From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Design-bid-build (or design/bid/build, and abbreviated D-B-B or D/B/B accordingly) is a project delivery method in which the agency or owner holds separate contracts with separate entities for the design and construction of a project.

Design-bid-build is the traditional method for project delivery and differs in several substantial aspects from design-build.

There are three main sequential phases to the design-bid-build delivery method:

1. The design phase
2. The bidding phase
3. The construction phase

Contents 1 Design phase 2 Bid phase 3 Construction phase 4 Potential problems of design-bid-build

In this phase the owner retains an architect to design and produce the technical drawings that general contractor will in turn bid, and ultimately be utilized to construct the project. The Architect will work with the owner to identify the owners needs, develop a written program documenting those needs and then produce a conceptual or schematic design. This early design is then developed, and the architect will bring in other professionals including mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) engineers, a structural engineer, civil engineer and a landscape architect to complete drawings of their various portions of the projects. These documents are then coordinated by the architect and put out for bids by various general contractors.

The various general contractors obtain the drawings and then put them out to multiple sub-contractors for bids on the sub-components of the project. Sub-components include items such as the concrete work, structural steel frame, electrical systems, and landscaping. Virtually every component of the project is supplied and installed by sub-contractors. The general contractor is essentially a management firm who’s expertise is managing the construction process and daily activity on a construction site.

Once the bids are prepared, the architect reviews the bids, seeks any clarifications required of the bidders and advises the owner as to the ranking of the bids. If the bids fall in a range acceptable to the owner, the owner and architect discuss the suitability of various bidders and their proposals. The owner is not obligated to accept the lowest bid, and it is customary for other factors including past performance and quality of other work to influence the selection process.

In the event that the bids are in excess of the goals of the owner, the owner may elect to have the Architect revise the plans, making the project either smaller, or reduce the features or elements in the project. The revised documents can then be re-bid.

Alternatively, the owner may elect to select a general contractor and allow that firm to join the team and assist in cost reduction. This process is often incorrectly referred to as "value engineering", which is a misnomer.

After the project cost has been agreed to, the construction documents revised, necessary approvals received form all jurisdictional authorities the construction process can begin. Certain long lead items may be pre-ordered to insure that

1. Failure of the design team to be knowledgeable of current construction costs, and any potential cost increases during the design phase could cause project delays if the construction documents must be redrawn to reduce costs.
2. Redesign expense can be disputed should the architect’s contract not specifically address the issue of revisions required to reduce costs.
3. Failure of the owner to be fully engaged in design process can lead to unrealistic expectations, and frustrations.
4. This process creates a "cheapest" is better mentality amongst the general contractors bidding the project as they are forced to seek out the lowest cost sub-contractors in a given market. In strong markets, general contractors will be able to be selective about which projects to bid, but in lean times, the desire for work usually forces the low bidder of each trade to be selected. This usually results in increased risk (for the general contractor) but can also compromise the quality of construction. In the extreme, it can lead to serious disputes involving quality of the final product, or bankruptcy of a sub-contractor who was on the brink of insolvency desperate for work.
5. As the general contractor was brought onto the team post design, there is little input for effective alternates being presented. Often these suggestions can be misguided, as they may center around the initial construction cost of the project rather than taking the true cost of construction and long term operational costs into consideration.
6. If the owner is stressed over the cost of the project, individual pressures may be exerted amongst the design and construction teams which may lead to in-fighting between the architect and the general contractor. This should be avoided at all costs, as the relationship between the owner, architect and general contractor must be one of honest open dialog.