Urgency of the Project When natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods or events like the collapse of the I-35W Bridge in Minnesota occur, owners need to respond quickly. In the case of Hurricane Katrina, traditional delivery methods were not up to the task. Floodwalls, levees, bridges, water pumping stations and other critical infrastructure were completely destroyed. Traditional delivery methods are designed and built sequentially, meaning construction would not begin until the design was complete, which would have taken several months to a year. Without design-build, these projects would have been delayed. The I-35W Bridge collapse was catastrophic as well; a major river crossing was severed, resulting in millions of dollars of economic losses each day. The design alone would have taken close to a year using traditional methods. Using design-build, the bridge was designed and constructed in 14 months. These time savings are the rule and not the exception with design-build; in fact, design- build projects are typically completed 33% faster than traditional design-bid-build projects. On commercial, industrial and medical facilities, project delays can have a disastrous effect on both the bottom line and public safety. Project owners have a much higher comfort level on design-build projects because they know they are almost always delivered on time. Opportunity for Innovation When the only selection criterion is price, and contractors have no input into the design of traditional projects, there is no incentive for innovation. For some, a cookie-cutter, one- size-fits-all approach is not an option. Over the last decade, the Army and Navy have nearly rejected traditional delivery methods. Paul Parsoneault of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) said, “There was no way we could execute a historically large mission using traditional methods. We determined that, in terms of the Army, the default delivery system is design- build. We can deliver projects more quickly and we can leverage the innovation of the industry to provide us with the most cost-effective solutions to our requirements.” In design-build, more innovative design and construction techniques and creative solutions that bring value or speed up a project are rewarded. This is why design- build is often chosen for complicated projects requiring more creative technical solutions. With the traditional design-bid-build method, the design and construction are done separately, which often leads to disputes between the design team and the contractor with the agency in the middle. Pete Swift, deputy chief of design and construction at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, said, “We have been doing design-build since the Federal Acquisition Regulations changed. Our primary reasons back then were that we could eliminate a lot of claims we were getting and we had a large workload. Over the years we have not had a single claim on any design-build project we have done.” 84 • DEEP FOUNDATIONS • JAN/FEB 2014 On design-build projects the designer and contractor are part of one integrated team; omissions and errors are minimized and field- generated change orders are virtually eliminated. The agencies administrative burdens are reduced because the need to coordinate or arbitrate between separate design and construction entities is eliminated. With an integrated design-build team, scheduling considerations can be addressed up front and projects are able to run faster and more cost-effectively. With the contractor and designer working together from the beginning of the project, they can determine pricing more accurately. Design-build contracts in the transportation sector are done on a fixed price. This gives agencies more accurate costs at a relatively early stage of project planning. The speed at which design-build projects are accomplished can lead to cost savings, particularly where construction prices are rising quickly. Where is the Industry Headed? The advantages of design-build have increasingly led owners to choose it over traditional delivery methods. Over the last 20 years design-build use has grown dramatically and, according to an RSMeans study, the method has captured 40% of the market share; particularly in the transportation and water/wastewater sectors. During the last five years, the use of design-build in the trans- portation sector has doubled in the number of projects and their volume, and has grown by 85% in the water/wastewater sector. Design-build has always been strong in the private sector, where owners could choose whatever delivery method they desired. In the public sector, design-build often had antiquated statutory hurdles to overcome. In 1993, only two states authorized the use of design- build; 10 years later, nearly half of the states had full design-build authority. Today, every state has design-build authority or com- pleted a design-build project. When design-build’s market share is combined with other alternative delivery methods, they make up half of the construction market today. This evolution in the design and construction industry means practitioners need to stay ahead of the curve to remain competitive. Asked by those new to design- build how to make the transition to design-build, I offer these tips:
