperate for work.

 As the general contractor is brought to the team post design, there is little

opportunity for input on effective alternates being presented.

 Pressures may be exerted on the design and construction teams due to competing

interests (e.g., economy versus acceptable quality), which may lead to disputes

between the architect and the general contractor, and associated delays in

construction.

Benefits of design–bid–build[edit]

 The design team looks out for the interests of the owner.

 The design team prepares documents on which all general contractors place bids.

With this in mind, the "cheaper is better" argument is rendered invalid since the bids

are based on complete documents. Incomplete, incorrect or missed items are

usually discovered and addressed during the bid process in the form of addenda.

 Ensures fairness to potential bidders and improves decision making by the owner by

providing a range of potential options. It also identifies new potential contractors.

 Assists the owner in establishing reasonable prices for the project.

 Uses competition both in the selection of the architect and the contractor to improve

the efficiency and quality for owners.

 Every construction project is different, so it doesn’t make sense to approach all

jobs the same way. Depending on the goals of the owner, different project
 delivery methods may be in order. One of the most basic project delivery

methods is the Design-Bid-Build method (also known as “D/B/B”). While this

may be Construction 101 material for many of you reading this, it never hurts to

recap the basics.

 So with that being said, let’s take a look at the Design-Bid-Build project delivery

method.

 What is the “Design-Bid-Build” Project Delivery Method?

 As mentioned above, Design-Bid-Build is the most traditional — and most

common — project delivery method. On design-bid-build jobs, the owner

contracts separately with a designer/architect and a contractor. Once the

designer completes the design documents, the owner then looks for bids from

contractors to perform the work.

 Since the designer and the contractor have not contracted together at all (and

have no obligation to one another), the owner is the one who bears all of the risk

when it comes to providing complete design documents to the contractors.

 While this method is less collaborative than others, it is still the preferred method

for many owners.

 The conventional wisdom here is that design-bid-build is the project delivery

method to most likely result in the lowest total construction costs since there will

be a bidding competition for the construction phase of the project.

Potential Risks with Design-Bid-Build

 But DBB does come with some potential risks that have caused owners to switch to

alternative project delivery methods. These risks include:

 The owner uses a good amount of project funds in the design phase, before getting a

firm price on the actual construction phase

 The owner is potentially vulnerable to change orders, delays, and additional costs

initiated by the contractor

 The construction process does not begin until all of the design plans are finalized. This

can add more time to the overall completion of the project

 Because the general contractor isn’t normally on board early in the process, they aren’t

able to give feedback during the design process

The D/B/B method is a good choice for owners who don’t have a background in

construction projects since the process is very linear. Each phase of the project is

distinct from one another — it’s a lot like “divide and conquer.”

Thus, it will likely be easier for an owner without construction expertise to follow this

method. Plus, owners will still have more control over the design and construction

process than they would in other methods.

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 can be subdivided into architect-

led design–build (ALDB, sometimes known as designer-led design–build)

and contractor-led design–build.

In contrast to "design–bid–build" (or "design–tender"), design–build relies on a single

point of responsibility contract and is used to minimize risks for the project owner and to

reduce the delivery schedule by overlapping the design phase and construction phase

of a project.

Design-build also has a single point responsibility. The design-build contractor is

responsible for all work on the project, so the client can seek legal remedies for any

fault from one party.[1]

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. The

design–build procurement route changes the traditional sequence of work. It answers

the client's wishes for a single point of responsibility in an attempt to reduce risks and

overall costs. 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 procedure. Comparing design–build to the traditional

method of procurement, the authors of Design-build Contracting Handbook 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 four millennia."[2]

Although 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 a

design–build entity holds a single contract for both design and construction, some
architects have suggested that architect-led design–build is a specific approach to

design–build.

Design-build plays an important role in pedagogy, both at universities and in

independently organised events such as Rural Studio or ArchiCamp.

Design–build contractor[edit]

The "design–builder" is often a general contractor, but in many cases a project is led by

a design professional (architect, engineer, architectural technologist 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. 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.

Until 1979, the AIA American Institute of Architects' code of ethics and professional

conduct prohibited their members from providing construction services. However today

many architects in the United States and elsewhere aspire to provide integrated design

and construction services, and one approach towards this goal is design–build. The AIA

has acknowledged that design–build is becoming one of the main approaches to

construction. In 2003, the AIA endorsed "The architect's guide to design–build

services",[3] which was written to help their members acting as design–build contractors.

This publication gives guidance through the different phases of the process: design

services, contracts, management, insurances, and finances.

Contractor-led design–build projects: the architect's role[edit]

On contractor-led design–build projects, management is structured so that the owner

works directly with a contractor who, in turn, coordinates subcontractors. Architects

contribute to contractor-led design–build projects in one of several ways, with varying

degrees of responsibility (where "A/E" in each diagram represents the

architect/engineer):

Architect-led design–build projects[edit]

Architect-led design–build projects are those in which interdisciplinary teams of

architects and building trades professionals collaborate in an agile management

process, where design strategy and construction expertise are seamlessly integrated,

and the architect, as owner-advocate, project-steward and team-leader, ensures high

fidelity between project aims and outcomes. In architect-led design–build projects, the

architect works directly with the owner (the client), acts as the designer and builder,

coordinating a team of consultants, subcontractors and materials suppliers throughout

the project lifecycle.

Architects lead design–build projects in several ways, with varying degrees of

responsibility (where "A/E" in each diagram represents the architect/engineer):

Summary Design-build is a method of construction where the design and construction tasks are

contracted with a single entity known as the design-builder or design-build contractor. The

design-build method is gaining popularity, with some projections indicating that more than half

of all non-residential construction projects in the U.S. will be design-build by 2015. This Tech
Brief discusses some of the aspects of the design-build method and how it might be used for

water and wastewater projects.

All-Build Construction follows a three phase concept for each construction project. It's important

to understand the details of the process. The three phases followed are the Design Phase,

Construction Phase, and Post-Construction Phase.

Design Phase - A projects begins with figuring out the scale of work, which

determines project cost and provides enough information to give a beginning

estimate. Cost is often an important consideration; All-Build is experienced in

managing the budget to meet customer needs. The value we bring to your

project is defined by more than just the cost of the work. Once the beginning

estimate is accepted, the schedule, materials selection, and construction methods

are finalized. A final budget and contract are provided based on completed plans

and specifications for the project.

Construction Phase - Before the project starts, materials are checked to ensure

they are readily available on Island and that special order items will drive within

the required timeframe. Once work starts on a project All-Build focuses on

communication clearly with customers throughout the construction process to

keep the project running smoothly. We pay close attention to detail and

consistently manage the schedule to meet deadlines.

Post-Construction Phase - Relationships with our customers don't end after a

project is complete. We provide you with all manufacturer warranties, and

maintenance and care guidelines for all new installations. All-Build is there for

our customers even after a project is finished. We stand behind the quality of

our work and take pride in the continued satisfaction of our customers.
Construction management at risk (CMAR) is an innovative approach to construction

project delivery methods, useful in the completion of projects of various size and values.

Another way you may see this system written is CM@risk or CM at risk.

In essence, all project delivery methods consist of elements, including design, planning,

construction, and financing. Most often, an owner, designer, or a builder will decide on

how to approach each of these important elements. The most commonly used delivery

method flows from the design of a project to the bidding of material and skills, and then

into the building or construction phase.

Using the CMAR method approaches these projects in a different way than the

traditional design-bid-build process. Among other things, CMAR reduces the time to

completion of a construction project. The method requires the hiring of a manager who

is most often a general construction contractor with technical and financial capabilities

appropriate to the project. An individual or firm can hold this management position. A

CMAR may be brought in during the initial planning and pre-planning stages, during the

design and drawing phases, or at the pre-construction stage.

Throughout the project the CMAR firm might also be responsible for assisting the owner

in the following areas:

 Construction schedule

 Project budget

 Cash flow analysis

 Discussion and acceptance of means and methods

  Value engineering

 Cost projects

The CM at Risk as a Consultant

The CM at risk is a delivery approach where a construction management firm acts as an

owner's consultant during the pre-development phase of the project. During this process,

the owner of the project will rely on the CMAR, so they are empowered to contract

multiple subcontractors to solicit and receive bids. They are also acknowledged as the

sole point of responsibility for the project's delivery.

A CMAR will normally work to establish a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) based on

bids they receive from subcontractors during the design phase. They will also usually

include a contingency amount to cover any unforeseen events. Then they will give the

owner a final GMP construction cost. This price is the sum of the CMAR's fee and their

profit margin, the subcontractors’ bids, and all contingency allowances. For special

projects, the owner may also use the CMAR to prepare and submit complex bid

packages.

Once accepted, the owner will not pay more than the GMP submitted by the CMAR.

Also, at this point, the CM at risk can begin their role as a hiring manager for

subcontractors who will complete the project.

The CMAR as a Manager

The CM at risk is who acted as a consultant during the pre-development stage now

move into more of a manager and overseer role. The owner might also want to transfer

additional responsibilities to the CMAR. During the early stages of a project, the focus of

the CM at risk will be on cost control and schedule coordination, but once the project

kicks off, its role will turn to design, structure, and execution issues. In many cases,

using a CMAR can avoid project delays and reduce the time and expense to complete

the project.

Benefits of CM at Risk

Engaging a CM at risk offers the owner several benefits. Many aspects of project risk

execution are passed to the CMAR, reducing the owner's potential overall risks. Once

the owner accepts the guaranteed maximum price from the firm, any additional cost

overruns become the obligation of the CMAR. However, any changes the owner makes

to the structure's design or construction will be borne by the owner.

If the CM is brought onboard in the early, planning stages, they may serve as the de

facto liaison between the Architect-Engineer and the owner. This early entry may

provide an increased level of participation between Architect-Engineer, the contractor,

and, the owner.

In later stages, they can work as the liaison and on-site construction manager.

Depending on their qualifications, the CM at risk firm may also serve as the Engineer of

Record for a project. They may be tasked with closing out contracts at the end of the
project and handle the creation and storage of final documents such as permits and

inspections.

Other duties of the CMAR may include:

 Using 3-D Building Information Modeling (BIM) systems to ensure constructability

of the design while minimizing cost and schedule

 Offering the owner value engineering and cost analysis with the alternative of the

GMP

 Development and management of alternative, balanced construction schedules

to speed completion

 Acting as another professional expert who has a primary focus on the

construction progress

 Increased cost control and accountability as the construction budget will be

discussed as an open book relationship with the owner

CM at Risk Disadvantages

The CM at risk may also present some issues deserving consideration as well. This

type of project delivery method may not work perfectly on smaller projects. During the

early stages of the project and before the GMP has been established, there is

sometimes ambiguity concerning the scope of work included under the GMP.

An important disadvantage could be that the architectural design team may not take

input from CM if brought in during later planning or pre-construction stages. Blueprints

that are incomplete or inaccurate can still result in change orders that can drive up costs.
Also, while the owner reduces their exposure to cost overruns with the GMP, they may

be financially liable for exclusions and inconsistencies in the contract documents. The

perception by the owner that price competition is limited may lead them to believe they

are not getting a fair price.

a
Value engineering (VE) is a systematic method to improve the "value" of goods or

products and services by using an examination of function. Value, as defined, is the

ratio of function to cost. Value can therefore be manipulated by either improving the

function or reducing the cost. It is a primary tenet of value engineering that basic

functions be preserved and not be reduced as a consequence of pursuing value

improvements.[1] The term "value management" is sometimes used as a synonym of

"value engineering", and both promote the planning and delivery of projects with

improved performance [2]

The reasoning behind value engineering is as follows: if marketers expect a product to

become practically or stylistically obsolete within a specific length of time, they can

design it to only last for that specific lifetime. The products could be built with higher-

grade components, but with value engineering they are not because this would impose

an unnecessary cost on the manufacturer, and to a limited extent also an increased cost

on the purchaser. Value engineering will reduce these costs. A company will typically

use the least expensive components that satisfy the product's lifetime projections.
Due to the very short life spans, however, which is often a result of this "value

engineering technique", planned obsolescence has become associated with product

deterioration and inferior quality. Vance Packard once claimed this practice gave

engineering as a whole a bad name, as it directed creative engineering energies toward

short-term market ends. Philosophers such as Herbert Marcuse and Jacque

Fresco have also criticized the economic and societal implications of this model. Value

engineering is the structural and analytical process that seeks to achieve the value for

money.