Introduction to Design-Build

Design-build (DB) is not a new concept in the construction industry. In ancient

times, architectural works were commissioned to master builders, who undertake both design and construction of the facilities commissioned to him (Beard, Loulakis and Wundram, 2001:13). It never occurred to the master builders such as Filippo Brunelleschi (Florence Cathedral, 15^th century, Italy) to consider design independent of construction. Such trade specialisation in design independent of construction would be foreign to the master builders (or design-builders in modern terms) in ancient times.

The industrial revolution brought revolutionary impact in the manner in which design and construction were organised. Beard et al (2001:19-20) outlined some factors leading to the separation of design and construction.

(a) Dramatic increase in demand for new industrial facilities required the designer to specialise in order to improve productivity and technical efficiency.

(b) Urbanisation expanded the market for design services which did not have to be performed locally, hence encouraged its separation from the builders.

Designer’s requirements for construction can be communicated through standardised systems of drawings and specifications.

(c) The difference between intellectual design process and the physical act of

construction lead to the division of labour between design and construction.

Traditionally (since the industrial revolution), a facility is realised through two distinct phases – design and construction. It is common practice to first complete the design work before commencing the construction work. Design is typically an employer’s undertaking through independent engagement of design consultants. With his assistance, the employer would invite tenders for the construction work, which commenced only after the award of tender. The business entity undertaking the construction (typically known as the contractor) assumes no design responsibility and its efficiency are derived from a focus on construction. This sequential process is known as the design-bid-build project delivery method (DBB) (Beard et al, 2001:1). However, there are exceptions to the use of design-bid-build delivery method. Isolated niche markets such as electric power, chemical and food processing industries make use of single entity responsibility for the facility design, equipment selection and construction (Beard et al, 2001:2). Similarly in Taiwan, petrol-chemical facilities, incinerators and waste water treatment works have been reported constructed using the design-build method (Wu, 吳俊明, 2000).

The differences between design-bid-build (DBB) and design-build (DB) are shown in Fig. 1.1 and Fig. 1.2. Fig. 1.1 (DBB) shows a specific tender process separating the design phase from the construction phase, whereas in Fig. 1.2 (DB), such a process is discarded. Contemporary design-build projects are fast-tracked, meaning that there is overlap between the design and construction activities. Clearly from Fig. 1.2, time to delivery of the final product is shortened by eliminating the additional tender process and fast-tracking. This is one of the most cited benefit of design-build project delivery method in the literature (Beard et al, 2001; Ling, Ofori and Low, 2003; Molenaar and

Gransberg, 2001). Other advantages of the design-build method include cost saving and better value, better quality, reduced administration, improved risk management, single point responsibility (employer deals with one DB contractor), better coordination and communication (reduced interfaces between designer and builder) and early knowledge of firm costs (Beard et al, 2001; Brouillard, 2003; Yates, 1995; Talal, 2005;

Yen 顏敏仁, 2000; Wei 魏騰輝, 2003; Wu 吳俊明, 2000).

Fig.1.1 – Time frame of traditional design-bid-build

Source: Liao H-P (2004), Study of QA/QC Practice in a Design/Build Project - C260 Works of Taiwan High Speed Railway Project, Chaoyang University of Technology, Department of Construction Engineering, unpublished thesis [廖煥平, 2004]

Several renowned professional institutes have attempted to define “design-build”, cited below (adapted from Yen 顏敏仁, 2000; Wu 吳俊明, 2000; Tam, 2000). These definitions have one common point: single point of responsibility to the employer. The employer deals with and manages only one contractor to undertake full range of work from design through to deliver of final product. Very often, such a single point of responsibility is shared by a group of firms teamed up as joint ventures.

Tender Tender

Feasibility

Programming

Concept

Design

Build

Operation

As-Build

Commission

Project Delivery Time Frame

Design-Bid-Build

Fig. 1.2 – Time frame of design-build

Source: Liao H-P (2004), Study of QA/QC Practice in a Design/Build Project - C260 Works of Taiwan High Speed Railway Project, Chaoyang University of Technology, Department of Construction Engineering, unpublished thesis [廖煥平, 2004]

American Institute of Architects (AIA):

In the design/build delivery approach, responsibility for both design and construction is vested in a single entity. ... the owner writes one contract, assigning “single point” responsibility for the project. The design/build entity usually proposes the design and the construction price simultaneously, and the construction commitment is made very early in the process. Design and construction may or may not be fast-tracked.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE):

A turnkey construction contract is a contract which holds a single entity responsible for the design and construction of a specified facility. The entity may be a single party or an association of firms necessary to design and construct the project.

Design-build Institute of America (DBIA):

Also known as “design-construct” or “single responsibility”. Design-build is a system of contracting under which one entity performs both architecture / engineering and construction under one single contract.

Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB):

The client deals directly with the contractor for the complete building and it is the

Tender

contractor who is not only responsible for, but also coordinates the separate design and construction processes, including engagement of the design team who are, therefore, contractually linked with the contractor and the client. The construction process, whilst linked, is still separate from the design process, leaving the consultants free to concentrate on their own roles. The client may, however, directly appoint either in-house staff or a separate consultant to check that the product the contractor is providing is value for money and that content and quality are satisfactory.

Construction industries worldwide in the 21^st century is characterised by a move towards adopting design-build for project delivery. According to a study commissioned by the Public Construction Commission (PCC, 公共工程委員會) in 2001, about 30% of all projects in the United States adopted the design-build methodology. Locally, Wei (魏 騰輝, 2003) and Yang (楊人能, 2002) have also reported a significant increase in projects being delivered through the design-build process since the Taiwan High Speed Rail¹ commenced construction in year 2000. In particular, when the Government Procurement Act (政府採購法) came into effect in 1998, design-build was given a legal frame of reference in public works. Subsequent Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) programs, such as the Kaohsiung Metro, also utilised design-build as its principal means of procuring facilities needed for operation. The potential advantages of this project delivery process have also led Taipei Metro, which was once realised through design-bid-build, to now adopt the design-build delivery method.

The Design-Build Institute of America published on the projection of the growth of design-build in the U.S., shown in Fig. 1.3. In this projection, the use of design-bid-build has correspondingly decreased as design-build becomes the predominant method of

1 THSR, the first large scale Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) program in Taiwan, see Taiwan High Speed Rail Corporation website, www.thsrc.com.tw.

project delivery. Increasing application of design-build in transportation projects has also been reported by Molenaar and Gransberg (2001). The study commissioned by the PCC (2001) also indicated that public works requiring design-build or turnkey as a means of project delivery amounts to as much as 87.1% and that more than 76% of public institutions are willing to adopt design-build.

Fig.1.3 – Growth of design-build projects

Source: Design-Build Institute of America, http://www.dbia.org/fr_industryin.html, 2006/3/25