During pre-design on a design-bid-build project, the owner is concerned about reducing risk. Which delivery method should you recommend?

During pre-design on a design-bid-build project, the owner is concerned about reducing risk. Which delivery method should you recommend?

• A. Multiple-prime contracting
• B. Construction management at-risk
• C. Design-bid-build
• D. Integrated project delivery

Answer: (B)

Bringing in a construction manager early to work with the design team reduces risk by providing constructability input, detailed cost guidance, and a fixed price ceiling as the project progresses. In a construction management at-risk arrangement, the CM is engaged during design and later commits to a guaranteed maximum price for the work. This means cost estimates are tied to real constructability considerations, procurement sequencing is planned upfront, and the CM assumes the cost risk for overruns beyond the GMP (subject to agreed exceptions). With this setup, design decisions can be steered to stay within budget and schedule, and potential changes or value-engineering opportunities can be identified early, before they become costly surprises. The other approaches don’t offer the same level of early cost control and risk transfer. Multiple-prime contracting increases owner risk and coordination challenges because many prime contractors must be managed and integrated. Design-bid-build keeps the designer and contractor separate, so there’s little contractor input during design, which can lead to cost growth and scheduling issues later. Integrated project delivery aims for maximum collaboration and shared risk, but it requires a different contractual framework and team alignment that isn’t always feasible in a pre-design phase of a traditional design-bid-build project.

Bringing in a construction manager early to work with the design team reduces risk by providing constructability input, detailed cost guidance, and a fixed price ceiling as the project progresses. In a construction management at-risk arrangement, the CM is engaged during design and later commits to a guaranteed maximum price for the work. This means cost estimates are tied to real constructability considerations, procurement sequencing is planned upfront, and the CM assumes the cost risk for overruns beyond the GMP (subject to agreed exceptions). With this setup, design decisions can be steered to stay within budget and schedule, and potential changes or value-engineering opportunities can be identified early, before they become costly surprises.

The other approaches don’t offer the same level of early cost control and risk transfer. Multiple-prime contracting increases owner risk and coordination challenges because many prime contractors must be managed and integrated. Design-bid-build keeps the designer and contractor separate, so there’s little contractor input during design, which can lead to cost growth and scheduling issues later. Integrated project delivery aims for maximum collaboration and shared risk, but it requires a different contractual framework and team alignment that isn’t always feasible in a pre-design phase of a traditional design-bid-build project.