Design - Award - Build

The most traditional method of project delivery is the design - award - build method.  In this method, the Project Owner enters into an agreement with the design professional for design services and the preparation of bid / contract documents.  The Owner selects a group of qualified contractors to bid the completed design drawings.  After the bidding process, the Owner then independently contracts with a Contractor, typically the low bidder, to build the project.

The Architect is responsible to the Owner for the design of the project and also administers the construction contract as the Owner’s representative.  The Contractor is responsible to the Owner for the proper construction of the design and is responsible for methods and procedures.

The design - award - build creates independent relationships between the Architect and the Contractor with each directly responsible to the Owner.  These relationships create a system of checks and balances that serve to protect the Owner from inferior design and construction.  Since the Architect acts on behalf of the Owner, he protects the interest of the Owner in obtaining a project that complies with the Contract Documents.  He also has the responsibility of being fair and impartial toward the Contractor.

The greatest problems arise in design - award - build from its independence of the design process from the construction function.  The Architect must estimate the construction cost of the project during design, but he is a step removed from the normal pricing process done by a Contractor.  The Contractor then enters the picture after the documents are already complete and bids the job.  Cost savings and alternate methods are only considered if the project comes in over previous estimates.  If the actual cost far exceeds estimates, then the Owner may suffer a "sticker shock" which creates tensions with the Architect.  There is then a lengthy time of re-designing, re-pricing, value-engineering, and eventually award of the contract.

A busy economy may also add to problems in this method.  The best Contractors won’t "gamble" to get work when there are clients lined up to negotiate contracts.  Also the best subcontractors align themselves with the best contractors.  If they are busy, many times a bid only partially estimates the work involved.  Then the cost is padded with an extremely high profit to assure a profit if they actually receive the job and had actually underestimated the actual work.  This causes the Owner to seek Contractors who are not busy and willing to give a better price, many times at a great reduction in quality.

Construction Management

This delivery method removes a General Contractor from the process.  The Contractor is replaced with a Construction Manager.  He performs most of the Contractor’s normal duties, but usually for a set fee, and by a person with a great deal of general contractor experience. The greatest benefits are obtained when he is employed during the design process to provide expertise on constructability, cost and schedule.

His main role in the construction process is to allow a church to act as a General Contractor.  He should provide estimates, take subcontractor bids, coordinate the work and daily supervise the project.  He does not however employ the actual subcontractors to the job, only approves their work and payments.  The subcontractors are actually under direct contract with the Owner and not the Construction Manager.

The largest setback to this method is construction responsibility after the project’s completion.  Since the subcontractors are paid directly by the Owner, they are each individually responsible to the Owner.  This removes a single source of responsibility for construction defects during a warranty period.  If a problem arises, then the Owner must find the subcontractor and obtain a warranty correction.  Typically, the Owner lacks the leverage a Contractor would have in obtaining this warranty work.  While there is a chance of problems during the warranty period, many churches find this an acceptable exchange for cost savings. 

Design - Build

In this delivery approach, the design and building roles are combined into a single entity.  Many Owners prefer design-build because it has a single point of responsibility for both design and construction.  The prime contract is between the Owner and the Contractor. The design professional is under contract to the Contractor and not the Owner.

The advantages of this over design - award - build is the presence of the Contractor from the very first meeting until building completion and occupancy. The Contractor provides budget and detailed pricing through the design process, allowing the project to remain within a very tight budget.  Single source responsibility and adherence to tight budgets are the main advantages of this delivery method.

The major disadvantage is the lack of a design professional representing the Owner.  It can deprive an Owner for a chance of a much better design.  Often good design ends up sacrificed for a small budget savings.  An unknowing Owner may also accept substandard work by the contractor that an architect would otherwise reject.  Many times, the architect's construction administration review of payments and work quality is eliminated from the design professionals scope in order to effect cost savings. In essence, the contractor has removed the Owner’s advocate for good design and review of the construction, leaving an unskilled Owner to try to observe the Contractor's work.  Another disadvantage is that the success of the project is dependant on the effectiveness of a single company to design and construct the project.

Partnering

This delivery method combines the best aspects of the traditional design - award - build and the design - build methods.  Both the Architect and Contractor are under direct contract to the Owner.  However, a Contractor is selected and hired at the same time as the Architect.   The Owner gets an Architect of his choice instead of the Contractor's, and the Architect may retain his advocacy for the Owner and unbiased administration of the contract.  The Contractor is allowed budget input for cost, constructability and methods from the beginning.  The checks and balances remain between Owner, Architect and Contractor, allowing for a balance between program, design and budget.  

A great deal of time may be saved in this method by overlapping the time for design on pricing.  As the drawings are completed, the pricing phase is also completed.  And since the budget has been of prime concern during the design, even more time is saved by not needing re-design time to trim the project to the budget after the construction documents are complete. 

Conclusion

Each of these delivery methods have their place in the construction of church facilities.  The traditional design-award-build is best in a slower economy where good contractors need work and competitive bids must be obtained.  Construction Management works best for smaller churches who wish professional assistance in doing it themselves.  Design-build works best for industrial buildings or ones with very little design or complexity.  They also work when a turnkey job is desired.  However, partnering works on most jobs, especially on more complicated projects or when the Owner wishes more control over the end product of the building process.