# Project Delivery Methods

## Delivery Method Comparison

### Overview
| Method | Owner Risk | Cost Control | Schedule | Design Control |
|--------|------------|--------------|----------|----------------|
| Design-Bid-Build | High | Fair | Longest | High |
| Design-Build | Low | Good | Short | Limited |
| CM at Risk | Medium | Good | Medium | High |
| Multi-Prime | High | Variable | Medium | High |
| IPD | Shared | Excellent | Short | Shared |

### Selection Factors
| Factor | Best Method |
|--------|-------------|
| Fastest schedule | Design-Build |
| Lowest price | Design-Bid-Build |
| Cost certainty | CM at Risk or GMP |
| Design control | Design-Bid-Build |
| Innovation | Design-Build or IPD |
| Complex project | CM at Risk or IPD |
| Public/government | Design-Bid-Build (often required) |

---

## Design-Bid-Build (DBB)

### Process
```
1. Design Phase (100% complete)
2. Bidding Phase (competitive bids)
3. Construction Phase
```

### Characteristics
| Aspect | Description |
|--------|-------------|
| Contracts | Separate A/E and contractor |
| Pricing | Lump sum bid |
| Competition | Price-based |
| Design completion | 100% before bidding |
| Change orders | Common if design incomplete |

### Advantages
- Maximum price competition
- Clear scope at bid
- Design fully controlled
- Familiar to all parties
- Often required for public projects

### Disadvantages
- Longest duration
- No contractor input on design
- Adversarial relationships
- Change orders if incomplete docs
- No schedule overlap

### Typical Timeline
| Phase | Duration (% of total) |
|-------|----------------------|
| Design | 30-40% |
| Bidding | 5-10% |
| Construction | 50-60% |

---

## Design-Build (DB)

### Process
```
1. Program/RFP Development
2. DB Team Selection
3. Design + Construction (overlapping)
```

### Characteristics
| Aspect | Description |
|--------|-------------|
| Contracts | Single point of responsibility |
| Pricing | Lump sum or GMP |
| Competition | Qualifications and price |
| Design | By DB team |
| Risk | Transferred to DB team |

### Advantages
- Single point of responsibility
- Faster schedule (overlap phases)
- Early cost certainty
- Reduced change orders
- Contractor input on constructability

### Disadvantages
- Less design control for owner
- Difficult to compare proposals
- May sacrifice design quality
- Requires clear program/criteria
- Owner needs strong criteria docs

### Selection Methods
| Method | Description |
|--------|-------------|
| Best value | Qualifications + price |
| Two-step | Qualifications first, then price |
| Negotiated | Single qualified team |
| Bridging | Partial design before DB selection |

### Bridging
```
1. Design Criteria Architect develops 15-35% design
2. DB teams respond to bridging documents
3. DB team completes design and builds
```

---

## Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR)

### Process
```
1. Owner hires CM early
2. Design proceeds with CM input
3. CM provides GMP at appropriate phase
4. CM manages construction as general contractor
```

### Characteristics
| Aspect | Description |
|--------|-------------|
| Contracts | A/E + CM (separate) |
| Pricing | GMP with shared savings |
| CM role | Pre-construction + construction |
| Risk | Shared (GMP limits CM risk) |
| Competition | Multiple bid packages |

### Pre-Construction Services
| Service | Value |
|---------|-------|
| Cost estimating | Real-time budgeting |
| Constructability review | Design improvements |
| Value engineering | Cost savings |
| Schedule development | Realistic timelines |
| Bid package planning | Trade coordination |

### GMP Timing
| Phase | GMP Accuracy |
|-------|--------------|
| Schematic (30%) | ±15-20% |
| DD (60%) | ±10-15% |
| CD (90%) | ±5-10% |
| 100% CD | ±3-5% |

### Advantages
- CM input during design
- GMP limits owner cost exposure
- Fast-track possible
- Trade contractor competition
- Shared savings incentive

### Disadvantages
- Less price competition for CM
- Early CM selection before scope clear
- GMP negotiations can be difficult
- Split responsibilities (A/E vs CM)

---

## Multi-Prime (Separate Contracts)

### Process
```
1. Design by A/E
2. Bid separate packages (general, mechanical, electrical, etc.)
3. Owner holds all prime contracts
4. Owner or CM coordinates
```

### Characteristics
| Aspect | Description |
|--------|-------------|
| Contracts | Multiple primes with owner |
| Coordination | Owner responsibility |
| Risk | High for owner |
| Pricing | Competitive per trade |
| Use | Often required for public |

### Typical Prime Contracts
| Package | Scope |
|---------|-------|
| General | Structure, envelope, finishes |
| HVAC | Heating, cooling, ventilation |
| Plumbing | Piping, fixtures |
| Electrical | Power, lighting, low voltage |
| Fire protection | Sprinklers, alarms |

### Advantages
- Maximum trade competition
- Owner controls all contracts
- Can fast-track
- May satisfy public bidding laws

### Disadvantages
- Owner assumes coordination risk
- No single point of responsibility
- Schedule delays from disputes
- Requires sophisticated owner

---

## Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)

### Process
```
1. Multi-party agreement (Owner, A/E, Contractor)
2. Collaborative design and planning
3. Shared risk and reward
4. Co-located team possible
```

### Characteristics
| Aspect | Description |
|--------|-------------|
| Contract | Tri-party or multi-party |
| Risk | Shared among parties |
| Profit | At-risk, tied to performance |
| Decision making | Collaborative |
| Co-location | Often required |

### Core Principles
| Principle | Description |
|-----------|-------------|
| Early involvement | All parties from start |
| Shared risk/reward | Profit pool |
| Collaborative decision | Consensus-based |
| Jointly developed goals | Target cost/schedule |
| Open communication | Full transparency |

### Financial Structure
| Component | Description |
|-----------|-------------|
| Cost of work | Reimbursable |
| Overhead | Fixed fee |
| Profit | At-risk pool |
| Savings | Shared per agreement |
| Overruns | Shared per agreement |

### Advantages
- Aligned incentives
- Innovation encouraged
- Best value outcomes
- Reduced adversarial relationships
- Continuous improvement

### Disadvantages
- Requires trust among parties
- Complex contract negotiation
- Insurance challenges
- New to many teams
- Requires cultural change

---

## Progressive Design-Build

### Process
```
1. Select DB team based on qualifications
2. Phase 1: Define scope and cost (paid)
3. Negotiate final price
4. Phase 2: Complete design and build
```

### Benefits
| Benefit | Description |
|---------|-------------|
| Team selection | Based on qualifications |
| Scope development | Collaborative |
| Pricing | After scope is clear |
| Off-ramp | Owner can exit after Phase 1 |

---

## Contract Types

### Pricing Structures
| Type | Description | Risk |
|------|-------------|------|
| Lump sum | Fixed price | Contractor |
| GMP | Maximum price, savings shared | Shared |
| Cost plus fixed fee | Cost + fixed profit | Owner |
| Cost plus % | Cost + percentage profit | Owner |
| Unit price | Per unit rates | Varies |
| Time and materials | Labor + materials | Owner |

### When to Use Each
| Pricing | Best Use |
|---------|----------|
| Lump sum | Complete documents, clear scope |
| GMP | Most CMAR projects |
| Cost plus | Undefined scope, trusted contractor |
| Unit price | Known unit quantities, uncertain total |
| T&M | Small projects, repairs |

---

## Schedule Comparison

### Typical Durations
| Method | 100-Unit Duration | Notes |
|--------|-------------------|-------|
| Design-Bid-Build | 24-30 months | Sequential |
| Design-Build | 18-24 months | 20-30% faster |
| CMAR | 20-26 months | Some overlap |
| IPD | 18-22 months | High collaboration |

### Phase Overlap Potential
| Method | Overlap |
|--------|---------|
| DBB | None (sequential) |
| DB | High (concurrent) |
| CMAR | Medium (early packages) |
| IPD | High (integrated) |

---

## Owner Requirements

### By Delivery Method
| Method | Owner Capability |
|--------|-----------------|
| DBB | Basic - standard owner role |
| DB | Medium - clear criteria needed |
| CMAR | Medium - manage two contracts |
| Multi-prime | High - coordination required |
| IPD | High - collaborative capability |

### Owner's Representative
| Size | Recommendation |
|------|----------------|
| Small project | Part-time rep |
| Medium project | Full-time rep |
| Large project | Full team |
| Complex | Owner's PM or CM |

---

## Public vs. Private

### Public Requirements
| Requirement | Description |
|-------------|-------------|
| Low-bid | Often required |
| Bonding | Required |
| Prevailing wage | Common |
| MBE/WBE | Goals required |
| Open bidding | Advertised |

### Private Flexibility
| Aspect | Options |
|--------|---------|
| Selection | Any method |
| Negotiation | Allowed |
| Contracts | Flexible |
| Schedule | Can fast-track |
| Change orders | Negotiated |

---

## Change Order Management

### Common Causes
| Cause | Preventable |
|-------|-------------|
| Design errors/omissions | Partially |
| Owner changes | Owner decision |
| Unforeseen conditions | Not always |
| Code changes | Rarely |
| Coordination issues | Yes |

### Change Order Process
```
1. Identify change
2. Submit proposal
3. Review and negotiate
4. Authorize in writing
5. Execute work
6. Process payment
```

### Pricing Methods
| Method | Use |
|--------|-----|
| Lump sum | Clear scope |
| Unit price | Quantity-based |
| Time and materials | Undefined scope |
| Cost plus markup | Standard markup |

### Typical Markups
| Category | Markup |
|----------|--------|
| Material | 10-15% |
| Labor | 15-20% |
| Equipment | 10-15% |
| Subcontractor | 5-10% |
| Overhead/profit | 10-15% |

---

## Risk Allocation

### Risk Matrix
| Risk | DBB | DB | CMAR | IPD |
|------|-----|-----|------|-----|
| Design errors | A/E | DB team | A/E | Shared |
| Cost overrun | Owner | DB team | Shared | Shared |
| Schedule delay | Contractor | DB team | Shared | Shared |
| Coordination | Owner | DB team | CM | Shared |
| Unforeseen | Owner | Varies | Shared | Shared |

### Insurance Considerations
| Coverage | Who Provides |
|----------|--------------|
| General liability | Contractor |
| Professional liability | A/E |
| Builder's risk | Owner or contractor |
| Wrap-up (OCIP) | Owner option |

---

## Selection Guide

### Quick Decision Matrix
| If you need... | Consider |
|----------------|----------|
| Lowest first cost | DBB |
| Fastest schedule | DB |
| Balance of control and speed | CMAR |
| Innovation and best value | DB or IPD |
| Maximum competition | DBB or Multi-prime |
| Collaborative approach | CMAR or IPD |

### By Project Type
| Project | Recommended |
|---------|-------------|
| Simple, repetitive | DBB or DB |
| Complex, unique | CMAR or IPD |
| Public/government | DBB (often required) |
| Fast-track needed | DB or CMAR |
| Owner wants control | DBB or CMAR |
| Uncertain scope | CMAR or IPD |
