After 20 years in both models, here is why we believe design-build delivers better outcomes for complex projects — and when it does not.
Design-build gets marketed as faster and cheaper. It can be both. But the real advantage is accountability. When one entity is responsible for both design and construction, there is nowhere to hide when coordination fails.
In traditional design-bid-build, the contractor bids on incomplete documents and then files change orders when the MEP does not fit. In design-build, we are in the room during schematic design, pointing out constructability issues before they become $50,000 surprises.
That said, design-build is not right for every project. Public agencies with strict procurement rules may find it harder to justify. And owners who want complete design control before construction starts may feel rushed.
Our advice: use design-build for complex, fast-track projects where schedule and budget certainty matter more than design process perfection. Use traditional delivery for straightforward scopes with complete documents and no time pressure.
