Engaging a DB Consultant for Design-Build Projects - Design-Build for Water and Wastewater Projects - page 126

and conditions for the project. See chapter 9 for additional discussion of risk allocation
for DB projects.
Financial. Financial management for DB project at the “macro” level is not materially
different from the capital management for a traditional DBB project. Funds from bonds
or capital accounts need to be available at some stage of the project to pay for the project.
The main difference in financial planning is the milestones for costs and payment.
In a traditional DBB project, there is usually a project planning period wherein a
conceptual project cost estimate is prepared, an engineering period wherein an engineer's
project cost estimate is produced, a period in which the project is permitted, and the
receipt of bids. Throughout the project, there is an increasing degree of certainty of the
project's total cost, and there is an opportunity until the construction contract is awarded
to stop or modify the project to reduce the cost. In best-value or fixed-price selection DB
procurements, the DB proposal contains the project's cost for design, permitting, and
construction (including commissioning). Consequently, executing a DB contract usually
requires an earlier commitment of the funds necessary to complete the project. These are
important differences that need to be understood by the financial management of the
owner's organization and appreciated by the political policy makers.
Political. Municipal water and wastewater utility managers work at the direction of
a city council, a mayor, or an elected or politically appointed body. This accountability
to policy makers influences how owners deliver projects. The low-bid project delivery of
traditional DBB has been the delivery method for public works projects for years, and
it was designed to keep the process honest and transparent and to provide irrefutable
political accountability when public funds are expended. DB procurement can also be
competitive, transparent, and fair, and policy makers may need to be educated about the
process. It is important to engage the mayor or policy body of the owner's organization
early, when considering DB for a project. It is highly recommended that the owner's
executive director, general manager, or one of its senior staff be engaged as an executive
project sponsor for the DB project. The sponsor would serve to assure that the appropriate
steps are taken to educate the mayor and/or the policy body about the features and benefits
of DB.
Another aspect of politics and their impact on using DB delivery is building com-
munity support of the project and for using DB, especially if DB is new to the community.
Augmenting the owner's project team with skilled public information staff who under-
stand DB should be considered.
Engineering. The Design-Build Institute of America stresses in many of its policies
that DB projects should be performance-oriented (DBIA 2010). The main reason is that the
more prescriptive (i.e., owner-prescribed, detailed design and technical specifications) the
DB RFP, the more likely the owner will retain the corresponding design and performance
risk and the less likely the owner will benefit from innovation. Writing performance-based
procurement documents that adequately communicate the owner's goals and preferences
while protecting the owner's interests requires a distinctly different skill-set than that
needed for DBB projects (DBIA 2010).
An important consideration for owners who will be undertaking DB project deliv-
ery for the first time is that the highly competent engineering firm that has served the
owner well for traditional DBB projects might not have the experience or skills to help the
owner gain the maximum benefits of DB. This is because the DBB engineering business