RL Turner | Home

Design-Build (DB) – DB legislation was passed in 2005 through Indiana Code – Article 30, Section 5 – Appendix.   This legislation allowed public entities to award a DB contract based upon qualifications, design, schedule and construction costs weighted together in lieu of just “low bid”.  Generally, DB Team will be led by a General Contractor who has partnered with a Designer to provide specific services.  Some DB entities have in-house constructors and designers.  DB Services include all of the responsibilities/duties discussed in GC and CMa, but there is now only one source of responsibility (DB) and they are responsible for cost, schedule, safety, design, and scope of work for the project. 

Strengths of this method:

• DB is responsible for design, cost, schedule, subcontractors and safety.
• Any cost over-runs and/or design errors related to the original design are the DB’s responsibility, not the Public Entity’s responsibility. 
• Change Orders only occur if the Owner elects to add additional scope of work to the contract
• Public Entity no longer has to hope the “best” Contractor(s) is the “cheapest” Contractor(s) – Forgot something on bid day. Public entity will review perspective DB qualifications and team make-up prior to receiving Proposals.  Public entity rates/weighs each DB team based upon their qualifications, strengths and team make-up
• Public Entity will see several programs and designs prior to entering into contract negotiations and at minimal cost.  This allows the Public Entity to select the program and design that “best” suits their specific needs, not someone else’s perception of their needs
• Public Entity is not required to enter into contract negotiations with the lowest/cheapest proposal.  Public Entity weighs each team’s qualifications, design and cost to determine best value
• Public Entity will be given the opportunity to modify and/or adjust the program/design during the contract negotiation period.  Once the Public Entity and DB agree on scope, design and price, a Guaranteed Maximum Price is established and a contract is executed
• DB process allows portions of the design and construction to occur concurrently, thus reducing the project duration, quality issues and cost
• Eliminates cost over-runs related to extended services (offered by Designers) or reimbursables (offered by CMa)
• Public Entity is not contractually obligated to more than one entity (DB), thus they decrease their potential for additional risk(s)

Weaknesses of this method:

• Although DB has been used extensively on Private and Federal in the State of Indiana, it is relatively new to State owned Public Entities.  RLTurner knows of five (5) projects to have been successfully completed using DB, RLTurner was involved in two (2) of these projects.  We are currently completing the sixth (6th) DB project for S. Adams in Berne, Indiana – it is very successful
• Some Designers and CMa are concerned that DB does not provide adequate “checks and balances” offered through traditional methods, as the designer will generally work directly for the Contractor and not the Public Entity.  This concern can be eliminated through regular progress meetings, full disclosure of costs, good communication regarding issues as they arise and trust development
• DB is not for every Public Entity.  If the Public Entity is very “rigid” in their requirements and procedures, DB is not the best method for this Public Entity                      

Project size for using a DB may vary, but RLTurner has typically seen this as the chosen method on projects ranging from $200K to $35M