Project Delivery Methods | Services | Mortenson

Project Delivery Methods

Our core capability is aligning all project contributors regardless of contracting method. Alignment means understanding the needs of the owner – business purpose of the project, design and functionality aspirations, stakeholder requirements, risk tolerance, cost and schedule – and continuously focusing every participant’s efforts to meet those needs. Ultimately it means delivering the facility you want, on time and on budget, with the outcomes you need for your capital investment.

We will gladly work within your prescribed delivery method, or recommend one to best suit your situation. Regardless of the method, we believe early engagement of the right partners is the key to success.

Design-Bid-Build

PROS

Bidding 
Competitive bidding of work to General Contractor

Clarity of Scope 
Project scope finalized prior to start of construction

Single Bid Package 
A/E prepares one set of bid documents vs. phased "big packages"

CONS

Reduced Quality 
No input during design phase from contractor on alternative materials, equipment, or methods that may save money, improve quality, or save time

Delays & Cost Over-runs 
Schedule delays due to redesign when bids come in over budget

Increased Time of Delivery
Total duration of project delivery is typically longer

Change Orders 
If project scope is incomplete or unclear, it may result in adversarial relationships and potential claims

Limited Collaboration 
No opportunity to design to a target budget

Limited Space for Innovation 
General Contractor has no opportunity to bring solutions that save time and money

Lack of Input 
No Owner input for subcontractor selection

Reduced Opportunity for Savings 
All cost savings accrue to General Contractor; no open book accounting

Construction Manager at Risk

PROS

Open Book Accounting
Savings accrue to Owner or are shared

Faster Delivery 
Early CM involvement allows for earlier start of construction and schedule compression

Bidding 
Competitive bidding of work to subcontractors

Procurement Input 
Owner input on all subcontractor selections

Financial Certainty 
CM manages project budget throughout design and construction

Highly Collaborative 
Owner, CM and A/E team work collaboratively

Improved Quality 
CM input on alternative materials, equipment or methods that may save money, improve quality or save time

Contract Price 
Contract Price based on the defined scope is established prior to construction

CONS

Bid Packages
Includes the use of multiple “bid packages” produced by the design team increasing risk to Owner

Fewer Qualified Firms
GCs with experience delivering projects in a D-B-B role may lack preconstruction and construction management capabilities

Owner Effort
Requires more owner resources up front

Design-Build

PROS

Single Source of Responsibility
One entity is held accountable for design, cost, schedule, and performance

Cost Savings
An integrated team is efficient and innovative

Relationship with Designer
The Owner/Designer interface is maintained, while being enhanced by Design-Builder participation

Contract Price
Contract Price established prior to construction; earliest certainty of price

Decreased Administrative Burden
Owners can focus on the project rather than managing disparate contracts

Procurement Input
Owner input on all subcontractor selection

Open Book Accounting
Savings accrue to Owner or are shared

Bidding
Competitive bidding of work to subcontractors

Bid Packages
Risk of multiple bid packages carried by Design-Builder

Faster Delivery
Collaborative project management means work is completed faster with fewer problems

Reduced Risk
Design-Build team assumes additional risk, shifting the risk away from the Owner

Better Quality
Design-Builders meet performance needs, not minimum design requirements, often developing innovations to deliver a better project than initially imagined

CONS

Fewer Qualified Firms
GCs and CMs with experience delivering in a D-B-B or CMAR role may lack expertise in D-B delivery

Procurement Laws
When used in the public sector, only permitted by certain Federal Agencies, States or Municipalities

Integrated Project Delivery

PROS

Highly Collaborative & Integrated
Owner, CM and A/E team work collaboratively as one team

Scope & Budget Alignment
IPD uses a target cost approach maintained through consistent, real-time trending reports

Minimal Scope Gaps
Early on-boarding of trade partners mitigates cost escalation and scope gaps

Faster Decision-Making
Collective team buy-in promotes a faster decision making process

Cost Savings
An integrated team manages change in a more nimble, effective manner and eliminating redesign costs

Improved Productivity
An achievable workflow minimizes waste and rework

Shared Risk & Rewards
Risks and rewards are managed collaboratively

Open Book Accounting
Savings accrue to Owner or are shared

Target Cost
Established prior to design; earliest certainty of price

Procurement Input
Owner input on all subcontractor selections

CONS

Fewer Qualified Firms
Fewer firms have delivered projects via IPD

Less Familiarity
Owners and architects less familiar with this process are less inclined to pursue it

Trust Isn’t Automatic
This approach requires all team members to “buy in” to a change in culture and approach

Ready to discuss delivery options?