Design-Build Is More Traditional Than You Think

Design-Build’s Relation to the Master Builder

Given these benefits, why wouldn’t design-build always be considered the traditional, preferred method? From a historical perspective, it essentially was. One of the oldest concepts in construction delivery—that of the “master builder”—aligns closely to the structure of design-build delivery.

As far back as the ancient Greeks, construction projects engaged a single, highly experienced person or enterprise to manage all aspects, from concept and design to trades and building. This master builder would develop a vision for the project, share the plan with the owner, and oversee the procurement of materials and execution of each trade required. Though modern design-build incorporates a wider array of services, it performs the same function as the master builder, providing sole responsibility through a singular contract between design-builder and owner. Just as using a master builder guaranteed expertise and accountability, so too are these among the advantages of design-build, which emphasizes leveraging expertise across disciplines and developing intentional, professional relationships.

So why did the master builder’s role fade as the industry modernized?

Design-Bid-Build Offers a Solution to an Industry in Crisis

Fast-forward from Aristotle’s Athens to the Industrial Revolution in the U.S. Vast infrastructure projects such as cross-continental rail and city-wide sewer systems required construction efforts on a scale that exceeded the capacities of a master builder. These large projects came at a time when the U.S. construction market was far less developed and regulated than it is today, and each required contracts with many different builders. This process had little oversight and was exploited by powerful leaders in government and business, who struck deals to award inflated contracts to unqualified friends and political supporters.

Thankfully, the system course-corrected from the graft and bribery of the Gilded Age. Design-bid-build emerged, introducing the bidding process known as tender as a guardrail against these problems. Design-bid-build served as the predominant delivery method for roughly a century and a half, while the industry matured and the government developed legislation and institutions to monitor and regulate its growth. Today, public contract law and a wealth of qualified contractors and industry associations have made the construction industry stable and competitive—and competition breeds innovation.

Design-Build Vs. Design-Bid-Build

Time has revealed that design-bid-build was less of a “traditional” delivery method than it was a response to the specific problems facing its industry at the time.

As project complexity increased and a multitude of skilled players vied for a finite number of contracts, design-bid-build’s lengthy processes became increasingly cumbersome and its relevance to the market diminished. To remain competitive, builders needed to distinguish themselves through improved project execution—something that would allow for faster completion at a reasonable cost without sacrificing safety or quality. Their solution came in the integration of design and construction under one contract with the owner. With design-build delivery, project execution suddenly became more efficient and collaborative, opening the door for firms to develop greater expertise and deeper partnership, both internally and with their customers. Marrying design and construction capabilities gave design-builders a larger and more complete view of their projects; as a result, their competencies expanded and specialization emerged.

Customers quickly caught on to the advantages of hiring firms that could offer broader services and streamlined teams. Gray’s growth perfectly illustrates this change in demand: our adoption of design-build 30 years ago has led directly to our development of an integrated service offering that now includes process engineering, automation solutions, equipment manufacturing, and real estate. Moreover, design-build has been the driver for Gray’s continued position as the no. 1 firm for the Food & Beverage market.

According to DBIA, design-build encompasses the largest share of all new design and construction projects (nearly 50%). Gray has pushed this growth even further, with 60% of our projects in the last 10 years employing design-build delivery. Due to its expediency, flexibility, and ability to reduce project cost and owner risk, design-build has quickly evolved from an alternative delivery method to the preferred option for projects of all sizes and across all markets. In its Mid-Cycle Update report, FMI Consulting found that design-build is expected to triple its market share advantage over design-bid-build and account for a higher market share than all other delivery methods combined.

These figures underscore that design-build provides what the modern construction industry needs—and that’s no alternate reality, but a concrete observation.