Construction industry participants are well familiar with design-bid-build (DBB), the traditional method of project delivery. Indeed, in the public sector, this method is often mandatory in determining the lowest responsible bidder for award subsequent to the project having been fully designed, either in-house by the owner’s design professionals or, more often, by a previously selected design entity. Under DBB, the lines of authority, responsibility, reporting and potential liability are clearly drawn, for owner, design professional and contractor. A long established body of law throughout the nation, both statutory and in court decisions, has refined most issues arising from these well-defined relationships.
During the past quarter century, an alternative project delivery method known as design-build has evolved, intended to significantly reduce design and construction costs and time of performance. The growth of design-build throughout the country has been documented in a recent Engineering News-Record cover story, entitled “Design-Build Evolution”, which advises that most states permit full or at least limited use of the design-build project delivery method, predominantly for state highway and bridge construction projects. In the same time frame, federal procurement rules have been modified, with design-build now commonly used by a number of federal agencies. Clearly, this project delivery method is rapidly becoming one of choice, albeit not necessarily for every type of construction project, where DBB or other well established project delivery methods are more appropriate.