In both cases the architect’s design is being fully informed by cost information in all phases.
These essential descriptors are identical, and they are the only descriptors that have any bearing on the question of budget shock.
BS Section 3 Quiz says that DB is better at stopping cost overruns than CMC@R, saying that with the CMC@R,
“cost overruns could limit construction document design decisions and result in construction shortcuts that could affect the quality of the final product.”
In either case, an unscrupulous actor is able to behave in this way. (And DB is notorious for using cheap shortcuts to hit budget.) Furthermore, the client concern in the question is “cost overruns during construction.” Cost is the driver, not quality.
@aidenjh you are correct in identifying the similarities between DB and CMC. As it relates to the scenario with a fixed budget and concern about cost overruns, we aren’t just looking at the money aspect - you must consider all factors and outcomes that arise as a consequence. The main distinction is that DB is a single entity (one contract between DB-owner) and the constructor is in charge of both design and construction; whereas CMC involves two parties (one contract between owner-architect + one contract between owner-CMC) with GMP being provided as the architect designs independently.
In summary, cost overruns could happen in either delivery method. However, in DB, cost overruns are less likely to occur because the design-builder wouldn’t design anything that they can’t build for the agreed price. In CMC, there is a cost overrun risk as a result of the design pushing against the GMP, which could force late-stage comprises (construction shortcuts).
Hope this helps!
Kiara Galicinao, AIA, NCARB
Product Coordinator Black Spectacles