When planning a commercial construction project, one of the most critical decisions you’ll face is selecting the right project delivery method. Two of the most common approaches are Design-Build and Traditional (Design-Bid-Build) Construction. Each has its advantages and challenges, and the best choice depends on factors like budget, timeline, risk tolerance, and project complexity. Here’s a breakdown of both methods to help you make an informed decision.
What is Traditional Construction (Design-Bid-Build)?
The Design-Bid-Build (DBB) approach follows a linear process in three distinct phases:
- Design Phase – The project owner hires an architect or design firm to create detailed plans and specifications.
- Bidding Phase – Once the design is complete, the project is put out for bid, and contractors submit proposals based on the provided drawings and requirements.
- Construction Phase – The owner selects a general contractor (GC) to complete the construction based on the winning bid.
Pros of Traditional Construction:
- Greater Design Control – The owner has full control over the design before hiring a contractor.
- Competitive Bidding – Contractors compete for the project, potentially lowering costs.
- Clearly Defined Roles – The separation between design and construction responsibilities can provide clarity.
Cons of Traditional Construction:
- Longer Project Timeline – The design and bidding phases must be completed before construction begins, leading to longer overall schedules.
- Higher Risk of Cost Overruns – If design issues arise after bidding, costly change orders may be required.
- Potential for Disputes – Miscommunications between designers and contractors can lead to conflicts, causing delays and budget overruns.
What is Design-Build Construction?
The Design-Build (DB) method integrates design and construction into a single contract. Instead of hiring separate entities, the owner engages a Design-Build firm or a contractor-led team that handles both design and construction.
Pros of Design-Build Construction:
- Faster Project Delivery – Overlapping design and construction phases can significantly reduce the total project timeline.
- Cost Savings – The integrated approach minimizes costly change orders and unexpected expenses.
- Improved Collaboration – A single team fosters communication, reducing conflicts and ensuring alignment on project goals.
- Single Point of Responsibility – The Design-Build team is accountable for the entire project, simplifying decision-making and risk management.
Cons of Design-Build Construction:
- Less Owner Control Over Design – The design process is more fluid, which may limit the owner’s ability to make extensive changes.
- Potential for Reduced Competitive Pricing – Pricing may not be as aggressively negotiated without a competitive bidding process.
- Reliance on One Firm—The project’s success depends heavily on the Design-Build team’s expertise and integrity.
Which Approach is Right for Your Project?
Choosing between Design-Build and Traditional Construction depends on your priorities:
| Factor | Design-Build | Traditional (DBB) |
|---|---|---|
| Project Speed | Faster due to overlapping phases | Slower due to sequential process |
| Budget Control | More predictable costs | Potential for cost overruns |
| Design Control | Moderate (collaborative process) | High (separate design phase) |
| Risk Allocation | Shared between owner and team | More risk on the owner |
| Complexity & Collaboration | Best for complex, fast-track projects | Best for projects requiring high design specificity |
Final Thoughts
Design-Build might be the best choice if your project demands a streamlined process, faster completion, and a single point of accountability. However, the Traditional approach may be more suitable if you prefer more control over the design process, competitive bidding, and a structured sequence of phases.
At Orion Project Management, we help owners navigate these decisions to ensure the success of their commercial construction projects. Contact us today to discuss which delivery method aligns best with your goals and how we can support your project from inception to completion.
Michael Greco – Lead Consultant, Orion Project Management
With 20+ years of experience in construction project management, Michael Greco specializes in construction consulting, administration, management, and owner representation. As Lead Consultant at Orion Project Management, he ensures seamless project execution, focusing on cost control, risk management, and stakeholder coordination.
Michael has managed complex commercial projects, including remote cellular site developments in Hawaii, steel fabrication initiatives, tenant improvements, and large-scale ground-up builds. Before founding Orion Project Management, he held leadership roles with the General Services Administration (GSA) and a general contractor, where he developed technology-driven systems for sales and project tracking.
Michael is committed to efficiency, quality, and cost-effective solutions, helping clients navigate the complexities of construction with confidence.