In design-build, the owner signs one contract with a design-builder who is responsible for both the design and the construction. The design-builder may be a contractor with in-house designers, or a contractor teamed with an architecture firm under a subcontract. It contrasts with design-bid-build, where the owner hires the designer and the builder separately.
Why it matters
One point of responsibility means fewer finger-pointing fights between designer and builder, and design and construction can overlap to save schedule. But the design-builder now owns design errors. An RFI that would be the architect’s problem in design-bid-build may be your cost in design-build.
Worked example
Illustrative: on a design-build version of Riverside Medical Center, the missing fire dampers behind RFI-212 would likely be a design error inside the design-builder’s own scope. Instead of an $86,400 change order to the owner, it could be an internal cost charged against contingency or the designer’s errors-and-omissions coverage, depending on the contract.
Common mistakes
- Pricing design-build like hard bid without carrying design contingency.
- Weak scope definition in the owner’s criteria, leading to disputes about what was promised.
- Not managing design team deliverables with the same rigor as trade schedules.
How os.construction handles it
We’re building RFIs, design changes and cost impacts on one record, so a design-builder can see whether a change hits contingency or the owner. It’s being designed with founding contractors.