Project delivery method significantly impacts how contractors pursue and execute construction work. Design-build and design-bid-build represent the two dominant approaches, each with distinct characteristics affecting bidding strategy, risk allocation, and competitive positioning.
Understanding these delivery methods helps contractors identify the best opportunities for their firms and develop appropriate capabilities for each approach. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison to inform your market positioning and bidding strategy.
Understanding Project Delivery Methods
Before comparing specific methods, understanding what project delivery means establishes context.
What is Project Delivery?
Project delivery defines the contractual relationships and responsibilities among the owner, designer, and constructor. It determines:
- How design and construction responsibilities are assigned
- When the contractor becomes involved in the project
- How risk is allocated among parties
- How the contractor is selected and compensated
Market Trends
Both delivery methods remain significant in the market:
Design-bid-build: Still the most common method, especially for public sector work.
Design-build: Growing rapidly, now representing over 40% of non-residential construction.
Other methods: Construction manager at risk, integrated project delivery, and other approaches serve specific needs.
Design-Bid-Build Explained
Design-bid-build (DBB) is the traditional project delivery method with distinct phases and separate contracts for design and construction.
How Design-Bid-Build Works
Sequential phases:
- Owner hires architect/engineer to design project completely
- Complete construction documents prepared
- Project advertised for construction bids
- Contractors submit competitive bids based on completed design
- Low qualified bidder awarded construction contract
- Contractor builds project according to design documents
Separate contracts:
- Owner contracts directly with designer
- Owner contracts separately with constructor
- No contractual relationship between designer and constructor
Design-Bid-Build Characteristics
For owners:
- Complete design before construction pricing
- Competitive pricing from multiple bidders
- Clear separation of responsibilities
- Established legal and procedural framework
- Longer overall project duration
- Price certainty only after design completion
For contractors:
- Compete on price for defined scope
- Limited influence on design decisions
- Risk primarily in execution, not design adequacy
- Clear scope from complete documents
- Lower pursuit costs than design-build
- Wide market of opportunities
Design-Bid-Build Bidding
DBB bidding typically follows competitive sealed bid procedures:
Bid requirements: Complete plans and specifications define scope.
Competition basis: Primarily price-based selection.
Bidder qualification: Prequalification or post-bid responsibility evaluation.
Award criteria: Lowest responsive, responsible bidder.
Bid bonds: Required to guarantee bid commitment.
Design-Build Explained
Design-build (DB) combines design and construction responsibility in a single contract, creating a different competitive dynamic.
How Design-Build Works
Integrated delivery:
- Owner defines project requirements and performance criteria
- Design-build teams form (contractor-led or designer-led)
- Teams develop preliminary designs and pricing proposals
- Owner evaluates proposals on qualifications, design, and price
- Selected team completes design and construction
- Single point of responsibility throughout
Single contract:
- Owner contracts with single entity for design and construction
- Design-build entity may self-perform design or subcontract to designer
- Contractor and designer work collaboratively within design-build team
Design-Build Characteristics
For owners:
- Single point of responsibility
- Faster overall delivery (overlapping design and construction)
- Early price certainty before complete design
- Reduced owner administration burden
- Less control over detailed design decisions
- Requires clear performance requirements
For contractors:
- Compete on qualifications, design, and price
- Influence design for constructability
- Greater control over project outcome
- Assumption of design-related risks
- Higher pursuit costs for proposals
- Deeper client relationship potential
Design-Build Bidding
Design-build selection typically uses qualifications-based or best-value processes:
Proposal requirements: Technical approach, design concept, team qualifications, and price.
Competition basis: Best value considering multiple factors.
Team formation: Contractor partners with architect/engineer.
Pursuit investment: Significant effort developing conceptual design.
Selection process: Often includes shortlisting and interviews.
Key Differences Comparison
Direct comparison highlights the fundamental differences between methods.
Responsibility and Risk
| Factor | Design-Bid-Build | Design-Build | |--------|-----------------|--------------| | Design responsibility | Designer | Design-build entity | | Construction responsibility | Contractor | Design-build entity | | Document adequacy risk | Owner/designer | Design-build entity | | Coordination responsibility | Owner | Design-build entity | | Design errors | Designer liability | Design-build absorbs | | Cost overruns | Change orders to owner | Design-build risk |
Selection Process
| Factor | Design-Bid-Build | Design-Build | |--------|-----------------|--------------| | Selection basis | Low price | Best value | | Design completeness at bid | 100% complete | 5-30% typical | | Proposal effort | Moderate | Significant | | Relationship with designer | None required | Team partner | | Qualification emphasis | Post-bid or prequalification | Primary factor | | Interview process | Rare | Common |
Project Execution
| Factor | Design-Bid-Build | Design-Build | |--------|-----------------|--------------| | Design influence | None | Significant | | Value engineering | After award, limited | Integrated | | Design-construction overlap | None | Typical | | Change order frequency | Higher | Lower | | Team collaboration | Adversarial tendency | Collaborative intent | | Owner involvement | Higher | Lower |
Strategic Positioning for Each Method
Different methods require different contractor capabilities and strategies.
Succeeding in Design-Bid-Build
Core capabilities:
- Accurate estimating from complete documents
- Efficient construction execution
- Strong subcontractor relationships
- Competitive pricing
- Bonding capacity
Bidding strategy:
- Volume approach—pursue many opportunities
- Efficient estimating processes
- Strong bid-day quote management
- Competitive subcontractor pricing
- Accurate quantity takeoffs
Risk management:
- Thorough document review for conflicts and ambiguities
- Comprehensive RFI process during bidding
- Clear scope assumptions and exclusions
- Appropriate contingency for document uncertainty
Succeeding in Design-Build
Core capabilities:
- Design-builder entity or strong designer partnerships
- Preconstruction and estimating capability
- Conceptual design and scope development
- Best-value proposal development
- Technical presentation skills
Bidding strategy:
- Selective pursuit—invest in right opportunities
- Strong designer relationships and teaming
- Compelling proposal development
- Interview preparation and practice
- Differentiation beyond price
Risk management:
- Clear understanding of performance requirements
- Appropriate design contingency
- Strong internal design review
- Contract terms addressing design liability
Building Design-Build Capability
Contractors pursuing design-build must develop specific capabilities.
Designer Relationships
Strong designer partnerships enable design-build:
Teaming arrangements: Formal or informal agreements for pursuing work together.
Complementary capabilities: Designer strengths matching your construction expertise.
Geographic alignment: Shared market presence and relationships.
Relationship investment: Building trust and track record together.
Proposal Development
Design-build pursuit requires proposal expertise:
Technical writing: Clear articulation of approach and qualifications.
Graphic presentation: Compelling visual communication.
Interview skills: Confident, prepared presentation to selection committees.
Pricing strategy: Appropriate pricing with design contingency.
Organizational Structure
Design-build may require organizational adaptation:
Preconstruction resources: Staff for early project development.
Design management: Capability to manage design process.
Proposal coordination: Resources for pursuit and proposal development.
Risk management: Processes addressing design-build risks.
Market Applications
Different project types and owner categories tend toward different delivery methods.
Design-Bid-Build Prevalence
DBB remains dominant in certain markets:
Public sector: Many public agencies required or prefer DBB.
Lump sum pricing: Projects where complete design precedes pricing.
Commodity construction: Standard building types with established designs.
Small projects: Simpler projects not justifying DB complexity.
Design-Build Growth
DB is growing in specific markets:
Complex projects: Projects benefiting from integrated delivery.
Accelerated schedules: Time-driven projects needing overlap.
Performance requirements: Projects defined by outcomes rather than specifications.
Private sector: Owners with flexibility and sophistication.
Infrastructure: Growing federal and state adoption for transportation.
Hybrid and Alternative Methods
Other delivery methods blend elements of both approaches.
Construction Manager at Risk
CM at Risk provides early contractor involvement with guaranteed price:
- Contractor engaged during design as construction manager
- Provides preconstruction services and input
- Guarantees maximum price at agreed design stage
- Holds trade contracts and manages construction
For contractors: Earlier involvement than DBB, less design risk than DB.
Progressive Design-Build
Progressive DB separates selection from final pricing:
- Design-builder selected on qualifications
- Design developed collaboratively
- Price negotiated at agreed design stage
- Reduces proposal development investment
For contractors: Lower pursuit cost than traditional DB, collaborative development.
Integrated Project Delivery
IPD creates multi-party collaboration with shared risk/reward:
- Owner, designer, and contractor in multi-party agreement
- Shared risk and reward based on project outcomes
- Collaborative decision-making throughout
- Target value design approach
For contractors: Deepest collaboration, requires cultural adaptation.
Conclusion
Design-bid-build and design-build each offer opportunities for contractors who understand their distinct requirements and position appropriately. Many successful contractors compete in both markets, adapting their approach to the specific opportunity.
Evaluate your firm's capabilities honestly—strong estimating and competitive pricing suit DBB; design partnerships and proposal skills enable DB success. Build capabilities progressively, perhaps starting with DB in markets where you have strong designer relationships before expanding.
The most important insight is that selection of delivery method is the owner's decision—your job is to be ready to compete effectively whichever method they choose.
Ready to find construction opportunities using any delivery method? ConstructionBids.ai aggregates bidding opportunities nationwide, helping you discover projects aligned with your capabilities. Start your free trial today.
