What are the pros and cons of design-bid-build vs. design-build for construction supervision?

Project owners often chose DB to transfer ALL design risks to the Design-Builder. This leaves the Design-Build Team to allocate the risk for non-negligent error/omissions, including all betterment-related cost, that are not covered by the Design Team’s professional liability insurance. Failing to address this issue can lead to costly and uninsurable claims.

From my experience in DBB projects most of the owners are unable to act as intermediary because of lack of industry related knowledge which is resulting into either hiring a PM or missing items or timelines. Both are resulting in extra expenses eventually.

Good, Fast and Cheap, pick two with DBB, pick one wth DB. A good set of design dcuments with good specs will result in a better quality facility with DBB. Enabling the A/E to oversea the quality workmanship can be a plus. The DB produrement has shown its limits. Way too many "strategic partnerships" between design and construction firms. Result is very low quality materials used with deisgner rubber stamping and/or not caring for the design at all. Save for some exceptions in govenment DB projects with third party QA/QC, but private sector DB are always a poor quality product.

While the Design-Bid-Build strategy offers clear project specifications, competitive pricing, and well-defined roles, it also presents challenges in terms of project duration, risk of cost overruns, and limited contractor input during the design phase. These factors need to be carefully considered when choosing this approach for a construction project. Very important - Regardless of the excellence of the initial design, it is imperative that the contractor validates it from a practical standpoint.

The design - build might not be a good business when the brief design / client's concept is blurry (apparently). It's about the communication, resources and who takes the responsibilities for example: I want an investement project A to be done in X months with Y quality or I want an investment project A to be done in X months with Y quality and profit within 3 years . Who will take responsibility and for what?

Un utilidad que se utiliza como oportunbidad para poder escoger los mejores especilistas para el proyecto que se quiere construir.

DB's huge advantage is that with the right approach the savings could be high with shorter turnaround time. The Design Builder is also taking much more responsibility on himself, which protects the client better in case things doesn't go as planned.

The owner can have design influence when progressive design-build method is adopted. Otherwise traditional D-B is performance based where the lowest/cheapest solution can be delivered as long as it meets the performance specs.

The greatest issue is length of time it takes to get building permits so adding design build aspect causes jobs that are bud to be designed twice costing clients extra as the time of construction extends an extra year If you interview and lock design build time and fix a budget and work to that then you save money and prevent architectural design to become effective to a limited budget

DB has some drawbacks , it is not the perfect alternative: Reduced Owner Control: In Design-Build, the owner has less direct oversight and involvement in the design process. This lack of control can be a concern for owners who wish to have a more hands-on approach. Limited Competitive Bidding for Design: Since the design and construction are bundled together, there’s less opportunity for competitive bidding on the design aspect. This can sometimes lead to higher design costs. Potential Compromises in Design Quality: As the same entity is responsible for both design and construction, there can be a tendency to prioritize construction efficiency and cost over design quality.

En este caso se puede ahorrar en costos, pero se asumen muchos riesgos que son parte de la construcción del proyecto, incluido los sobrecostos qeu se puedan generar.

First, you hold a competition of the look of your building, you're not held to the architect selected by the GC. Second, you can chose your equipment for the project. Quality and durable materials are more likely. third, you can value engineer the job ad rebid the project.

A good configuration to integrate sustainability criteria in early design stage, as well as the integration of construction and operation in the design and sustainability criteria. It’s also advantageous for integrated design process

It seems to me, that for construction supervision, the only real advantage is that for design build the documents are not as tightly structured and coordinated as in a standard contract. The supervising contractor can cut a few corners for the sake of efficiency. However, the downside is that change orders will increase as the owner is seeing the job being built... always wanting to improve on the design or change materials.

Key benefits include i) that it is a tested method in the court of law (i.e., litigations) ii) provide the owner full control that is required in many government sectors, iii) government sector purchasers and counsel love it:)

Podemos delegar los riesgos propios del proyecto hacia contratistas espcializados en cada área del proyecto, también se facilita la supervisión por cada área del proyecto.

To efficiently manage the projects, the client representative leading such projects has to have direct experience in such projects. He must understand and be able to define the inclusive & exclusive roles & responsibilities of multiple parties involved. A client who specializes in their own business may not be an expert managing DBB unless they hire individuals specifically for executing such projects. Hence on capital projects, the BD method happens to be more viable and widely accepted where a single party is liable & can be held accountable for the turnkey success.

A major reason project owners chose DB is to transfer all design risks to the Design-Builder. These leaves the Design-Builder and the Design Team to allocate the risk for design error and/or omissions, including all betterment-related costs that are not covered by professional liability insurance. Not all errors and/or omissions are negligent. Failing to address this allocation of risk can lead to costly and uninsurable losses.

The biggest con - the owner holds the risk basket (contrary to the popular belief that the risks are transferred). There is no or very little room for the pre-bid constructability review.

Durante el proceso de la licitación se pueden generar diferentes desviaciones y se tiene el riesgo de no tener el ejecutor idóneo para el proyecto.

In contemporary times, most of owners in Oil & gas sector favor the Design-Build approach for project execution. To oversee and manage the EPC (Engineering, Procurement, and Construction) contractor, owners typically follow one of two approaches: they either establish a Project Management Team (PMT), comprising professionals from various disciplines such as project management, engineering, construction, and commissioning, or they engage a Project Management Consultant (PMC) to provide oversight of the EPC contractor on the owner's behalf.

The design-build approach is great because it simplifies the process with one team handling everything, making communication easier and cutting down on conflicts. It usually means projects get done faster and at a low cost, thanks to better planning and teamwork, plus it encourages creative solutions since everyone is working together from the start.

The GC holds the contract and the paymnet in DB projects. Designers have zero say on what will be built. The only innovation is about how to build cheaper, quality is not a priority in DB.

Qualifications based DB team selection is a plus as long as a bridging document is produced. More than traditional DB, progressive design-build is more valuable if owners want some qualitative and quantitative controls through GMP (guaranteed max price).

La integración directa con el diseñador genera más dinamismo en el intercambio deinformación, esto beneficia el avance de la construcción del proyecto.

Going cheap is the name of the game. Engineers/architects have less say and often times it can lead to very un-collaborative environment.

The "Middle Ground" of preselected contractor as Construction Manager is missing from this discussion. This option picks up many of the advantages of Design-Build, but keeps the design and construction teams separate. As an Architect, I have found this approach to be very positive overall for everyone involved.

Each procurement method has its own set of strengths and weaknesses, and the choice between them should be based on the specific needs and circumstances of the project. Design-Build can offer efficiency and streamlined management, but it's important to consider the potential drawbacks, especially for projects where design quality and owner control are of high importance.