Build

History

The design/build delivery system often cites the original "Master Builder" model used to build most pre-modern projects. Under the Master Builder approach, a central figure of the architect held total project accountability. From inception to completion, the master builder was the key organizational figure and strictly liable to the owner for defects, delays, and losses. The design/build system is a return to some of the fundamentals of the Master Builder approach. For nearly the entire twentieth century, the concept of Design-Build was classified as a non-traditional construction method in the United States, which is the last country to still embrace the old standard of Design-Bid-Build.



Overview of process

Design-build focuses on combining the design, permit, and construction schedules in order to streamline the traditional design-bid-build environment. This does not shorten the time it takes to complete the individual tasks of creating construction documents (working drawings and specifications), acquiring building and other permits, or actually constructing the building. Instead, a design-build firm will strive to bring together design and construction professionals in a collaborative environment to complete these tasks in an overlapping like fashion i.e. construction has begun while the building is still being designed.

Typically the hallmark of a Design/Build project is that one organization is responsible for both design and construction of the project. If this organization is a contractor, the process is known as "Contractor-led Design-Build". If the organization is a design firm, the process is known as "Design-led Design-Build". In either case, the organization employed by the owner rarely handles both aspects of design and construction in-house. In fact, the organization often subcontracts with on-site personnel (if design-led) as well as architects and engineers (if contractor-led).



Benefits of design-build

It is important to note that the design-build method, while not focused on saving the owner construction costs, nonetheless often saves the owner money on the overall project. The combined effects of carrying a construction loan (which typically carries a higher interest rate than permanent financing) and an earlier useful on-line date usually yields considerable overall value to the project and may make seemingly unfeasible projects into genuine opportunities.

The compression is an important aspect of the implementation of this system. Other potential attributes include:

• enhanced communication between the service provider and the client,
• increased accountability by the service provider,
• single source project delivery, and
• a value based project feedback system

Enhanced communication

Because the design parameters of a project are being developed along with the budgetary goals - construction methodologies and budget conditions being weighed simultaneously - a project is more likely to be realized than with a pure design approach. The owner has greater access to the project "team" as the project is being developed. This efficiency is not a negative "short cut" as a rule, but rather the keystone to the success of the Design&Build model.



Accountability

Rather than a parcelized level of responsibility of the classic design-bid-build, design-build provides an integrated entity to the owner or client. This moves projects away from the "finger-pointing" that is often commonplace in contemporary construction projects, and allows the owner to look to one entity with any questions or concerns. The client's risk exposure is different in the sense that all eggs are in one basket, so to speak. Replacing under-performing members of the team can be much more difficult than with traditional model.



Single source

Instead of having several contractors and consultants, an owner has just one entity to deal with. Design revisions, project feedback, budgeting, permitting, construction issues, change orders, and billing can all be routed through the design-build firm. This single point of contact allows a certain degree of flexibility for the owner.



Value-based project feedback

Typically, in order for a contractor to bid on a project, very specific details relating to the methods and materials must be given to avoid any ambiguity and to make an "apples to apples" comparison of bids. In a design-build context, the owner, the owner's other consultants, and the design-builder can work together to determine what methods and materials will maximize the owner's value. In instances where marginally more expensive materials, designs, or construction methods might yield a higher return on investment for the owner than those of lower cost, the owner is free to adjust the project's program without having to re-bid the entire project.



Almost 70% of traditional contracts end up over budget, compared to D&B which is only around 25-30% over budget. The overage of a D&B project is generally owner driven, whereas the overage in the more traditional method tends to be a result of the budget disconnect to which many architects and other design professionals are prone. It is also possible the D&B budgets are not as often exceeded because they are higher in the first place since much of the work may not be competitively bid.