Design-Build vs. Traditional Delivery: Which Project Delivery Model Works Best for Your Project?

Posted on December 10, 2025 in Commercial Real Estate - General, Construction Services

When you’re preparing to bring a new project to life, one of the earliest—and most important—decisions you’ll make is selecting the right delivery method. The model you choose has a direct impact on project costs, schedule, collaboration, and your overall experience from concept through completion.

Two of the most widely used models are Design-Build and Traditional Delivery (Design–Bid–Build). Both can be effective, but the right fit depends on your goals, timeline, and the type of project you’re taking on.

Below, we break down each method — so you can make an informed, confident decision.

What Is Traditional Delivery?

Traditional Delivery—often referred to as Design–Bid–Build—follows a structured, step-by-step process where design and construction occur in clearly defined phases. In this model, the owner first hires an architect or engineer to fully design the project. Once the plans are complete, the project is sent to general contractors to solicit competitive bids, and general contractors submit bids/proposals based strictly on those documents. After the bidding phase, a contractor is selected to bring the design to life.

This linear approach separates design responsibilities from construction responsibilities, giving owners a high level of control and ensuring that pricing is driven by competitive bids. It is one of the most established and widely used delivery methods in the industry.

Key Advantages of Traditional Delivery

• Clear Separation of Responsibilities: Design teams design; contractors build. Roles are distinct, which some owners prefer for risk allocation.
• Competitive Bidding Environment: Because multiple contractors bid on fully completed plans, owners can directly compare cost proposals.
• Familiar, Widely Used Process: Many municipalities, institutions, and owners are already comfortable with this sequential method.
• Strong Design Control Upfront:  Owners who want the design fully resolved before involving a contractor often appreciate this approach.

Potential Challenges of Traditional Delivery

• Longer Overall Schedule: Design must be completed before bidding and construction can begin, often resulting in a lengthier process.
• More Change Orders: Without early contractor input, constructability issues may emerge during construction—leading to budget changes or rework.
• Limited Early Collaboration: Designers, engineers, and contractors work independently until the bid phase, which can cause gaps in communication between design intent and actual design documentation.
• Budget Uncertainty Until Bids Arrive: Owners don’t get a reliable cost estimate until the end of the design phase often resulting in additional redesign costs.
  
  

Design-Build

What Is Design-Build?

In the Design-Build model, the owner partners with a single entity (architect or general contractor) responsible for both design and construction. This creates an integrated, collaborative process where the entire team works together from day one.

Instead of working in separate silos, architects, engineers, and contractors operate as one unit —improving communication and accelerating progress.

Key Advantages of Design-Build

• Faster Project Delivery: Design and construction phases overlap, reducing total project time.
• Greater Cost Certainty Early On: Constructors help price and refine the design collaboratively, minimizing surprises.
• Unified Accountability: With one team responsible for the full delivery, owners avoid gaps between design intent and construction execution.
• High Collaboration and Innovation: Designers and builders work together to improve project value and solve challenges quickly.
• Flexibility Throughout the Process: Owners can make informed design decisions with real-time cost and constructability feedback.

Potential Challenges of Design-Build

• Reduced Separation of Design and Construction: Owners who prefer independent checks and balances may have concerns about combining both under a single entity.
• Less Competitive Bidding at the General Contractor Level: While trades may still be competitively bid, the overall project isn’t bid out widely to multiple general contractors.
• Requires Strong Owner Trust: Because design and construction occur simultaneously, owners lean heavily on their Design-Build partner’s transparency and expertise.
• Not Ideal for Pre-Prescribed Procurement Structures: Certain public or institutional projects require independent design and construction contracts, limiting Design-Build use.

Martin’s Approach: The Right Method for the Right Project

At Martin, we bring decades of construction expertise—across general contracting, construction management, preconstruction, and design-build—to every project.

We understand that no two projects are the same. That’s why we begin each partnership by listening, learning your objectives, evaluating timelines, and determining which delivery method best aligns with your vision.

Whether you’re considering a Design-Build approach or prefer the structure of Traditional Delivery, our team brings the experience, communication, and problem-solving mindset needed to execute your project with precision.