The project delivery method is how a project gets designed and built — how design and construction responsibilities are organized, sequenced, and put under contract. It is one of the owner's most important early decisions, because it drives budget certainty, schedule, quality, how risk is allocated, and how much control the owner keeps.
Virtually every approach is a variation of four methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction Management at-Risk, Design-Build, and Integrated Project Delivery.
Contracting/compensation (Lump Sum, Guaranteed Maximum Price, or Reimbursable) and procurement (price-based, qualifications-based, or both) are separate choices that apply across any method.
Agency Construction Management — a CM acting as the owner's agent — can be layered onto any method. The CM should be engaged early and can advise on which method fits the project.
They differ mainly in who carries risk and control, and when design and construction overlap.
Generally, the more control the owner keeps, the more risk the owner carries — and the owner's risk/control runs inverse to the contractor's.
Sequencing: DBB is fully sequential (design, then bid, then build). CM at-Risk and Design-Build overlap design and construction, allowing early work to be "fast-tracked." IPD binds the parties together from the start.
Point of accountability: separate designer + contractor in DBB (and CMAR keeps the designer separate); a single entity for design + build in DB; a shared, multi-party team in IPD.
Owner design control is highest in DBB and lowest in DB; speed is generally slowest in DBB and fastest in DB.
No method is right for every project. The owner weighs schedule, budget certainty, design control, risk tolerance, and the expertise available in-house.
The traditional U.S. method: three sequential phases — design, procurement, construction — with the owner holding separate contracts with the designer and the contractor, and the contractor usually chosen by low bid.
Advantages
Widely applicable, well understood, with clearly defined roles.
The most common approach for public owners subject to procurement statutes.
Owner keeps significant control over the end product — the design is fully specified before the contractor is selected.
Disadvantages
Longest duration — all design must finish before construction is bid.
The designer has limited ability to assess cost and schedule as design develops, which can raise final cost.
Owner is exposed to change orders and claims, since it carries design liability in its contract with the contractor.
Can promote more adversarial relationships than cooperation.
Multiple-prime variation: the owner holds separate contracts with trade primes. It allows fast-tracking early construction, but there is no central point of coordination (the owner assumes it) and potential for claims between contractors.
CM role / best fit: CM engaged early to advise and coordinate as the owner's representative. Best where design control and competitive low-bid procurement matter and the scope is well defined.
The CM acts as a consultant to the owner during design, then takes on construction risk as the equivalent of a general contractor — holding the trade subcontracts during construction, typically under a Guaranteed Maximum Price. The designer stays under separate contract to the owner.
Advantages
Owner gets the contractor's perspective and input during planning and design.
Ability to fast-track early construction before design is fully complete.
Early cost certainty through a GMP (often with shared savings/overruns).
Disadvantages
Puts a premium on selecting the right CM-at-Risk — outcomes hinge on the firm's skill and experience.
The advisory help present during design is no longer there during construction, when the CMR is in an "at-risk" position.
CM role / best fit: Suited to owners who want early cost certainty and schedule overlap with a single construction-phase point of responsibility, while keeping the designer independent.
A single contract combines design and construction under one entity, giving the owner one point of accountability for both.
Advantages
Can deliver a project faster than DBB.
Single point of accountability for design and construction.
Cost efficiencies from designer and builder working together throughout.
Change orders typically arise only from owner changes.
Disadvantages
Less design control and involvement for the owner and stakeholders.
Owner must make decisions quickly to capture DB's speed.
Loses the checks and balances of contracting separately with a designer and a contractor.
Can be problematic when multiple agency design approvals are required, and a poor fit for unusual or iconic designs.
Variations: Bridging (owner develops partial design first) and Public-Private Partnership (P3/PPP). P3 trade-offs include higher life-cycle cost, an expensive proposal process, and a need for high expertise.
CM role / best fit: Best where speed and single-point accountability outweigh granular design control.
A multi-party contract that binds owner, designer, and builder to share risk, responsibility, reward, and liability — decisions are collectively managed. Emphasis is on trust and total cost over initial cost.
Advantages
Owner gains the advantages of Design-Build or CM at-Risk.
The whole team's interests are aligned with project goals — once underway, the chance of success is extremely high.
Disadvantages
Agreeing the criteria and the final IPD contract can be difficult and time-consuming (the owner may pay for that, if not in money then in time).
Industry inexperience with non-adversarial teams makes success dependent on individuals' behavior, which is hard to control or correct.
Objective team selection is difficult, especially for an owner without an established team.
CM role / best fit: Complex projects where aligned incentives and genuine collaboration can be established with an experienced team.
Strategy Notebook
Excerpt & summary of the CMAA "Owner's Guide to Project Delivery Methods" (2012). Delivery-method neutral.
What is a project delivery method? #
The project delivery method is how a project gets designed and built — how design and construction responsibilities are organized, sequenced, and put under contract. It is one of the owner's most important early decisions, because it drives budget certainty, schedule, quality, how risk is allocated, and how much control the owner keeps.
How the methods differ #
They differ mainly in who carries risk and control, and when design and construction overlap.
Design-Bid-Build (DBB) #
The traditional U.S. method: three sequential phases — design, procurement, construction — with the owner holding separate contracts with the designer and the contractor, and the contractor usually chosen by low bid.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Multiple-prime variation: the owner holds separate contracts with trade primes. It allows fast-tracking early construction, but there is no central point of coordination (the owner assumes it) and potential for claims between contractors.
CM role / best fit: CM engaged early to advise and coordinate as the owner's representative. Best where design control and competitive low-bid procurement matter and the scope is well defined.
Construction Management at-Risk (CMAR / CM-GC) #
The CM acts as a consultant to the owner during design, then takes on construction risk as the equivalent of a general contractor — holding the trade subcontracts during construction, typically under a Guaranteed Maximum Price. The designer stays under separate contract to the owner.
Advantages
Disadvantages
CM role / best fit: Suited to owners who want early cost certainty and schedule overlap with a single construction-phase point of responsibility, while keeping the designer independent.
Design-Build (DB) #
A single contract combines design and construction under one entity, giving the owner one point of accountability for both.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Variations: Bridging (owner develops partial design first) and Public-Private Partnership (P3/PPP). P3 trade-offs include higher life-cycle cost, an expensive proposal process, and a need for high expertise.
CM role / best fit: Best where speed and single-point accountability outweigh granular design control.
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) #
A multi-party contract that binds owner, designer, and builder to share risk, responsibility, reward, and liability — decisions are collectively managed. Emphasis is on trust and total cost over initial cost.
Advantages
Disadvantages
CM role / best fit: Complex projects where aligned incentives and genuine collaboration can be established with an experienced team.