Build-Design Article

This article was originally published in the January 10, 2005, edition of The Zweig Letter, a weekly management newsletter for architecture, engineering, and environmental consulting firms. For more information on The Zweig Letter, visit www.thezweigletter.com.

Project Management Perspectives: Build-design vs. design-build

This article first appeared in The Zweig Letter (ISSN 1068-1310) Issue # 594. Originally published 01/10/05

> Though the design-build concept held promise that designers would have more influence on the construction phases of public works projects, the reality has been considerably different.

By Sam Liao

The image one has upon first encountering the phrase “design-build” is that of the master builder, not unlike Washington Roebling, as chronicled by David McCullough, in his epic book, The Great Bridge. In your mind’s eye, you can envision Roebling, lying in bed, stricken by Caisson disease, confined to his house on Brooklyn Heights, peering out his window through binoculars at the engineering marvel of the late nineteenth century, the Brooklyn Bridge, which is being constructed at his direction.

Washington Roebling is implementing a design conceived by his father, John, who died before the grand vision could be fulfilled, and communicating orders to the construction forces through his wife and confidant, Emily Warren Roebling. He has caisson disease (i.e., “the bends”) because of his frequent visits to the dank bowels of the gigantic pressurized caissons being dug to provide the foundations of the great bridge, where invariably he had put himself at the same risk as the workmen.

Another, though less-renowned, image can be found at the historical web site museum of the King Bridge Company (www.kingbridgeco.com), which documents (among other things) how in the latter part of the nineteenth century, one could effectively purchase a bridge out of a catalog. In some sense, this catalog was not unlike the more famous Sears Roebuck Catalog, which was first issued in 1893.

Yes, once upon a time, buying bridges, albeit bridges much smaller than the Brooklyn Bridge, was almost like ordering a manufactured product. You received a fully designed and built bridge, with its patented parts fabricated, delivered, and installed at your river crossing, all by the same company. Between 5,000 to over 10,000 bridges were claimed to have been built by the King Bridge Company during seven decades of corporate existence from 1858 to 1923. It’s a testament to the engineers of the company that some of these historic bridges are still standing and functional in our time.

The reality today

In contrast, the management and delivery of projects today, especially in public works construction, is neither as heroic nor as straightforward. Even in Roebling’s time, contract procurement and project delivery was more complex and wrought with problems than the above images would imply.

But somewhere along the line during twentieth-century America, public works procurement evolved into the familiar design-bid-build process, where the designer’s influence on the construction phase of the project has been diminished considerably. Instead of being in charge of the construction as master builders, we designers are often relegated to simply “inspecting” or “monitoring” it, under the moniker of “construction phase services.”

Thus, at first glance, establishing the modern-day, design-build concept seemed like a good idea because it keeps the designer totally involved in the project from concept through construction. There also can be real advantages for the owner/client because the one-stop-shopping aspect certainly has the potential for shortening the schedule for getting a project built.

In addition, quality improvements and cost savings can also be achieved by gearing the design towards the expertise and skills of the particular contractor, e.g., one with innovative and specialized construction methods. Yet in the current institutional and regulatory environment of public works projects, design-build is just not what it’s cracked up to be.

The reality can be provocatively and more aptly described as “build-design.” Teams are formed among designers and constructors, but it is usually the constructors who are in charge. Although a design firm can have an equity stake consisting of doing the design at its own cost, often the designer is simply a hired hand, paid by the construction firm to do the design as part of a government agency procurement process. And you can’t blame the construction firms for wanting to be in charge, because it is usually the constructors who bear the greater costs for preparing the design-build bid and, correspondingly, the greater financial risk of not winning the project.

Institutional issues

Although there are many potential advantages of design-build, the institutional infrastructure in the U.S. may not yet be in place to maximize the benefits that could accrue. One major impediment on the AEC industry side is that there are not enough fully integrated design-build firms where the designer and the builder reside under the same corporate roof and would share the same risks and profits. Instead, designers and constructors from different companies come together to form teams that are sometimes tentative if the team wins the project, and instantaneously dissolved if the team loses.

The costs of simply being able to compete are often daunting. If the designer and the builder do not have the long- term contractual or financial ties that bind, and each does not have a fair share of the rewards and risks, we end up with a fractured design-build process that is perhaps no better than “traditional” design-bid-build. This also dilutes the potential influence that a designer can have on innovation and cost effectiveness of the final built project, to the ultimate detriment of the client and the public.

How to get there?

Design-build actually does seem to work for specialized firms with design-build teams serving private clients. But there is a problem in public construction that may require long-term changes in the AEC industry, such as those the Design-Build Institute of America (Washington, DC) is trying to foster through its programs and publications. Maybe part of the solution is that A/E firms need to be willing and financially enabled to take on more risk in order to lead the design-build teams.

Although we may never again see a time when design-builders have the respect and influence like the Roeblings had, it is hoped that thinking clearly about this project delivery problem may yield some creative answers to how the design-build process can be righted. Usually, in this column, we try to end up with suggestions and recommendations that a firm can implement to manage projects better. But this time, we leave you with a question instead: What are your thoughts and suggestions on how to get there from here? Let us know.

Sam Liao is senior project manager in the Boston office of Parsons Brinckerhoff (New York, NY). E-mail him at liao@pbworld.com.