Design-Build vs. General Contracting

The project delivery method you choose shapes everything: your contract structure, cost certainty, schedule, and your relationship with the builder. Here is an honest comparison to help you decide which approach is right for your commercial project.

The Three Primary Delivery Methods

Most commercial construction projects use one of three delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build (traditional general contracting), Design-Build, or Construction Management. Each has distinct advantages, tradeoffs, and best-fit scenarios.

Design-Bid-Build (Traditional General Contracting)

In Design-Bid-Build, the owner executes two separate contracts: one with an architect to complete the design, and then a second with a general contractor to build it. The contractor is typically selected through competitive bidding after design is complete.

Advantages:

• Maximum price competition: Multiple contractors bid on completed documents, creating strong downward price pressure.
• Owner controls design: The owner has direct relationships with both architect and contractor, maintaining maximum control over design decisions.
• Clear accountability: If something goes wrong, it is usually clear whether the issue is a design deficiency (architect's responsibility) or a construction deficiency (contractor's responsibility).
• Familiar process: Most public owners and institutions are experienced with this method and may require it by law.

Disadvantages:

• Sequential process: Design must be complete before construction can begin, extending the overall project timeline.
• No contractor input during design: Cost, constructability, and schedule issues in the design are discovered only after construction begins — when they are most expensive to fix.
• Claims exposure: When issues arise at the design/construction interface, disputes between architect and contractor can leave the owner in the middle.
• Budget uncertainty: The owner does not know final cost until bids are received — sometimes months after design investment has been made.

Design-Build

In Design-Build, a single entity — usually a contractor leading a design team — delivers both design and construction under one contract. The owner has a single point of contact and accountability throughout.

Advantages:

• Faster delivery: Design and construction can overlap, compressing the overall schedule significantly.
• Single point of accountability: One entity is responsible for both design quality and construction execution — no finger-pointing between architect and contractor.
• Early cost certainty: A Guaranteed Maximum Price can be established early, well before all design decisions are finalized.
• Reduced owner burden: Managing one contract and one team is significantly simpler than managing separate design and construction contracts.
• Built-in value engineering: The designer and builder work together from day one to optimize cost and constructability.

Disadvantages:

• Less price competition: The owner is typically not receiving competitive bids on construction cost.
• Requires trust: The owner must have confidence in the design-builder's integrity, since they control both design and cost.
• Owner must define scope clearly upfront: Vague project definitions can lead to scope disputes when the design-builder interprets requirements differently than the owner intended.

Construction Management (CM at Risk / CM as Advisor)

Construction Management adds a professional manager to either delivery method. As CM at Risk, the CM holds subcontracts and provides a GMP. As CM as Advisor (Owner's Rep), the CM manages the process on the owner's behalf without holding construction contracts.

Bomar Construction provides both CM at Risk and CM as Advisor services. See our Construction Management and Owner Representation pages for details.

Which Method Is Right for Your Project?