Status of Design-Build in the US Water and Wastewater Sectors - Design-Build for Water and Wastewater Projects - page 29

“D esign-build removes the

wastewater projects of more than $3 mil-
lion in total value between 2003 and 2008.
The study compared the performance of
traditional DBB and DB project delivery.
The study found that DB projects
had a shorter duration than DBB projects.
The median duration of design and con-
struction on DB projects was 23 months,
compared to 40 months for DBB projects.
Design-build projects had less schedule
growth than DBB projects. Finally, the value of work completed over a fixed unit of time
was nearly three times greater with DB than with DBB. Design-build had an average
“intensity factor” of $1.5 million of project value expended per month versus $0.6 million
per month for design-bid-build projects.

traditionally adversarial relationship between

engineers and builders.”
—S. Ivan Velez, PE, Deputy Director, Lee
County Utilities, Lee County, Florida

FUTURE TRENDS FOR DESIGN-BUILD

It appears that in the future, most utility executives will be motivated to choose DB if
allowed by their state and local laws to benefit from qualifications-based contracting and
single-point accountability. Single-point accountability may even increase as a reason to
use DB as owners scale back their staff to lower their costs and no longer have a large and
sophisticated engineering staff to manage traditional DBB projects. As owners learn of
past successes of neighboring owners with DB and more streamlined procurement pro-
cesses, DB will continue to be considered, and they will be more apt to use DB as their
delivery method.
The industry has evolved and will continue to evolve. New delivery methods are
being developed and some existing delivery methods are returning to favor. Additional
competitors are entering the business as they learn more about DB. Some of the promi-
nent developing trends are presented in this handbook and discussed in more detail in
subsequent chapters.
Progressive design-build delivery (also known as phased DB project delivery; see chap-
ter 7) is gaining momentum. Municipalities want to capture the advantages of fixed-price
DB delivery while avoiding the significant up-front procurement costs and lengthy time
required to develop fixed-price procurement documents. Progressive DB also allows the
municipalities the opportunity of having their staff work directly with the DB firm or
team throughout the project, allowing for as much owner control as possible.
Construction management at risk (CMAR; see also chapter 25 ) is growing in popu-
larity as a complement to DB. CMAR is a project delivery method in which the client
establishes a process to integrate the design and construction phases of a project while
contracting separately with the designer and contractor. It still allows the builder (i.e.,
contractor) to be selected based on qualifications. This is an emerging delivery method
that has many variations. WDBC members have seen CMAR become a fixture in the DB
business. Figure 3-5 shows the prevalence of CMAR from 2005 to 2010, while Figure 3-6
shows the foothold that CMAR has secured. CMAR use is expected to increase in the
water and wastewater business in North America. CMAR shares some of the benefits of
DB, while maintaining a contractual structure that is similar to traditional DBB.