Is this about right?
Trying to put together everything into one spot on project delivery methods, pros, cons, etc..
| Design Bid Build | PD → SD → DD → CD → Bd → $ → C → CA | |
|---|---|---|
| Cost control | poor to good depending on whether a lawsuit erupts | *Initially lowest - but there is a perverse incentive to bid too low and jack up real price through change orders. Also consider potential litigation costs… |
| Quality control | poor | contractor might try cheap substitutions, cut corners on means and methods, and solve thorny constructability issues poorly |
| Const. Expertise Integration / VE | poor | contractor isn’t hired until it’s too late to change things except via change orders. |
| Time | longest | Bidding process adds weeks to a months, and thorny constructability issues have to be solved the hard way when the project is set in stone and things are too far along for easy solutions to be found. |
| Litigation Risk | highest | Highest of all methods. Most likely to create distrust and errors, surprises/ change orders abound. |
| Public Projects | required in many states | For transparency reasons / to stop graft and corruption. |
| Owner Experience and Time availability: | Sophisticated | Multiple contracts, high potential for project issues; conflict resolution skills needed |
| AIA Contracts | B101, A101, A201, A401, E203, E204 C401, G701, G702, G704, etc. | |
| Construction Manager as Advisor | PD → CMa→SD → DD → CD → Bd → $ → C → CA | |
| Cost control | better | The CMa helps with VE/quality/time balance early on |
| Quality control | good to high* | The CMa helps with VE/quality/time balance early on |
| Const. Expertise Integration / VE | Optimized | The CMa helps with VE/quality/time balance early on |
| Time | fast | The CMa helps with VE/quality/time balance early on |
| Litigation Risk | better | The CMa helps with VE/quality/time balance early on and this reduces unwelcome surprises, and this in turn reduces the preconditions for litigation. |
| Public Projects | allowed in some states | |
| Owner Experience and Time availability: | average for both experience and time if single GC | CMa only advises, Owner must still manage the project; less demanding if using a GC who handles subs |
| Owner Experience and Time availability: | Sophisticated and intensive if multiple primes | Owner holds all the contracts with multiple primes directly. Intensive and demanding on Owner’s management skills and schedule. |
| AIA Contracts | C132, B132, A132, A232 | |
| Negotiated Bid | PD → SD → DD → CD → Nb → C → $ → CA | |
| Cost control | good | Presumably the Owner will pick out more qualified contractors (who might charge more than lowest bidder in DBB) Savvy Owner might be a skilled price negotiator. |
| Quality control | average | Better than DBB, but still no chance to find a good VE/design intent / quality balance early on in design when solution potential is most robust, and instead has to be crammed into the project after elegant solutions are harder to come by. |
| Const. Expertise Integration / VE | poor | contractor isn’t hired until it’s too late to change things except via change orders. |
| Time | fair | Better than DBB - no formal bidding process (potentially saves months). Presumably a more qualified contractor is more capable of maintaining control of his schedule than the low bidder on a DBB delivery. |
| Litigation Risk | high | Better than DBB if we presume that the contractor is more seasoned and skilled, but again, the contractor must solve all constructability problems after the project is underway, and this puts pressure on him to look for shortcuts that could undermine the project’s design intent and bring him into conflict with the Owner and Architect. |
| Public Projects | Typically not allowed | Mayor Bob hires his brother Jojo |
| Owner Experience and Time availability: | Sophisticated, Experienced Owners with time to intensively manage the overall project | Multiple Contracts, Must manage both Design and Construction, Needs to know what makes a contractor highly qualified, (relying on an Architect’s advice doesn’t exactly help because - how would you know the Architect was giving you good advice - unless you already had at least as good discernment as he has?) |
| AIA Contracts | B101, A101, A201, A401, E203, E204 C401, G701, G702, G704, etc. | |
| Negotiated Select Team | PD → C →SD → DD → CD→ $ → CA | |
| Cost control | good | Mainly due to early negotiation, locking in unit costs, schedule and subs. If Contractor provides constructability input, then the project’s VE/Quality/Schedule balance can be very good. |
| Quality control | very high | Ideally, the Owner chooses the Contractor and subs wisely. If the Contractor also is contracted to offer design input then this can create a better VE/quality/schedule balance; however, the Owner may not include that in his agreement with the Contractor. |
| Const. Expertise Integration / VE | potentially good | If the Contractor also offers input early in design then the VE/Quality/Schedule balance can be optimized. That would only be the case if the Owner-Contractor agreement included construction advice. |
| Time | speedy | The Contractor may be able to start work early depending on how the Owner sets up the rest of the project. If the Contractor also offers input early in design then the VE/Quality/Schedule balance can be optimized. That would only be the case if the Owner-Contractor agreement included construction advice |
| Litigation Risk | average | The agreement for services can evolve as the project moves forward, and initial cost information might be based on very early schematic unit price estimates. |
| Public Projects | Typically not allowed | Mayor Bob hires his brother Jojo and six cousins |
| Owner Experience and Time availability: | Very Sophisticated, Experienced Owners with time to intensively build and manage the overall project | Multiple direct contracts with construction professionals, advanced discernment of the nature of Construction, and especially of specialty or highly technical types of construction. You can’t assemble an expert team unless you understand the game and what makes star players. Advanced Owners Only |
| AIA Contracts | None specifically for NST; can be built using B101 and possibly A133? (CMc) | |
| Design Build | C → PD →SD→ (DD$ →$? →CD) / may overlap with Construction | |
| Cost control | good; perhaps too good | Ideally, the DB firm is principled and there is a good balance between VE pressures and design/quality vision. Worst case scenario is when the DB firm prioritizes building cheap above all things and gives the Owner a building that is built cheap but expensive to use, maintain and upgrade. |
| Quality control | widely varies; Owner be ware | Ideally DB firm is design-led and highly principled, which will result in higher quality control. However, if DB firm is contractor led without a strong design professional contribution, and if it is unprincipled, there is significant pressure to look for the cheapest way possible to build a pretty looking but low quality building. If the Owner has little understanding of how to tie down a DB firm to work within a targeted quality range, the Owner may get a building that was cheap to build but expensive to maintain. Owners need to carefully develop OSRs (Owner Specified Requirements) to force contractors to adhere to systems, materials and construction practices that are consistent with the desired design intent and quality level. However, design intent itself may be in short supply or lacking in quality if DB firms are using underpowered (cheap) design talent. |
| Const. Expertise Integration / VE | Optimized, and perhaps too much so in some cases. | Constructability, cost and scheduling issues identified early on, and probably already mated to systemitized production methods. It should be carefully noted, however, that these means and methods could be extremely optimized for up front profit and long term poor quality in some DB firms. In other words, when it comes to VE, there can be too much of a good thing, especially if design intent is low quality or opaque to begin with. |
| Time | fast | DB firms have systems in place to keep projects on schedule. No bidding needed, all aspects of team are used to working with one another, subs are used to working with DB firm,etc.. Early construction or preconstruction (site clearing,etc) can begin in SD phase, Most likely of all delivery methods to have fully systemetized processes. |
| Litigation Risk | very low | The DB firm is a single legal entity. It can’t sue itself. Since costs are guaranteed and known early on, and build quality can be known (ideally) from the firm portfolio, and the project schedule is likely to be under control. However if the Owner is naive he may end up with a cheaply constructed project and little legal recourse. Owners should look past the pretty pictures in the DB portfolio and contact clients to find out what the buildings have been like to use, maintain and upgrade in real life. |
| Public Projects | allowed in some states | |
| Owner Experience and Time availability: | Sophisticated due to the need to create OSRs; but potentially less work to supervise if DB firm is highly princpled. | One contract, one point of contact, which seems ideal for an inexperienced or time-constrained Owner, however the Owner needs to understand that Design Build firms control both budget and quality and unless bound by OSRs to deliver the appropriate level of quality, a client may get a nice looking building that is cheaply constructed and a nightmare to maintain or upgrade. |
| AIA Contracts | A141, B143, A441, C141, G741, G742, G743 | |
| CM@r (CM at risk) | PD →CM@R → SD →DD → $ →CD →Construction | |
| Cost control | good to high | CM@R has early input which can theoretically result in a well tuned Cost/Quality/Speed balance |
| Quality control | good to high* | CM@R has early input which can theoretically result in a well tuned Cost/Quality/Speed balance |
| Const. Expertise Integration / VE | Optimized | CM@R has early input which can theoretically result in a well tuned Cost/Quality/Speed balance |
| Time | fast | CM@R has early input which can theoretically result in a well tuned Cost/Quality/Speed balance |
| Litigation Risk | low | Risk is low because CM assumes project / GMP risk, while at the same time having early input to control risk and cost; this results in reduced chance of unwelcome surprises, and that reduces the likelihood of litigation. |
| Public Projects | allowed in some states | |
| Owner Experience and Time availability: | less experienced | CM@R advises and manages project for Owner, although Owner still maintains a separate contract with the Architect. |
| AIA Contracts | A201 B133 A133 A134 | |
| IPD | C→PD→(SD→DD→CD)/Construction ongoing through design phases | |
| Cost control | good to very high | All parties work together to innovate maximal Cost/Quality/Speed balance |
| Quality control | good to very high | All parties work together to innovate maximal Cost/Quality/Speed balance |
| Const. Expertise Integration / VE | Optimized | All parties work together to innovate maximal Cost/Quality/Speed balance |
| Time | fast to very fast | All parties work together to innovate maximal Cost/Quality/Speed balance. Project team members may be colocated to work right next to the project and right next to one another for optimal decision bandwidth. Project construction can be underway while design is also evolving. One project floor may be in construction, while the floor above that could be in VE and the floor above that could be in SD. |
| Litigation Risk | low in theory, but relatively untested in court | Depends on how the contract is written. Ideally, merging all parties into one joint venture should reduce litigiousness, especially if the contract prohibits litigation between members. Ideally the team is composed of top talent in all areas. However, if IPD ends up with significant B-Team members, the wheels can fall off in dramatic fashion, and if the roles are not clearly defined in the contract, then it can be difficult to assign responsibility for errors. IPD is relatively untested in court, and not well supported by insurance underwriters - who may struggle to understand who to blame - in a context where blame has been transcended, at least in theory. |
| Public Projects | allowed in some states | |
| Owner Experience and Time availability: | Extremely Sophisticated | Highest level of Owner sophistication and involvement. Day to day coordination and participation in ongoing project design and construction decisions and dynamics. Immersed in and moving through a highly complex possibility field. |
| AIA Contracts | A295 B195 A195 |
When I was studying for the ARE, I found it really helpful to not just write down what I was learning verbatim, but to regurgitate the information in my own words in formats that helped me understand it better (like you’ve done here). This is an awesome cheat sheet that you could use as you continue to study, and it is generous of you to post it here for others to reference as well!