For a long time, methods like Construction Manager at Risk and Design-Build were described as “alternative delivery.”
That description feels less accurate every year.
Design-build is now the most commonly used project delivery method in the United States, according to the Design-Build Institute of America, and FMI projects it will account for more than 47% of U.S. construction spending by 2028. Progressive Design-Build, or PDB, now represents roughly one-third of design-build procurements.
Texas owners are putting collaborative approaches to work as well. Texas Parks and Wildlife, for example, currently has multiple Construction Manager at Risk projects in its forecast in the roughly $30 million to $53 million range.
There is a practical reason for that shift.
Projects are getting harder to solve in a straight line. Tight schedules, long-lead equipment, complex building systems, occupied facilities, changing programs and cost pressure can all show up on the same project. Bringing builders and other key partners into the conversation earlier gives the team more time to work through those issues while options are still available.
The question becomes: What kind of project structure will help this particular team make the best decisions?
Five Methods, Five Different Structures
There is no universally best delivery method. Each creates a different relationship between the owner, designer, builder and other partners.
Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) brings the construction manager into the project during design for estimating, scheduling, constructability and other preconstruction input. The owner maintains separate contracts with the designer and construction manager.
Design-Build (DB) combines design and construction under one contract, creating a single point of responsibility for both.
Progressive Design-Build (PDB) also uses an integrated design-build team, but that team is selected early. Design, scope, cost, schedule and risk are developed progressively before the later construction commitment is finalized.
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) brings the owner, designer and builder into a more integrated structure, often with shared goals and, depending on the agreement, shared financial risk and reward.
Public-Private Partnerships (P3) operate on a broader scale. CMAR, DB, PDB and IPD primarily address how a project is designed and constructed. A P3 can extend into financing, development, operations, maintenance and long-term asset performance.
BCGC has seen that evolution firsthand. Our CMAR experience dates to 1996, and in 2000 we delivered our first Design-Build project for Prairie View A&M University.
The methods have continued to evolve, but the practical question remains: What does this project need from its delivery structure?
What Does the Project Need?
A useful delivery-method discussion usually comes back to a few project realities.
Scope: Is the program well defined, or will important pieces continue to develop with input from users, designers and builders?
Schedule: Is the completion date flexible, or does procurement or construction need to begin while portions of the design are still taking shape?
Cost: When does the owner need meaningful cost confidence, and how much flexibility should remain when those numbers come into focus?
Risk: Which risks can reasonably be assigned to one party, and which will require active management by the broader team?
Decision-making: Who needs to participate in key decisions, what information will they need and how quickly will those decisions need to happen?
Earlier collaboration can put better information in front of an owner sooner. An estimate may reveal pressure on the budget, constructibility work may identify another approach, or the schedule may show that equipment needs to be released earlier than expected.
The value is not just uncovering the issue. It is having enough time and information to decide what to do about it.
The Owner’s Team Is Part of the Delivery Strategy
One of the less obvious differences among delivery methods is how they shape the owner’s involvement.
A project with significant early collaboration may bring facilities staff, operations, end users, finance, procurement and leadership into important conversations sooner than a more sequential process.
That can be a real advantage, particularly on institutional projects where design and construction decisions affect many parts of an organization. It also makes it worthwhile to think early about who should participate, where decision authority sits and how major questions will move through the organization.
Texas Water Development Board guidance for CMAR and Design-Build projects reflects that reality. It recommends considering a multidisciplinary owner team that may include engineering, operations and maintenance, finance, procurement, legal and communications, along with early consideration of project risks and responsibilities.
The delivery method should fit not only the project, but also the way the owner needs to make decisions.
BCGC has worked in these kinds of environments on projects including the UTSA Science & Engineering Building, Texas A&M University’s Center for Infrastructure Renewal and facilities for Sam Houston State University. On projects with many stakeholders, knowing who needs to weigh in, and when, can be just as important as getting the information early.
Caption: The University of Texas System – UTSA Science and Engineering Building
Early Involvement Has to Produce Real Value
Bringing a builder onto the team earlier creates opportunity. The value comes from what the team does with that time.
Can long-lead equipment be identified soon enough to protect the schedule?
Can constructibility reviews catch conflicts before they reach the field?
Can estimating identify budget pressure while alternatives are still practical?
Can VDC and BIM help resolve complicated systems before installation?
Can trade partners contribute to sequencing, logistics or system choices while their expertise can still influence the outcome?
On technically demanding projects, that coordination can extend well beyond the traditional owner-designer-builder relationship. BCGC’s work at Toyota Motor Manufacturing Texas is one example of a complex industrial environment where close coordination among project stakeholders is fundamental to execution.
Caption: Toyota Motor Manufacturing – Texas Plant
That is also why BCGC approaches preconstruction as more than a series of estimates. Cost modeling, scheduling, constructibility, VDC/BIM, trade engagement, long-lead coordination and decision tracking help the team understand how design decisions affect the work that follows.
The goal is a clearer path to alignment around scope, cost and schedule.
The Structure Helps. The Team Still Matters.
A collaborative delivery method creates a framework for people to work together earlier. What happens within that framework still depends on the team.
Clear responsibilities matter. So do honest cost conversations, timely decisions, useful trade input and a willingness to raise difficult issues while there are still good options available.
Those fundamentals apply whether the project is CMAR, Design-Build, PDB, IPD, P3 or something more traditional.
After decades of working under different delivery structures, our experience is that the best fit is the one that supports the way a particular project needs to be planned, decided and built.
The delivery method sets the structure. The people make it work.
