Why Design Build Works (When It’s Actually Done Right)

Provided by Sean M. Foote, NCARB

Design-build project delivery is hardly the new kid on the construction block. It’s been widely used in the U.S. since the 1990s, with roots stretching back to the 1950s. And yet, many owners still approach it the way one might approach a software update: cautiously, skeptically, and wondering about unintended consequences.

Every successful project depends on three essential stakeholders, what the industry sometimes calls the “triumvirate,” and what I prefer to call the “three-legged stool.” Have one leg that isn’t aligned and the stool wobbles.

• The Owner has the vision and the need, but of course doesn’t design buildings or pour concrete for a living.

• The Architect blends art and science to create thoughtful, functional spaces, though they don’t live and breathe subcontractor pricing or supply chain fluctuations.

• The Contractor brings the expertise to execute the vision, turning drawings into reality while navigating labor, material costs, and schedules.

Traditionally, projects follow the design-bid-build method. The owner hires an architect. The architect designs the project and produces drawings. Contractors bid competitively. The lowest bidder wins. On paper, this sounds wonderfully efficient, like a well-oiled procurement machine.

In practice? It often goes something like this:

The bids come in and they exceed the owner’s budget. Now begins an all too familiar ritual: value engineering. The architect and contractor review the design and associated costs. The owner evaluates what stays and what goes. The design team heads back to the drawing (key)board to produce a more affordable version. The contractor reprices it. Time passes and schedules tighten. Stress levels rise.

Unfortunately, the owner’s desired completion date rarely moves. So, while the start date slides the finish line remains fixed, which means the construction team must compress time because they should have been building while the team was analyzing costs and redesigning the project.

Another common byproduct of design-bid-build? During bidding, contractors typically exclude everything not explicitly shown in the drawings, even if it’s required to complete the project. Why? Because the bid process rewards lean assumptions, and including costs that others leave out is not a competitive strategy.

Those “missing” items tend to reappear later as change orders, and often as a surprise. At that point, the architect and contractor may find themselves in an uncomfortable dynamic, each protecting their respective positions. What follows can resemble a corporate version of a family dinner debate: lots of explaining, not much agreement, and occasionally, finger-pointing.

Design-build changes the structure entirely.

Under design-build delivery, the architect and contractor operate as a unified team under a single contract with the owner. One team. One agreement. One shared objective: deliver a building that meets the owner’s needs, aligns with their budget, and is completed on schedule.

From the earliest stages, the team aligns around two immovable truths: budget and schedule, and these become the project’s north star. Instead of discovering cost conflicts after the design is complete, the team makes informed decisions in real time. Pricing, constructability, and design intent evolve together and not sequentially.

I’ve practiced architecture for thirty years and have worked in design-build delivery since 2004. I’ve also been involved in more than my share of traditional design-bid-build projects. Frequently, I hear owners say they prefer the traditional method because they want someone “looking out for their interests,” believe competitive bidding guarantees the lowest cost, or are wary of having a single point of responsibility.

Ironically, I often see those same owners disappointed because the building isn’t quite what they envisioned, the final cost exceeds expectations, or the schedule slips.

The real key to design-build success isn’t simply the contract structure, it’s the relationship. When architects and contractors have built trust over years of collaboration, the partnership is more than a contractual convenience and the results are markedly different. The team operates with shared accountability, shared transparency, and shared purpose.

Design-build doesn’t eliminate risk, because no project delivery method can. What it does though is place responsibility for managing that risk in the hands of the people best equipped to handle it together.

And when that alignment happens from day one, the three-legged stool doesn’t wobble. It stands strong.