|
A Brief History of Design/Build
|
|
An architect or engineer who retired 25 years ago and paid no attention since would likely be unaware of the phrase, or possibly even the concept, of "design/build" (or design-build or Design/Build or simply design build.) One who resigned 10 years ago would have been aware of such a phenomenon but would not have attributed much importance to it. One who resigned today, however, would remember design/build as the ascendant strategy of its time, one that threatens to consign its predecessors and competitors to the notorious dust bin of history. According to the inevitable "Design Build Institute of America"--DBIA for short--design/build is quite simply "the time-honored approach of the master builder where a single source has absolute accountability for both design and construction." Under contemporary design/build strategies the owner contracts with a single entity to provide both design and construction services. The design/builder may be a single firm, a consortium of experts, or a joint venture. The team would most likely include an architect and a contractor. They might be partners with one another on a given project, or one could serve as subcontractor to the other. More commonly, general contractors head these design/ build teams. With more and more architects and construction managers getting into design/ build, however, architects and engineers have been taking the lead. According to its advocates, the world's great civilizations have all embraced design/ build. Apparently, nearly 4000 years ago in his long famous "Code," Hammurabi fixed absolute accountability upon Mesopotamian master builders for both design and construction. The Greeks adopted the same principle in building, say, the Parthenon and the Theater of Dionysius. In the centuries since, the design/build concept has guided the construction of castles, cathedrals, and now even corporate headquarters all over the world. Given its historical dominance, one puzzles over why the design/build paradigm disappeared from the American commercial landscape very roughly 150 years ago. The record as to how or why this happened is spotty. But by 1909 the American Institute of Architects (AIA) had codified its distaste for the concept by prohibiting its members from engaging in building contracting. In place of design/build emerged an alternative paradigm, one usually called design-bid-build, three words more likely separated by dashes than slashes. This project delivery system formally separated the designer, typically the architect or engineer, from the builder, typically the general contractor.
“The time-honored approach of the master builder where a single source has absolute accountability for both design and construction.”
In 1978, the AIA reversed itself and lifted the ban on building contracting. By1985 the AIA was publishing recommended design-build contracts. The reasons most often cited for the shift in thinking are elusive and even tautologicial, like, for instance, "the frustration of clients over the Design-Bid-Build method." A more substantial reason might be the extraordinary spike in interest rates during the late 1970s. One of the often-cited advantages of design/build is the compressed time frame in the completion of a project. The fact that design and construction activities are concurrent tends to speed the work up. During a period when money is expensive, this advantage can translate into significant savings. Once design-build was reintroduced on a broad scale its other virtues became apparent. Most often cited among these virtues is the fact that there is a single point of responsibility for the client. This usually minimizes the owner's risk, reduces the opportunities for change orders, and reduces potential construction delays. In general design/ build tends to eliminate finger-pointing between the contractor and design team as the client knows exactly who is responsible for the larger project. A second advantage is that the client or the contractor can identify and resolve problems at an earlier stage then in other project delivery systems. Budgetary concerns can also be addressed in the preliminary design and not at the completion of the design as in other methods. A final proffered advantage, one on which there is not a consensus, is that design/build provides higher quality than other methods since the energies of the design/build team are focused more on the successful completion of the project than on the assignment or avoidance of blame. To be sure, not everyone is keen on design/build. Federal and local governments, for instance, have been slow to advocate the strategy, and this has slowed its growth. Other cited disadvantages include the inherent complexity of organization, the lack of direct connection between the owner and the architect, and the potential that cost-saving strategies will erode design and construction quality. Still, for all its perceived flaws, it is unlikely that the AIA will ban design/ build any time in the near future. |