Progressive Design-Build Progressive Design-Build

Preparing to load PDF file. please wait...

0 of 0
Progressive Design-Build Progressive Design-Build

Transcript Of Progressive Design-Build Progressive Design-Build

Progressive Design-Build
Progressive Design-Build
A Design-Build Done RightTM Primer

What is ProgressiveDesign-Build Progressive Design-build?


process and does not abide by Design-Build Done Right™ principles, the overall project results can suffer dramatically.

Design-build has been used in the private sector for decades, particularly in the industrial and process industries.1 In executing their design-build projects, private sector owners contract with their design-builders early in the project’s life. They not only want to take full advantage of the design-builder’s expertise, but also want to work collaboratively with the design-builder to develop a design that meets the project’s goals. Recognizing the benefits of having the best team working on their behalf, private sector owners typically select their design-builders primarily on qualifications. While most private sector owners ultimately expect their design-builders to provide price, schedule and performance commitments, they defer obtaining these commitments until after the design has been sufficiently defined – enhancing collaboration, teamwork and the likelihood of project success. Once the parties have negotiated and agreed upon the commercial terms of their relationship, the owner can be assured that the design-builder’s commitments will be honored – the design-builder’s continuum of involvement makes it difficult to blame anyone else for problems.
Although public sector owners have embraced design-build since the late 1990s, they tend to approach their design-build relationships differently than most private sector owners. Typical public sector owners require that a final project price be established at the time the design-builder is selected. For purposes of this Primer, we will call this approach “Fixed Price Design-Build.” Under Fixed Price Design-Build, the final project price is often the dominant factor in selecting the design-builder, even under best value procurements. Because a project’s price is integrally connected to design, substantial design work is done prior to award of a Fixed Price Design-Build project. This design work not only includes the owner’s prescriptive bridging documents and/ or performance requirements, but also includes the proposers’design proposals showing how they will meet the owner’s requirements within the established budget.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Fixed Price Design-Build inhibits the ability of the owner and design-builder to truly collaborate on design ideas – procurement laws create practical limitations as to how much collaboration can take place prior to award. Consequently, the design under a Fixed Price Design-Build process is essentially developed pre-award by one party in isolation of the other party. While the parties can freely (and do) collaborate after award, many of the crucial design decisions that form the basis of the price have already been made by one of the parties prior to contract execution. It is unrealistic to think that the parties can take a“time out”to collaboratively brainstorm design decisions – the design-builder has already signed a contract with firm price and schedule commitments.
What is Progressive Design-Build?
While many public sector owners are required by procurement laws to use Fixed Price Design-Build, some owners have the flexibility to implement a procurement and contracting approach that essentially replicates that used by private sector owners. The term associated with this approach has come to be known as“Progressive Design-Build”(PDB). Its core features include the following:
• The design-builder is retained by the owner early in the life of the project, and in some cases, before the design has been developed at all.
• The design-builder is generally selected primarily, if not exclusively, on qualifications, and the design-builder’s final project cost and schedule commitment is not established as part of the selection process.

Industry studies have shown that projects delivered through designbuild perform far better in terms of cost and schedule than those using design-bid-build and construction management at-risk. However, Fixed Price Design-Build can create some challenges. If the owner uses bridging documents, this can stifle innovation and leave owners susceptible to change orders if there are problems in those documents. Conducting a competitive procurement under Fixed Price Design-Build can be costly and take significant time. Some of these challenges may exist even if the owner follows the principles of Design-Build Done Right™. However, if an owner procures under a Fixed Price Design-Build

• The design-builder delivers the project in two distinct phases, with: (a) Phase 1 including pricing level design development, preconstruction services and the negotiation of a firm contract price (either lump sum or guaranteed maximum price) for Phase 2; and (b) Phase 2 including final design, construction and commissioning.
Phase 1 Services are also called Preliminary or Preconstruction Services. The design-builder first collaborates with the owner and its consultants to create or confirm the project’s basis of design, and then advances that design. Design and other project decisions are based on cost, schedule,

2 1Design-build in the industrial and process industries is often known as EPC (i.e., engineering-procurement-construction) contracting.

operability, life cycle and other considerations, with the design-builder providing ongoing, transparent, cost estimates to ensure that the owner’s budgetary requirements are being achieved. At the point in time where the design has achieved an appropriate level of definition that aligns with the owner’s needs, the design-builder will provide a formal commercial proposal (including the overall contract price) for Phase 2 services. The proposal is often established when the design is approximately 40-60% complete, but it can occur anytime (including as late as 90-100% design completion), depending on the amount of control the owner desires to maintain over the design definition.
Phase 2 Services are also called Final Design and Construction Services. Once the owner and design-builder agree upon commercial terms (including the project’s price and schedule), the design-builder will complete the design and construction of the facility in accordance with those commercial terms. The design-builder will also be responsible for any testing, commissioning, and other services that have been agreed upon.
If, for any reason, the parties cannot reach agreement on the Phase 2 commercial terms, then the owner has the right to exercise an “offramp”– where it can use the design and move forward with the project through a design-bid-build procurement, with another design-builder, or any other way it deems appropriate.
As discussed more later, a PDB relationship can be established with the parties entering into two separate contracts for each phase of work, or a single contract that covers both phases. Also, while there appears to be a“bright line”between Phase 1 and Phase 2 services, the pragmatics of expediting project schedules often require that some Phase 2 work be started before the commercial proposal has been agreed upon. As a result, many PDB projects allow the design-builder to work on “early work”packages for discrete elements of the physical work (e.g., procurement of long lead items or site work) to proceed before Phase 2 authorization.

Progressive Design-Build
What are the Key Differences between PDB and Fixed Price DesignBuild?
There are several key differences between PDB and Fixed Price DesignBuild. The following chart illustrates some of these differences, based on the assumption that the owner under Fixed Price Design-Build is using a best value procurement process – where the overall project price is an evaluation factor. The last column of the chart addresses how PDB fares with the principles of Design-Build Done Right™ on the issues addressed in the chart.

Photo credit: Terminal 3 East, San Francisco International Airport

Photo credit: Boarding Area E, San Francisco International Airport

Progressive Design-Build

Differences Between Fixed Price and Progressive Design-Build


Fixed Price


Progressive Design-Build

PDB and Compliance with Design-Build Done Right™


Design-builder selected based on technical and price proposals, with the overall project price often being the dominant selection factor. Owner incurs time and expense to develop bridging documents or performance specifications. Proposers need time to develop the design sufficiently to provide a responsive technical proposal and develop their overall project price proposals. Owners may incur the expense of providing stipends to unsuccessful proposers.

Design-builder selected primarily, if not exclusively, on qualifications with little, if any, design information being provided. As a result, stipends are rarely provided. While some owners may solicit limited price information (e.g., Phase 1 compensation and design-build fee), the overall project price is not an evaluation factor. This helps streamline the procurement process and expense of all parties.

PDB strongly aligns with DBIA”s Best Procurement Practices, as owners focus heavily on qualifications and reward those design-build teams that have a history of successfully collaborating on designbuild projects. PDB procurement is also conducted with shortlisting, submission of limited design deliverables, and use of confidential meetings with shortlisted proposers, all associated with DBIA’s Best Procurement Practices.

Phased project delivery and collaboration between owner and designbuilder in design development

Design-builder introduced to project after owner has developed basis of design and, as applicable, bridging documents or performance specifications. While proposal process allows for some limited collaboration between proposers and owner on design matters, it is constrained by the pragmatics of the competitive procurement process. Proposers will have developed their competitive designs, and crucial early design decisions are often made by owner and proposers in isolation.

Design-builder introduced to project very early in the life of the project, and then works collaboratively with the owner during Phase 1 to confirm the basis of design and advance that design. Owner is able to make decisions with assistance of design-builder and ensure all project objectives are satisfied prior to the establishment of the contract price and proceeding with Phase 2 for final design and construction.

PDB strongly aligns with DBIA’s Best Procurement Practices, as it has the designbuild team working collaboratively with the owner in developing the project’s design.

Cost and schedule information during design development

Other than the design-builder’s price proposal, Owner does not have access to any meaningful cost data from the design-builder until after contract award. Consequently it is making its design-related decisions on the bridging documents or design submissions based on internal or consultant input, which may not be accurately reflect market conditions.

Owner has access to design-builder’s estimating and cost models as design develops, allowing it to make informed and real-time scope, life cycle costing and operability decisions. Project budgets are more reliable because of the design-builder’s input, and because design-builder is responsible for the design from the outset of the relationship.

PDB strongly aligns with DBIA’s Best Procurement Practices, as it enables owners to develop realistic project budgets in conjunction with the design-builder.

Subcontractor procurement and involvement

Because of design-builder’s need to develop technical and price proposals, key subcontractors are often an integral part of the design-builder’s team during the procurement process. Owners have no meaningful involvement in selecting which subcontractors are used by design-builder.

Because owners can choose to be actively involved in subcontractor selection and procurement, there are a variety of ways that a subcontractor may be involved and introduced to the project. Their selection will depend on applicable procurement laws and the owner’s interest in participating in subcontractor procurement. For example, they may:

DBIA’s Best Procurement Practices call for the owner to create a procurement process that encourages the early participation of key trade contractors. Depending on how the owner structures its procurement, PDB may not comply with this best practice, particularly if the trade contractor is not involved in Phase 1.

• be part of the design-builder’s initial team at the time of award.

• be procured by the design-builder postaward to provide Phase 1 services.

• be procured with input from the owner as part of the Phase 1 commercial proposal process or during Phase 2.

• Depending on how this is handled, subcontractors may not truly be part of the design-builder’s team until late in design development.


Progressive Design-Build

Differences Between Fixed Price and Progressive Design-Build


Fixed Price


Progressive Design-Build

PDB and Compliance with Design-Build Done Right™

Price proposals

Owner often receives lump sum price proposal, with no true visibility into the design-builder’s proposal estimate or price of risk.

Owner receives design-builder’s openbook commercial proposal, which should be consistent with the estimating and cost models provided during design development. Among other benefits, this process allows owner to make informed commercial decisions based on the price of the risk and the best way to allocate risk and uncertainties.

PDB strongly aligns with DBIA’s Best Contracting Practices, as the open-book process of setting a price enables the owner and design-builder to proactively and cooperatively identify project-specific risks and reasonably allocate those risks.

Flexibility for phasing construction activities

Owner has limited flexibility with early work and phasing, as it must first complete the design-build procurement before contracting with the design-builder.

Owner has substantial flexibility in authorizing design-builder to perform early construction and procurement work packages as the design develops during Phase 1.

DBIA’s Best Practices do not directly address the issue of phasing construction activities.

Contracting approach

Owners use a lump sum approach, with no Owners often contract in several ways:

visibility into design-builder’s actual incurred Cost-plus, Guaranteed Maximum Price



• This allows full transparency into designbuilder’s costs, an ability to be involved in subcontractor procurement, and an opportunity to share in savings.

While DBIA’s Best Practices do not directly address contracting approaches, they indirectly suggest that the owner should have flexibility to select the contracting approach that best suits its project goals, allows appropriate risk allocation and incentivizes performance.

• Lump sum: Owners use this if they feel comfortable with the information they received through the open-book proposal.

Design-builder’s full project price commitment
Risk for Design Deficiencies

Design-builder commits to the full project price in its price proposal and as a condition to contract award.
Owner often retains Spearin risk for errors in bridging documents that could not have reasonably been discovered by designbuilder during procurement.

• Conversion from GMP to lump sum: This may happen during Phase 2, if the owner wants to save on administrative expenses of managing a GMP relationship.
While design-builder may provide prices for certain elements of the work, including Phase 1 and early works, it does not commit to a full project price until it submits price proposals at the end of Phase 1.
Owner should be able to avoid Spearin risk for errors in the design documents, if PDB process is conducted properly. Designbuilder is paid to develop and complete confirm the basis of design and then advance that design through final contract documents. Moreover, it does not commit to a price until after design has been developed.

DBIA’s Best Practices do not directly address the issue of when price commitments will be received.
PDB strongly aligns with DBIA’s Best Contracting Practices, as having the design-builder fully involved from the start of the design process allocates the risk of design to the design-builder, the party best capable of managing that risk.


Progressive Design-Build
Why Would an Owner Choose PDB?
Given its attributes, there are several reasons a public owner might prefer using PDB to deliver its facility, assuming, of course, that it has the procurement authority to do so. These reasons include the following:
• Enables the owner to get the benefits of bringing the design-builder to the project very early in the design process, which allows the designbuilder to offer its expertise in meeting the owner’s needs.
• Avoids the time and expense associated with the owner creating a design baseline (including bridging documents) and then “handingoff”the design to the design-builder after the completion of the procurement process.
• Streamlines and simplifies the procurement process, which encourages competition and has a schedule benefit to the project – saving money and benefiting both the owner and the design-builder.
• Enables the owner to provide substantial input on the design decisions, and as it collaborates with design-builder during design development.
• Removes some pressure from the owner in terms of the time required to review and act upon design submittals, as this is typically being done during Phase 1, before the contract’s commercial terms (including contract price and schedule) have been guaranteed by the designbuilder.
• Offers a high degree of cost certainty and transparency as the design is being developed, given that the design-builder will provide detailed cost estimates concurrently with specific design submissions. Because the cost estimates come from the entity providing the design, these cost estimates are more reliable and should ensure that the owner’s budgets are met.
• Shortens the overall project schedule with a shorter procurement process and opportunity to use early work packages in phasing the work.
• Allows owner participation in subcontractor and supplier selection.
• Fosters a collaborative, integrated, trusting team environment. The owner and design-builder are working together to make decisions in the best interests of the project.
• Offers the owner transparency into the design-builder’s proposal cost (including the pricing for risk and contingencies), and, if a GMP is used, the ultimate cost for final design and construction.

• Offers the owner an“off-ramp”should the owner fail to accept the design-builder’s price or other commercial terms.
• Provides a collaborative way to establish“single point of responsibility” and eliminate an owner’s Spearin liability risk.
While all of the above attributes can be important, two attributes are particularly relevant to an owner choosing PDB. First, PDB is an excellent option for complex projects with design and/or construction challenges, where the design-builder can provide very early input on design or constructability issues. Complex projects also benefit from high level, intense collaboration and teamwork, and early design-builder involvement facilitates this. Furthermore, because complex projects are difficult to price, PDB’s collaborative, open book pricing allows the parties to reduce project contingencies and make more realistic pricing assumptions.
Second, PDB is an excellent option when an owner wants to use designbuild, but remain actively involved in making design decisions. The opportunity for collaboration is one of the primary reasons the water and wastewater industry has heavily embraced PDB. Its owners not only want to decide the basis of design, but they also often want to be involved in selecting equipment suppliers.
Despite all of these positive attributes, there are several reasons that a public owner may not be interested in, or even able to use, PDB. Among these reasons are the following:
• Restrictive procurement regulations. If the public authority has the ability to use qualifications-based selection (QBS), PDB can be an optimal choice. However, if the procurement regulations are more restrictive and developed in contemplation of a Fixed Price DesignBuild process (such as the use of bridging documents, submission of formal technical proposals, or awarding based on a contract price for the entire project), PDB may not be workable.
• Awarding without full competition on the overall designbuild contract price. PDB calls for the owner to select the designbuilder largely on the basis of qualifications, without the benefit of price competition on the overall design-build contract price. Some owners find awarding a construction contract without full price competition to be politically impractical, and prefer to have price factored into the selection process. They may also feel uncomfortable in negotiating the commercial terms of the arrangement.
• Exercising the “off-ramp”. Owners may be uncomfortable in exercising the“off-ramp”in the event the parties cannot reach commercial agreement on the design-builder’s proposal.

• Subcontractor procurement challenges. Procurement regulations may require subcontractors to be procured competitively. This can limit collaboration and deprive the project of valuable subcontractor input during the design process.
• Lack of interest in changing approaches. Owners may feel that the Fixed Price Design-Build process works well and that there is no reason to try something different.
Any one of these reasons could cause an owner to use Fixed Price DesignBuild or construction management at risk (CMAR). CMAR has some of the same attributes of PDB, in that it facilitates early contractor involvement by selecting the CMAR contractor primarily based upon its qualifications. Having the CMAR contractor involved for preconstruction activities can be beneficial to an owner that wants real-time pricing information, constructability and value engineering ideas.
However, CMAR has three major weaknesses in comparison to PDB. First, it requires the owner to manage two contracts – one with the lead designer and one with the CMAR contractor. Many owners find it difficult to maintain their schedule, as design decisions tend to drift when the designer is not in a contractual relationship with the contractor. Second, there is no “single point of responsibility.” By having two contracts, the owner is exposed to Spearin liability for defects in the design documents. Finally, the collaboration and teamwork in a CMAR project are not nearly as effective as in an integrated design-build team, working together to meet the owner’s needs.

Progressive Design-Build
How Does the PDB Procurement Process Work?
When an owner decides to use PDB, it should have a single fundamental procurement objective – select the right team, using a process that is as streamlined and simple as possible based upon applicable regulations. Who is the right team?
• The team that will work well and collaboratively with the owner.
• The team that offers the best chance to meet the owner’s project goals and required outcomes.
• The team that the owner believes is trustworthy, fair, qualified and transparent.
In accomplishing this objective, an owner will either use pure QBS processes or best value selection processes, typically by looking at what is prescribed by its procurement regulations.


Progressive Design-Build
QBS is based solely on non-price selection factors, such as qualifications and past performance of the team members and key personnel, project approach and creativity. No price information is evaluated whatsoever. Under QBS, some owners may ask for price information on items like the Phase 1 compensation or the design-builder’s fee. This information will be in a separate submission from the qualifications/technical proposal, but unlike a best value procurement, it will not be evaluated as part of the selection process. Instead, the owner will open this submission only after determining the winning design-builder, and will use this information for negotiating the contract with that entity.
Best value selection chooses the design-builder based on both non-price and price factors. Because the entire design-build contract price is not under consideration, as it would be under Fixed Price Design-Build, the types of price factors are limited – such as the Phase 1 compensation and design-builder’s fee noted above. Because these are relatively small dollar values in relation to the ultimate design-build contract price, the weighting for the price factors is generally quite low (e.g., 5%-20%) in comparison to the non-price factors.
There are several procurement decisions an owner needs to make, regardless of whether it is using QBS or best value selection. One is whether to conduct a one-step or two-step selection process. Onestep can be quite efficient for QBS, particularly if there is little technical information being asked of the proposers. One-step is not appropriate if the deliverables required from proposers are substantial. As is the case under Fixed Price Design-Build, this forces proposers to spend money on their proposals even if they do not have a meaningful chance of winning. It also imposes a burden on owners to evaluate these proposals.
Two-step is more typical for QBS on complicated projects or best value selection, as proposers will be spending time and resources to respond with more detailed technical proposals and owners must thoroughly evaluate these proposals. The two-step process contemplates the development of a shortlist (typically three teams), largely based on corporate qualifications and past performance, and resumes of key personnel. The second step contemplates the submission of technical proposals, with the proposal focusing on what the owner needs to meet its objective of selecting the right team. Proprietary meetings are often used in two-step processes. It is an excellent way to have confidential discussions about ideas developed by the proposers and get a sense of how proposers interact within their team, as well as with the owner’s team.
Whether the owner uses a one-step or two-step process, there is a strong benefit in the owner conducting formal interviews. After all, because the point of PDB is to get the right team on board, the owner should have an ability to assess how that team presents itself.

Are There Any Unique Contract Issues with PDB?
While PDB contracts are similar to Fixed Price Design-Build contracts, there are some important differences.
The first difference is the form of contract. Some owners will start their contractual relationship with the design-builder with a Phase 1 Agreement which, as the name indicates, just covers the Phase 1 Services. They find that this streamlines getting the design-builder under contract. These owners are comfortable with developing and negotiating another contract, for Phase 2 Services, as part of the commercial proposal process. Other owners prefer to have a single design-build contract that addresses both Phase 1 and Phase 2 Services and is signed at the start of their relationship with the design-builder. Among other benefits, this approach can make it easier to execute early work packages, as the terms and conditions related to procurement and construction are already covered by the contract. DBIA’s Document No. 545, Progressive Design-Build for Water/Wastewater Projects, uses a single design-build contract approach.
Regardless of which approach is used, the parties are advised to focus on the preliminary services part of the relationship, as elements of that work go to the heart of the PDB relationship. Topics that are commonly addressed include:
• Scope of Phase 1 work, including cost modeling. The contract (often through an exhibit) will specifically state what work the design-builder will perform for Phase 1, including the extent and frequency of cost estimating and modeling.
• Ability of the design-builder to use and rely upon ownerfurnished information. Because the design-builder is getting involved early in the design process, there is a question as to how to treat information obtained by the owner before the designbuilder was involved (like geotechnical reports and technology decisions). Working collaboratively, most owners and design-builders make informed decisions about the cost-benefit of having the design-builder validate previously done studies and then treat this appropriately in the contract.
• Early work packages. The contract should address the processes for developing and authorizing early work packages. This includes procuring subcontractors, evaluating self-performance of the designbuilder, and determining how to proceed if the owner exercises the “off ramp.”


• Design-builder self-performance. The contract will address the applicability of self-performance, particularly in relation to subcontractor procurement requirements.
• Subcontractor and vendor procurement and their involvement in Phase 1. The contract should address how subcontractors and vendors will be procured and the owner’s role in that process. This may be heavily influenced by statute. Likewise, the parties need to address the role that these parties may play in Phase 1 and how this relates, if at all, to their involvement in Phase 2.
• Commercial Proposal. This important element of Phase 1 should be thoroughly addressed in the contract, particularly in terms of the form of the proposal and information that the design-builder is to submit.
• Off-ramp. This is a provision that should be clearly addressed, including the rights of the owner to use Phase 1 information for subsequent procurements associated with the project.
Finally, the parties need to determine the process for obtaining performance and payment bonds from the design-builder. Work and prices are being established a number of different times – Phase 1, early work packages, and Phase 2. Often the bond will be provided once construction starts, although some owners will require a bond at the contract inception (Phase 1) and have the penal sum increased as work is added. Parties should consult with their lawyers and bonding consultants on the best way to approach this.
What Should an Owner Do to Prepare for Implementing a PDB Process?
Because PDB has features that are different from Fixed Price Design-Build, an owner should carefully consider what it needs to make the process successful. A few suggestions are as follows:
1. Assess the appropriateness of PDB for the project. Owners should gain a full understanding of PDB and conduct a proactive/ objective assessment of the characteristics of its project and determine if PDB is the appropriate delivery method for its project.
2. Use consultants that are experienced with PDB. Experienced PDB consultants know the importance of getting the design-builder retained early (before substantial design work is performed) and working collaboratively with the design-builder as it advances the design. They can help the owner take a pragmatic view of procurement and

Progressive Design-Build
contracting. An experienced PDB consultant can also provide training to the owner’s personnel so that they are better prepared to manage the relationship with the design-builder, as well as participate in the process of negotiating the commercial terms for Phase 2.
3. Understand procurement limitations. While some public sector owners have a clear ability to use QBS, most public sector owners are required to consider price. Likewise, many owners are required to comply with statutes that address subcontractor procurement. It is critical for the owner to fully appreciate its procurement opportunities and limitations in formulating a procurement plan, and engage experienced in-house or outside legal counsel to facilitate this.
4. Have a strong cost estimator on your team. Cost estimating is an important and difficult skill. The owner needs to have competent resources to evaluate the reasonableness of the design-builder’s cost modeling and price proposal.
5. Make an early decision on subcontractor procurement and design-builder self-performance. These issues can be major factors in determining whether organizations are interested in competing. Moreover, if the owner decides that it wants to have most, if not all, subcontractors competitively procured, this issue could influence the ability to obtain collaboration and design innovation, given that subcontractors are often the repository of this knowledge.
6. Ensure that your team is willing and able to collaborate and trust. While any form of design-build requires collaboration and trust, these factors are often the very essence of why an owner has chosen PDB. The owner’s team members should understand the importance of collaboration, and senior management needs to ensure that collaboration and integration is supported and carried out throughout performance.
Terminial 2, San Francisco International Airport


A Word About Design-Build Done Right™
As discussed above, PDB very much aligns with core Design-Build Done Right™ principles, particularly when key trade contractors are procured early and involved in the Phase 1 services. PDB does not, however, diminish the attributes of Fixed Price Design-Build, where the designbuilder commits to a price and work scope at the time of contract award. Consequently, both approaches are“tools in the toolbox”for owners, and, consistent with Design-Build Done Right™ principles, the owner needs to make an informed decision as to which approach is most appropriate for its needs.
Regardless of which approach is used, experience shows that project success is predicated on the parties using the principles expressed in Design-Build Done Right™. Both approaches enable owners to comply with core Design-Build Done Right™ procurement principles, such as: (a) selecting the most qualified team; (b) letting the design-builder use its ingenuity and experience to develop design solutions; (c) weighting price significantly less than non-price factors; and (d) seeking best value solutions, such as energy efficiency, durability, sustainability, and ease of maintenance. Both approaches can also accomplish key Design-Build Done Right™ teaming philosophies of integration and collaboration, as well as environments based on trust – characterized by integrity and honest communication, and mutual respect for and appreciation of diverse perspectives and ideas. Stated simply, if a project team can operate in accordance with Design-Build Done Right™ values, there is an improved likelihood of superior project outcomes under both PDB and Fixed Price Design-Build.
Photo credits top to bottom: The 11th Street Corridor Bridge Project; Cornish College of the Arts: Cornish Commons in Seattle, Washington; Champion Petfoods Kentucky DogStar® Kitchens in Auburn, Kentucky; Veterans Memorial Bridge in Martin County, Florida; The Wichita Equus Beds Aquifer Storage and Recovery Program, Design-Build Surface Water Treatment Plant and River Intake in Wichita, Kansas