SEI Design Build Logo SEI Design Build
Menu
Contact
Topic archive

Project Delivery

Selecting the appropriate project delivery method dictates how cost, schedule, and performance risks are distributed across project stakeholders.

Compare modern delivery systems including Design-Build, Design-Bid-Build, and Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) to choose the optimal procurement structure for capital projects.

6 guides in this topic.

Construction delivery methods compared

How to choose a delivery method

The CMAR guide explains the separate designer and builder agreements, the scope behind a GMP, and the owner decisions required before construction.

Three delivery methods stacked: design-bid-build prices by bid on a finished design, CM at risk sets a GMP during design, design-build prices with the proposal or progressively.
When the construction price is set under each common delivery method (CMAA 2012; DBIA).

A project delivery method sets who the owner contracts with, when the price is fixed, how much direct control the owner keeps over the design, and who carries construction performance risk. Most methods in use are variations of three: design-bid-build, construction management at risk (CMAR), and design-build. The definitions below follow the Construction Management Association of America (CMAA) Owner's Guide to Project Delivery Methods (August 2012), the Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA), and the American Institute of Architects (AIA) contract families.

  • Design-bid-build: the owner hires a designer to complete the design, procures a contractor through bidding, and then the contractor builds. Three sequential phases and two separate owner contracts.
  • Construction management at risk: a construction manager advises the owner during design, then acts as the general contractor during construction and commits to a fixed price or a guaranteed maximum price (GMP). Some transportation agencies use the related name CM/GC; check the agency and contract, as explained in the CMAR guide.
  • Design-build: one contract with the owner covers both design and construction. DBIA calls the single contract the fundamental difference from other methods; in the AIA documents, the architect typically contracts with the design-builder rather than the owner. AIA’s historical B143–2014 form has been replaced by B141–2024.

Scroll horizontally to see all columns.

Decision Design-bid-build CM at risk Design-build
Owner contracts for design and construction Separate designer and contractor Separate designer and CM at risk One design-builder
When construction price is set At bid, on completed design documents GMP negotiated during design; CMAA 2012, printed p. 18, describes prices usually set at 50% to 90% design. This is that edition’s description, not a universal GMP threshold. With the proposal, or after progressive design development, depending on procurement
Owner's design control Direct contract with the designer Direct contract with the designer Through the design-builder's team and review gates
Construction input during design Usually none from the builder CM advises on schedule, budget, and constructability Integrated within the team
Who answers for design errors to the builder The owner, under its contract with the contractor Mostly the owner; varies with CM design review The design-builder, within its own team

The table compares structure, not results. Cost and schedule outcomes depend heavily on the team, the owner's decision-making, and contract terms, so no method is ranked here. Published research on outcomes is summarised, with its sample and limits, in Design-Build vs Design-Bid-Build.

Sources checked October 8, 2026: CMAA 2012, sections 3.1–3.3; DBIA’s single-contract and procurement explanation; FHWA’s CM/GC description. The historical price-stage description does not replace project-specific scope and pricing terms.

For a process-plant EPC, match the qualification test to the plant before comparing contract forms.