Your County Counselor overreached today with his comments about design-build. He was pushing HTK too hard. He looked and acted like the fourth commissioner.
Design-build is the deal for the inside deal. Does HTK design the plans for his home expansion? That would be like Senne renovating any of the standing commissioners' homes or offices.
Nelda is a licensed architect, and she should be writing the specs. I can do it. Blackburn will do it for a $1K.
See my notes below.
When embarking on construction projects, the choice of project delivery method can significantly impact the overall cost, timeline, and quality of the final product. Two common methods are the **design-build** approach and the more traditional **design-bid-build** method, which typically involves obtaining three competitive bids for construction. While both methods have their merits, some argue that the design-build approach can be more costly than the traditional method of obtaining three bids, primarily due to the lack of competitive pricing and other associated factors.
Design-Build Method Overview
The design-build approach consolidates both the design and construction phases under a single contract. This means that the owner hires one entity – the design-build firm – to manage both the architectural design and the construction work. The primary advantage of this method is that it fosters collaboration between the designers and builders from the beginning, potentially reducing misunderstandings and speeding up the project timeline.
However, this integrated approach comes with potential drawbacks, particularly regarding cost. In the design-build model, because there is no traditional bidding process, there is less competitive pressure on the contractors to offer the lowest possible price. Since one firm controls both the design and construction, they have more control over setting prices, and without other firms competing, they might not be incentivized to seek cost reductions as aggressively as in a bidding process. This can lead to higher costs overall.
Design-Bid-Build with Competitive Bidding
In contrast, the design-bid-build method typically involves a competitive bidding process, where the project owner solicits bids from multiple contractors after the design phase is complete. The owner typically receives at least three bids and then selects the contractor who offers the best combination of price, experience, and timeline.
The competitive nature of this process tends to drive costs down. Contractors vying for the job will often sharpen their pencils to offer the most competitive bid, knowing that they are up against other firms. This bidding process inherently creates a pricing tension, which can benefit the owner by ensuring they get the lowest possible price for the construction phase, assuming the bids are properly vetted.
Design-Build Method Overview
The design-build approach consolidates both the design and construction phases under a single contract. This means that the owner hires one entity – the design-build firm – to manage both the architectural design and the construction work. The primary advantage of this method is that it fosters collaboration between the designers and builders from the beginning, potentially reducing misunderstandings and speeding up the project timeline.
However, this integrated approach comes with potential drawbacks, particularly regarding cost. In the design-build model, because there is no traditional bidding process, there is less competitive pressure on the contractors to offer the lowest possible price. Since one firm controls both the design and construction, they have more control over setting prices, and without other firms competing, they might not be incentivized to seek cost reductions as aggressively as in a bidding process. This can lead to higher costs overall.
Design-Bid-Build with Competitive Bidding
In contrast, the design-bid-build method typically involves a competitive bidding process, where the project owner solicits bids from multiple contractors after the design phase is complete. The owner typically receives at least three bids and then selects the contractor who offers the best combination of price, experience, and timeline.
The competitive nature of this process tends to drive costs down. Contractors vying for the job will often sharpen their pencils to offer the most competitive bid, knowing that they are up against other firms. This bidding process inherently creates a pricing tension, which can benefit the owner by ensuring they get the lowest possible price for the construction phase, assuming the bids are properly vetted.
Why Design-Build Can Be More Expensive
One of the fundamental reasons why the design-build method can be more expensive is the absence of competitive bidding. In design-build, the owner negotiates directly with the design-build firm, meaning that the price is often set based on negotiation rather than competitive pricing pressure. This can lead to the design-build firm embedding higher profit margins into the project cost. Furthermore, since the design and construction are handled by the same entity, changes to the project may not be as scrutinized from a cost perspective as they would be in a competitive bidding process.
Another factor is that design-build firms often include contingencies in their pricing to account for the unknowns that might arise during the integrated design and construction phases. This can make the upfront costs higher than in a traditional design-bid-build scenario where contingencies are typically addressed through change orders during construction.
Additionally, the design-build model sometimes leads to designs that are more expensive to build because the design team and construction team may not prioritize cost efficiency to the same degree as in a competitive bid environment. This is especially true if the firm focuses more on design quality or speed of delivery than cost control.
While the design-build method offers some clear advantages in terms of streamlined project management, reduced timeline, and potentially better collaboration between design and construction teams, it is often considered more costly than the traditional design-bid-build method with competitive bidding. The lack of competitive pricing pressure in design-build can result in higher overall costs, particularly if the design-build firm does not emphasize cost efficiency. For project owners looking to control costs, the design-bid-build method with three bids may offer better financial outcomes, even if it involves a longer process and potentially more complexity in managing separate contracts for design and construction. Ultimately, the choice of delivery method should be based on the specific priorities and constraints of the project, including budget, timeline, and desired quality.
One of the fundamental reasons why the design-build method can be more expensive is the absence of competitive bidding. In design-build, the owner negotiates directly with the design-build firm, meaning that the price is often set based on negotiation rather than competitive pricing pressure. This can lead to the design-build firm embedding higher profit margins into the project cost. Furthermore, since the design and construction are handled by the same entity, changes to the project may not be as scrutinized from a cost perspective as they would be in a competitive bidding process.
Another factor is that design-build firms often include contingencies in their pricing to account for the unknowns that might arise during the integrated design and construction phases. This can make the upfront costs higher than in a traditional design-bid-build scenario where contingencies are typically addressed through change orders during construction.
Additionally, the design-build model sometimes leads to designs that are more expensive to build because the design team and construction team may not prioritize cost efficiency to the same degree as in a competitive bid environment. This is especially true if the firm focuses more on design quality or speed of delivery than cost control.
While the design-build method offers some clear advantages in terms of streamlined project management, reduced timeline, and potentially better collaboration between design and construction teams, it is often considered more costly than the traditional design-bid-build method with competitive bidding. The lack of competitive pricing pressure in design-build can result in higher overall costs, particularly if the design-build firm does not emphasize cost efficiency. For project owners looking to control costs, the design-bid-build method with three bids may offer better financial outcomes, even if it involves a longer process and potentially more complexity in managing separate contracts for design and construction. Ultimately, the choice of delivery method should be based on the specific priorities and constraints of the project, including budget, timeline, and desired quality.
Henry McClure
Time kills deals
785-383-9994
www.henrymcclure.live
Comments