Design-Bid-Build
The traditional project delivery method where an owner hires an architect to complete the design first, then bids the finished design out to general contractors, and finally hires the winning contractor to build it, three separate, sequential contracts instead of one combined one.
Why it matters
It's still the most common and most straightforward delivery method precisely because the design is fully complete before pricing starts, giving the owner price certainty from a bid. The tradeoff is a longer overall timeline than [[concept-design-build|design-build]] or [[concept-fast-tracking|fast-tracking]], since construction can't start until design is finished.
On a real project
A school district hires an architect to fully design a new building, then issues an [[concept-invitation-for-bid|invitation for bid]] to general contractors once the design is complete, selecting a contractor based on the resulting bids.
Who this matters most to
An Estimator prices a design-bid-build project against a complete, finished design, which makes for a more straightforward bid than pricing an unfinished design under design-build. A Project Manager inherits a design they had no input into, which means RFIs uncovering design gaps are a more routine part of the job on this delivery method than on others.
Where this goes wrong
A design-bid-build project's design turns out to have significant coordination errors between the architectural and structural drawings, discovered only after construction starts. Because the design was already complete and bid before the contractor had any input, the fixes have to go through a slower change order process instead of being caught and resolved during a design phase the contractor never participated in.