Project delivery method fundamentally shapes how you pursue and execute work. Understanding the differences between design-build and design-bid-build helps you target the right opportunities and bid effectively.
Delivery Method Overview
Design-Bid-Build (DBB)
The Traditional Method
- Owner hires architect/engineer
- Design completed to 100%
- Project bid competitively
- Low bidder awarded
- Construction proceeds
Key Characteristics
- Sequential phases
- Complete documents at bid
- Price-based selection (usually)
- Clear role separation
Design-Build (DB)
The Integrated Approach
- Owner develops criteria/requirements
- Teams compete on qualifications + price
- Winning team designs and builds
- Single point of responsibility
- Overlapping phases
Key Characteristics
- Overlapping design/construction
- Single contract
- Qualification-based selection (often)
- Integrated team
Key Differences
Contractual Relationships
Design-Bid-Build
Owner
├── Architect/Engineer (separate contract)
└── General Contractor (separate contract)
└── Subcontractors
Design-Build
Owner
└── Design-Builder (single contract)
├── Architect/Engineer
└── Subcontractors
Design Responsibility
DBB: Owner bears design risk through A/E DB: Design-builder bears design risk
Pricing Basis
DBB: Complete documents, apples-to-apples pricing DB: Criteria-based, interpretation varies
Selection Method
DBB: Usually low bid (public), sometimes negotiated (private) DB: Often best value, sometimes low bid on criteria
Design-Bid-Build in Depth
Advantages
For Owners
- Complete design before pricing
- Competitive pricing on defined scope
- Multiple bidders ensure competition
- Traditional, well-understood process
For Contractors
- Clear scope to price
- Compete on even terms
- Defined documents
- Limited design responsibility
Disadvantages
For Owners
- Longer overall timeline
- No contractor input during design
- Design/construction conflicts possible
- Change orders from design issues
For Contractors
- Price pressure primary
- Limited differentiation opportunity
- Design issues become claims
- Adversarial potential
Best Applications
- Public projects with statutory bid requirements
- Projects where owner wants design control
- Commodity-type work
- When complete documents are feasible
- When low price is paramount
Design-Build in Depth
Advantages
For Owners
- Single point of responsibility
- Faster overall delivery
- Contractor input improves design
- Early cost certainty (if GMP)
- Reduced change orders
For Contractors
- Influence design for constructability
- Differentiate on approach
- Control means and methods
- Better profit potential
- Long-term relationships
Disadvantages
For Owners
- Less control over design details
- Harder to compare proposals
- Must define criteria clearly
- Less competition on price
For Contractors
- Pursuit costs higher
- Design risk assumed
- Proposal investment significant
- Win rate typically lower
Best Applications
- Time-sensitive projects
- Complex technical facilities
- When constructability matters
- Repeat project types
- Relationship-based procurement
Bidding Differences
DBB Bidding
What You're Bidding
- Complete drawings and specifications
- Scope fully defined
- Quantities determinable
- Clear basis for pricing
Bid Content
- Lump sum price (typically)
- Schedule (sometimes)
- Qualifications (limited)
- Required forms
Evaluation
- Price primary or sole criterion
- Responsibility verification
- Compliance check
- Award to low responsive bidder
DB Bidding
What You're Bidding
- Performance criteria or bridging documents
- Design interpretation required
- Scope elements flexible
- Innovation possible
Proposal Content
- Technical approach
- Preliminary design
- Pricing (various structures)
- Team qualifications
- Schedule
- Value-adds
Evaluation
- Qualifications weighted
- Technical approach scored
- Price considered (various methods)
- Best value determination
DB Proposal Strategy
Team Assembly
Key Partners
- A/E firm with relevant experience
- Key trade partners
- Specialty consultants
- Compatible working relationships
Team Considerations
- Previous collaboration
- Complementary strengths
- Shared project vision
- Commitment level
Technical Approach
Differentiation Areas
- Design interpretation
- Constructability solutions
- Schedule optimization
- Value engineering
- Innovation
- Risk mitigation
Presentation
- Clear and compelling
- Responsive to criteria
- Realistic claims
- Supported by experience
Pricing Strategies
Common Structures
- Lump sum on criteria
- GMP with contingency
- Cost plus fee
- Hybrid approaches
Considerations
- Owner's preferred structure
- Risk allocation
- Competition positioning
- Profit protection
Hybrid Methods
Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR)
Characteristics
- CM engaged during design
- GMP established before construction
- Single construction contract
- Fee-based compensation
When Used
- Complex projects
- When owner wants construction input
- Public projects (increasingly)
- Value-based selection
Progressive Design-Build
Characteristics
- Design-builder selected early
- Design developed collaboratively
- Price negotiated, not bid
- High owner involvement
When Used
- Complex, uncertain projects
- Research/technology facilities
- When collaboration critical
- Owner has capacity to participate
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)
Characteristics
- Multi-party agreement
- Shared risk and reward
- Collaborative decision-making
- Lean principles applied
When Used
- Complex, high-value projects
- Experienced, collaborative owners
- Teams with IPD experience
- When innovation maximized
Contractor Positioning
Building DBB Capability
Focus Areas
- Estimating accuracy
- Efficient operations
- Competitive subcontractor relationships
- Strong safety programs
- Pre-qualification standing
Success Factors
- Price competitiveness
- Reliable performance
- Administrative efficiency
- Reference maintenance
Building DB Capability
Focus Areas
- A/E relationships
- Proposal development skills
- Design management
- Preconstruction services
- Innovation capacity
Success Factors
- Team relationships
- Proposal quality
- Past performance
- Technical capability
Transition Strategy
If Moving from DBB to DB
- Invest in proposal capability
- Develop A/E relationships
- Build preconstruction expertise
- Accept higher pursuit costs
- Target appropriate projects
Market Considerations
Industry Trends
Growing DB Usage
- Faster project delivery valued
- Single-source accountability preferred
- Public sector adopting more
- Technology enabling collaboration
Persistent DBB Demand
- Statutory requirements
- Owner preferences
- Simple projects
- Price-driven procurement
Regional Variations
Factors Affecting Method
- State/local procurement laws
- Owner sophistication
- Market maturity
- Contractor capabilities
Selecting Your Focus
Self-Assessment Questions
Current Capabilities
- Where is your strength today?
- What is your team's experience?
- Do you have A/E relationships?
- Can you invest in proposals?
Strategic Direction
- Where is your market heading?
- What do your target owners prefer?
- What offers better margins?
- What fits your culture?
Practical Steps
To Compete in DBB
- Maintain prequalification
- Invest in estimating
- Optimize operations
- Develop subcontractor base
To Compete in DB
- Partner with A/E firms
- Build proposal capability
- Develop preconstruction services
- Target appropriate owners
Conclusion
Neither design-bid-build nor design-build is universally better—each serves different situations and owner needs. Understanding both methods helps you target appropriate opportunities and compete effectively in each arena.
Many successful contractors participate in both markets, adapting their approach to each opportunity's delivery method. The key is understanding what each method requires and building the capabilities to execute successfully.
Match your pursuit strategy to your capabilities, and invest in building new capabilities strategically as markets evolve.
ConstructionBids.ai displays delivery method for each opportunity, helping you identify projects that match your capabilities and strategy.
