The Design-Bid-Build. This delivery method consisted of a series of contracts:
First is the contract between the owner and the architect (AIA B141) for design and engineering services, overview of contractor bidding or assistance to the owner in negotiating with a General Contractor, and construction administration.
Second, there are contracts between the architect and his consulting engineers. The engineers work for and are paid by the architect. This ensures the architect gets the best engineering for the project
Third, The project is bid or negotiated with a general contractor.
Forth, The owner signs a contract with the Genral Contractor to build the facility with the architect inspecting the project during construction.
What are the pro's and con's:
Pro's
- There is nobody between the owner and the architect. The architect is giving his best recommendation on quality vs price.
- Most projects have value engineering during the design and construction phase. Each value engineering change usually results in a cheaper and usually more inferior product being used in exchange for a cheaper price. In this delivery system the architect is bound to the owner to give his true opinion as to what is being sacrificed and how it will affect the project. He also tells the owner if he thinks the exchange is a fare deal.
- The architect reviews and helps the owner choose which contractors will be allowed to bid on the project. He gives his opinion to the owner about each contractor. This reduces the risk of getting poor contractors on the project.
- The architect observes the project during construction and has the ability to reject work not in compliance with the contract documents.
- The architect reviews and approves the pay application from the general contractor. This ensures the owner doesn't pay for work or materials not yet delivered or performed.
Con's
- Price is based on the contract documents. Changes to them or to the timeline can result in Change Orders
Now let's talk about the Design-Build system. This delivery method consisted of a series of contracts:
First and primary is a contract between the owner and the general contractor. In exchange for a guaranteed price, the owner gives the general contractor total control over the design and quality of materials and design.
Second, there is the contract between the general contractor and the architect. The architect works for and takes total direction from the general contractor. This ensures the general contractor can control the price. There is no checks and balances here. Price trumphs quality or good engineering. The architect has no loyality due to the owner and doesn't contradict what the general contractor wants to do.
Third, there is the contract between the general contractor and the engineers. The engineers work for and are paid by the general contractor. This gives the general contractor the final decision on the engineering.
Pros and Cons
Pro's
- The owner receives his project for the price that was agreed upon.
- There are no checks and balances on price vs quality.
- The general contractor has ultimate approval on the quality in the field.
- The architect and engineers don't give the owners input into the quality of the project.
- All value engineered items by the sub contractors are usually approved reguardless how it cheapens the final project.
- The ultimate project can turn out more expensive for the cost vs quality in comparison to if the project was designed and bid with the cheap value engineered option incorporated.
- The lifetime of the building componients are usually shorter.
What are your thoughts?
