Choosing the right project delivery method is one of the most critical decisions to make when getting started on a construction project. But what exactly does that mean?

Simply put, a project delivery method is the game plan that determines how a project is designed, built, and managed — from the initial concept to the final walkthrough. It defines who is responsible for what, how risks are shared, and how communication between owners, designers, and contractors will happen. Picking the wrong strategy can lead to delays, cost overruns and headaches, while the right one sets the stage for a smooth, successful build.

From traditional approaches like Lump Sum contracts to more collaborative models like Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and the Alliance method, each project delivery method comes with its own set of advantages and challenges. Some methods prioritize cost certainty while others focus on speed, innovation or risk-sharing. Understanding the nuances of each one can help project owners — from municipalities to private developers — choose the approach that best aligns with their goals.

Here are the most common project delivery methods companies can choose from to best align with their goals. 

To meet construction project goals, owners typically choose the project delivery method early in the process. Driving factors could be the availability of resources to manage the project, the need to start project work early (sometimes even prior to having complete designs), cost certainty or an owner’s preference for how they do procurement. 

There can be advantages for owners when engaging a contractor’s preconstruction services before settling on a contract type or delivery method; Valuable input can be shared to inform critical project decisions as they are being made.

The preconstruction phase of a project offers owners the best opportunity to optimize design solutions, assess constructability and engage in value-engineering (determining the best value for the best price). PCL applies its knowledge of construction and market conditions to make suggestions, evaluate alternatives and offer advice to the entire project team to maximize value for the owner.

Working with an experienced contractor can help inform site selection and define design stages to set up a project for success. Having a team of industry-leading construction specialists ensures the client receives expert constructability input through the project planning and preconstruction phases.

As a result of early collaboration, the proper materials, sequencing, and procurement strategies (with an eye on future-proofing the building technology, expansion and sustainability features) all serve to make smart early decisions to mitigate surprises later. Cost savings can be generated through cost analysis, innovative and efficient construction plans, plus rigorous schedule management.

Quality design solutions and drawings ensure owners receive the best bids and pricing from the trades and suppliers who require clear scopes of work. Quality drawings and tender packages, in turn, reduce the risk of change orders (driven by design clarifications and/or redesign) that add cost and time to the project. The end result? Dollars back to the owner’s bottom line.

The best delivery methods provide opportunities for owners, architects, consultants, trades, suppliers, construction experts and other key stakeholders to collaborate early in the process.

Below is a brief overview of delivery methods to highlight pros and cons, beginning with Construction Management at Risk. 

The owner, designer and contractor come to the table in a spirit of trust and respect, where the team develops shared objectives that provide a product to meet the owner's requirements for time, quality and budget. The contractor provides expertise in constructability, planning, logistics, estimates, budgets, scheduling, value engineering and communication to facilitate decision-making. The contractor solicits multiple bids from subcontractors covering all divisions or scopes of work to ensure competitive pricing.

If the owner wants cost certainty, the project’s budget can be locked in through a Guaranteed Maximum Price contract, with appropriate contingencies defined to cover price escalation, tariffs or design development. 

PCL projects delivered under CMAR:  
JW Marriott Bonnet Creek
Snowball Water Treatment Plant

The owner selects and engages a single entity to design and build the project rather than holding contracts with several contractors and consultants. The design-build contractor is responsible for both the design and construction of the project, based on predetermined requirements that detail design criteria. The same concept can include equipment specification and procurement under the name Engineer-Procure-Construct (EPC).

Design-Build or EPC deliveries are effective when an owner may not have the resources or knowledge to manage multiple contracts or entities and prefers to hire a contractor to manage the entire process.  

PCL projects delivered under Design-Build:  
Lake Tillery Bridge Rehabilitation
California Bioenergy Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Project
Treasure Island Water Resource Recovery Facility

Building on the Design-Build method, large scale, complex public sector infrastructure projects lend themselves to Alternative Finance and Procurement methods, including P3s.  

The P3 method allows public- and private-sector partners to share risk, rewards and project responsibilities. It is an attractive method for the public sector, since it draws out the efficiencies not only in the design and construction, but also in the financing and operations of a facility. It encourages collaboration and provides a guaranteed, predetermined base rate to the public sector, which can ease budget forecasting.

These methods also have modified offshoots called Progressive Design Build (PDB) and Progressive P3, which bring the private-sector partner in during the design phase so the partners can work together to define project requirements, design, pricing and risk before entering an agreement. 

PCL projects delivered as P3s:  
LAX Consolidated Rent-A-Car (ConRAC) Facility
Clackamas County Circuit Courthouse

Variations on Design-Build include Design-Build-Finance (DBF), Design-Build-Finance-Maintain (DBFM), and Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain (DBFOM). Each of these expands the private sector obligations to financing, operations and long-term facility maintenance, respectively.

Incentivizing key project drivers like production start-up and move-in dates or cost underruns can reward achievements for delivery teams and reward project goals. In these methods, the cost of land, construction, development and financing can be amortized over a set period of time. 

PCL projects delivered as DBF/DBFM:  
LAX Consolidated Rent-A-Car (ConRAC) Facility​

The Alliance and IPD methods are quite similar. The methods allow the owner, designer, contractor, suppliers and other stakeholders such as community stakeholders and funding organizations to collaboratively plan, design, construct and commission a project. Compensation under the Alliance and IPD methods is directly tied to cost, schedule and profitability milestones of the project.

These methods promote a culture of “no-fault, no-blame” and require participants to find the best-for-project solutions. The Alliance model is proving to be popular with owners because of the opportunities it affords for early contractor involvement.

As mentioned, early contractor involvement offers owners the best opportunity to optimize design solutions, assess constructability, engage in value-engineering and take advantage of a general contractor’s other preconstruction services. 

This summary of project delivery methods is not exhaustive, and any method can be tailored to each owner’s unique needs and aspirations. Whichever method works best for a project, it remains important to select a contractor who can match the owner’s goals with the best strategy to provide a strong return on investment and bring the project to life.