The standard practice in today's construction is what I have termed Traditional Construction. This project delivery system consists of a designer who prepares a design for an owner. The owner then selects a builder, usually through a bidding process, to transform the two-dimensional design into the three-dimensional finished project. While this system has been the norm for many years, owners are beginning to want more from their project delivery system. In this case, more means less: less time, less cost, and less litigation. They need their finished project delivered faster. They want to spend less for it. They are also tired of the mental anguish and 20% cost increase, due to legal disputes, which has also become the norm for Traditional Construction. An increasing number of owners are turning to Design-Build to get these "lesses." This report takes an in-depth look at the Design-Build process from the public contracts perspective. Current project delivery systems and their relative advantages and disadvantages are discussed. Design-Build is introduced with its advantages and disadvantages from the perspectives of the owner, designer, and builder. A history of Design-Build is provided with past projects, professional influences, and a preview of upcoming projects. The various selection processes for Design-Build are reviewed and legal issues are examined. The report concludes with recommendations for when public administrators should consider using Design-Build, and what public administrators should do to make Design-Build work.

http://archive.org/details/astudyofdesignbu1094524231