Because the design parameters of a project are being developed alongside the budgetary goals, a project is more likely to be realized than with a pure design approach. The owner has greater access to the “team” working on project development as the project is being created. This efficiency is not a negative “short cut” as a rule, but rather the keystone to the success of the Design-Build model.

Rather than the parcelized level of responsibility of the classic design-bid-build method, Design-Build provides an integrated, all-in-one solution for the owner or client. This moves projects away from the “finger-pointing” that is often commonplace in contemporary construction projects, and allows the owner to look to one entity with any questions or concerns throughout the life of the project.

Typically, in order for a contractor to bid on a project, very specific details relating to the methods and materials must be given to avoid any ambiguity and to make an “apples to apples” comparison of bids. In a design-build context, the owner, the owner’s other consultants, and the design-builder can work together to determine what methods and materials will maximize the owner’s value. In instances where marginally more expensive materials, designs, or construction methods might yield a higher return on investment for the owner than those of lower cost, the owner is free to adjust the project’s program without having to re-bid the entire project.

Almost 70% of traditional contracts end up over budget, compared to D-B which is only around 25-30% over budget. The overage of a D-B project is generally owner driven whereas the overage in the more traditional method tends to be a result of the budget disconnect to which many architects and other design professionals are prone.