Design Build

"DesignBuild (Bridging): In this delivery method, the design‐build entity starts early in the design phase, incorporates the architect of record within the team, and provides a GMP earlier to the owner than in the CM at risk model. The design‐build team also holds all trade contracts during construction. Important elements of this delivery method include:

1. An agency or institution desiring to use this method must be pre‐authorized. The State Architect’s Office would develop and administer a certification program for agencies and institutions that includes training on the proper use and implementation of this approach. A certification program should be modeled similarly to SAO’s existing certification program for local administration at universities.

2. The contracting authority obtains professional design services to specifically develop the owner’s criteria. The selection of a criteria or “bridging” architect is through a qualification based selection (QBS) process. Responsibilities of this party are to sufficiently describe the owner’s criteria for the project and to continue representing
the owner during design and construction to confirm the original intent is translated correctly by the design‐build team. The criteria architect works exclusively for the
owner and cannot, at a later date, transfer to the Design‐ Build team.

3. The contracting authority selects a design‐builder early in the project, through a QBS process. Design‐Build teams are requested to respond to a published request for qualifications (RFQ). The selection committee short lists qualified teams to be interviewed and the short listed firms submit a technical proposal for review and
consideration. If the owner’s criteria are not well defined, the selection may be more heavily weighted towards qualifications based selection. If the owner’s criteria are
sufficiently defined, the selection can be more price‐based. The design‐builder’s technical proposal includes a breakdown of their fee, general conditions, contingency
amounts and if warranted, a GMP. The fee can be broken down further to detail the risk component in providing a GMP to the owner. The selection committee can select a design‐build team based on best value – a weighted combination of qualifications and price. In return for receiving the short listed design‐builders’ work product and value engineering ideas that required extensive preparation and disclosure of unique design solutions, the owner can furnish the non‐selected teams a stipend for a serious bid, provided the project moves forward.

4. The selected design‐builder can perform pre‐construction services for the owner during the design phase, similar to CM as agent, prior to providing the GMP.

5. Once the criteria has been sufficiently described (e.g. completion of schematic design) the design‐builder develops a GMP proposal for negotiation with the owner. If no agreement can be reached on the GMP between the owner and the design‐builder, the contracting authority can either seek the next most qualified design‐builder to complete the project at an acceptable GMP, proceed on alternate pricing basis (whereby the design builder forfeits its "risk fee"), or continue with an alternate
project delivery system.

6. If there is agreement between the design‐builder and owner on a GMP, the mechanical, electrical, plumbing trades are competitively bid based upon complete
design documents and opened publicly. All major trade contractors submitting bids are pre‐qualified for the specific project through the state, agency and design‐builder. Parties interested in submitting a bid need to verify with the design‐builder that they are certified and approved to bid. If they are not pre‐qualified, an expedited appeal process should be provided to those companies.

7. Award of MEP contracts are based on the lowest responsive bid (responsibility already having been determined through the pre‐qualification process). This provides
protection for the MEP contractors from bid shopping. If all the sub‐contract bids exceed the design‐builder’s estimate for that scope of work, or the overall GMP is
exceeded, the design‐build team has two options to proceed. Either the team can utilize a portion of the contingency to cover these additional costs, or revise the scope of work and rebid. If rebid, the criteria architect verifies the revised scope of work meets the owner’s original criteria. In addition, the design‐builder is to provide 100% payment and performance bond for the construction.

8. The design‐builder can self perform any portion of the work, provided it has previously demonstrated to the owner its qualifications to perform such work, and submits a separate bid to the owner to perform such work for the price requiredwithin its GMP prior to accepting sealed bids from others. These bids shall be publicly opened by the contracting authority. Such work shall be awarded to the designbuilder only if no competing bid is received from a qualified contractor for a number
that is less than the established GMP line item number for such work. In addition, contingency funds cannot be used by the design‐builder on self performed work.

9. Progress payments during construction are based on actual costs, up to the GMP, and all of the design‐builder’s project accounting is open to the owner for review. In addition, prompt payment and other contractual protections, including expedited dispute resolution process, should be incorporated in the general conditions and
apply to all major trades and sub‐trades. The form of subcontract will be provided by the state and require the creation of an escrow for payment of amounts due to such subcontractors.

10. If the project exceeds the GMP, the owner’s cost is capped at the GMP price, and the design‐builder is fully responsible for those extra costs. If the project is completed with contingency dollars remaining in the project fund, the owner and design‐build team share in the savings in accordance to the original agreement. Other positive and negative incentives (R #6) can also be incorporated in the agreement to align the design‐build team’s interests with the owner’s goals and objectives."

"Impact: Construction manager at risk and design‐build allow earlier contractor involvement during design, which provides the opportunity to start construction earlier and reduce the overall project duration. This can cut 6 to 9 months respectively off a 39 month project, which reduces escalation impacts and provides owners the important beneficial use of the completed facility earlier. An early guaranteed maximum price (GMP) greatly limits the state’s risk when implementing capital
improvement projects. The owner’s administrative costs are reduced with these proposed delivery methods, due to the limited number of owner contracts with project participants. Finally, integrated project delivery methods such as these described are more collaborative and can maximize the benefits and efficiencies provided through use of building information modeling tools."