Delivery method comparison: matching method to owner priority

One-line orientation

No delivery method is always best. Compare each scenario by schedule, price basis, owner risk, design control, contract relationships, and when the builder joins.

Key points

• Key variables across methods:

  1. Schedule / speed — how much design and construction overlap
  2. Cost certainty — when and how firmly the price is established
  3. Owner construction risk — who absorbs cost overruns
  4. Contractor input — when the construction team enters the project
  5. Points of responsibility — how many contracts the owner holds
  6. Owner design control — degree of independent architectural advocacy

• Rule of thumb for exam scenarios:

  • Owner priority = lowest cost up front → DBB competitive lump-sum
  • Owner priority = short schedule through overlap → consider Design-Build, IPD, CMc, or another method paired with fast-track scheduling. The delivery method alone does not guarantee speed.
  • Owner priority = early contractor expertise + cost cap → CMc with GMP
  • Owner wants advisory help without giving up control → CMa within DBB
  • Owner wants collaborative shared-risk on complex project → IPD
  • Owner wants design intent protected before DB handoff → Bridged Design-Build

No delivery method wins on every priority — overlap is why it's faster

SCHEMATIC

The mechanism is the tradeoff: how much construction overlaps design sets the speed, and how many contracts the owner holds sets the control.

View diagram Hide diagram

Scroll horizontally to explore →

Key

• light bar = design · dark bar = construction — stacked where they overlap
• neutral sliver = the post-CD bid gap (both DBB rows only)
• dot = the builder signs on · its leader runs across to where construction starts
• accent arrow = time the fastest method saves against the DBB (design-bid-build) finish
• hub glyph = how many contracts the owner signs (the count below it)

Bar lengths rank the card's ordinal speed facts — they are not measured durations. The cost-plus bid is a post-CD procurement point, not a fixed competitive price; its uncertainty shows in the Low cost-certainty chip. CMa and CMc enter equally early but split risk oppositely — CMa only advises, while CMc holds the trades and the GMP.

Confusions / comparison

Method	Schedule / Speed	Cost Certainty (owner)	Owner Construction Risk	Contractor Enters	Owner Contracts	Owner Design Control
DBB — competitive lump-sum	Usually slower when fully sequential	High once a fixed price is accepted, subject to changes	Contractor carries ordinary cost-overrun risk within the contract	Post-CDs, at bid	2 (A/E + GC)	Highest (separate A/E advocate)
DBB — cost-plus	Slow	Low (running cost)	High	Post-CDs, at bid	2 (A/E + GC)	Highest
CMa (CM-as-Advisor)	Moderate	High (if lump-sum bids)	Low–moderate	Early (advisory only)	Count the actual agreements: the owner may hold one general-contractor contract or multiple prime contracts in addition to the architect and CM-as-Advisor agreements	High (architect still independent)
CMc (CM at Risk)	Faster	Moderate–high (GMP cap)	Low–moderate (GMP limits)	Early (design phase)	2 (A/E + CMc)	High (architect independent)
Design-Build	Fast	Moderate (negotiated)	Low (DB entity carries)	From day one	1 (DB entity)	Low (architect inside DB entity)
Bridged Design-Build	Moderate–fast	Moderate	Low–moderate	After bridging phase	2 (bridging A/E + DB entity)	Moderate (protected through SD/DD)
IPD	Fast	Shared / variable	Shared among all parties	From day one	Varies by IPD form; a multi-party agreement is one option	High (collaborative)

Related

→ Design-Bid-Build (pp-delivery-design-bid-build): DBB variants in depth · Bidding variants (pp-delivery-bidding-variants): how bid type modifies the DBB row in the matrix · CM roles (pp-delivery-construction-manager): CMa vs CMc detail · DB, Bridged DB, and IPD (pp-delivery-designbuild-ipd): the single- and shared-contract methods in depth.