This article needs additional citations for
verification. (January 2011) |
Designâbuild (or design/build, and abbreviated DâB or D/B accordingly), also known as alternative delivery, [1] is a project delivery system used in the construction industry. It is a method to deliver a project in which the design and construction services are contracted by a single entity known as the designâbuilder or designâbuild contractor. It can be subdivided into architect-led designâbuild (ALDB, sometimes known as designer-led designâbuild) and contractor-led designâbuild.
In contrast to " designâbidâbuild" (or "designâtender"), designâbuild relies on a single point of responsibility contract and is used to minimize risks for the project owner and to reduce the delivery schedule by overlapping the design phase and construction phase of a project.
Designâbuild also has a single point responsibility. The design-build contractor is responsible for all work on the project, so the client can seek legal remedies for any fault from one party. [2]
The traditional approach for construction projects consists of the appointment of a designer on one side, and the appointment of a contractor on the other side. The designâbuild procurement route changes the traditional sequence of work. It answers the client's wishes for a single point of responsibility in an attempt to reduce risks and overall costs. Although the use of subcontractors to complete more specialized work is common, the design-build contractor remains the primary contact and primary force behind the work. It is now commonly used in many countries and forms of contracts are widely available.
Designâbuild is sometimes compared to the "master builder" approach, one of the oldest forms of construction procedure. Comparing designâbuild to the traditional method of procurement, the authors of Design-build Contracting Handbook noted that: "from a historical perspective the so-called traditional approach is actually a very recent concept, only being in use approximately 150 years. In contrast, the designâbuild conceptâalso known as the "master builder" conceptâhas been reported as being in use for over four millennia." [3]
Although the Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA) takes the position that designâbuild can be led by a contractor, a designer, a developer or a joint venture, as long as a designâbuild entity holds a single contract for both design and construction, some architects have suggested that architect-led designâbuild is a specific approach to designâbuild.
Design-build plays an important role in pedagogy, both at universities and in independently organised events such as Rural Studio or ArchiCamp.
The "designâbuilder" is often a general contractor, but in many cases a project is led by a design professional ( architect, engineer, architectural technologist or other professional designers). Some designâbuild firms employ professionals from both the design and construction sector. Where the designâbuilder is a general contractor, the designers are typically retained directly by the contractor. Partnership or a joint venture between a design firm and a construction firm may be created on a long-term basis or for one project only.
Until 1979, the AIA American Institute of Architects' code of ethics and professional conduct prohibited their members from providing construction services. However today many architects in the United States and elsewhere aspire to provide integrated design and construction services, and one approach towards this goal is designâbuild. The AIA has acknowledged that designâbuild is becoming one of the main approaches to construction. In 2003, the AIA endorsed "The architect's guide to designâbuild services", [4] which was written to help their members acting as designâbuild contractors. This publication gives guidance through the different phases of the process: design services, contracts, management, insurances, and finances.
On contractor-led designâbuild projects, management is structured so that the owner works directly with a contractor who, in turn, coordinates subcontractors. Architects contribute to contractor-led designâbuild projects in one of several ways, with varying degrees of responsibility (where "A/E" in each diagram represents the architect/engineer):
Architect-led designâbuild projects are those in which interdisciplinary teams of architects and building trades professionals collaborate in an agile management process, where design strategy and construction expertise are seamlessly integrated, and the architect, as owner-advocate, project-steward and team-leader, ensures high fidelity between project aims and outcomes. In architect-led designâbuild projects, the architect works directly with the owner (the client), acts as the designer and builder, coordinating a team of consultants, subcontractors and materials suppliers throughout the project lifecycle.
Architects lead designâbuild projects in several ways, with varying degrees of responsibility (where "A/E" in each diagram represents the architect/engineer):
A single set of integrated contracts combining design and construction responsibilities, rather than two discrete contracts for each, acknowledges the interdependence of the architects' and construction trades' project responsibilities, and reduces the likelihood of disputes. [5]
In 1993, the Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA) [6] was formed. Its membership is composed of design and construction industry professionals as well as project owners. DBIA promotes the value of designâbuild project delivery and teaches the effective integration of design and construction services to ensure success for owners and design and construction practitioners. The Design-Build Institute of America is an organization that defines, teaches and promotes best practices in designâbuild.
The Canadian Design-Build Institute (CDBI) describes itself as "The recognized voice of Design-Build practitioners in Canada, promoting and enhancing the proper use of Design-Build method of procurement and contracting". [7]
Not all designâbuild projects are alike. [8] Here, there is a distinction between designâbuild projects led by contractors and those led by architects. Architect-led Design Build is a form of 'designâbuild' that, according to the DBIA, [9] has been rapidly gaining market share in the United States over the past 15 years.[ timeframe?] The Design Build Institute of America describes the designâbuild process as follows:
Taking singular responsibility, the designâbuild team is accountable for cost, schedule and performance, under a single contract and with reduced administrative paperwork, clients can focus on the project rather than managing disparate contracts. And, by closing warranty gaps, building owners also virtually eliminate litigation claims.
The DBIA's 2005 chart shows the uptake of designâbuild methods in non-residential design and construction in the United States. [10]
Architect-led designâbuild is sometimes known by the more generic name "designer-led designâbuild". Although employed primarily by architects, architectural technologists and other architectural professions, the designâbuild structure works similarly for interior design projects led by an interior designer who is not an architect, and also for engineering projects where the designâbuild team is led by a professional structural, civil, mechanical or other engineers. In addition, it is common for the design professional who leads the designâbuild team to create a separate corporation or similar business entity through which the professional performs the construction and other related non-professional services.[ citation needed]
In 2011, designâbuild continued to gain ground as a significant trend in design and construction. [11]
In March 2011, industry consultants ZweigWhite published "Design-Bid-Build meets the opposition". [12] In it, they suggest that while Design-Bid-Build "still rules", the traditional approach is losing favor as "alternative project delivery methods threaten [the] design-bid-build model." While not referencing the architect-led designâbuild approach specifically, the article states that D/B already accounts for 27% of projects, according to their 2010 Project Management Survey and goes on to argue that,
The emerging trends in delivery seem to point to a return to the primordial concept of the masterbuilder, as exemplified by D/B and IPD [Integrated Project Delivery].
According to the DBIA, the designâbuild approach offers advantages to owners, including: "One team, one contract, one unified flow of work from initial concept through completion." [13]
The rise of designâbuild project delivery has threatened the traditional hierarchies and silos of the design and construction industry. As a result, a debate has emerged over the value of designâbuild as a method of project delivery. [14]
Critics of the designâbuild approach claim that designâbuild limits the clients' involvement in the design and allege that contractors often make design decisions outside their area of expertise. They also suggest that a designerârather than a construction professionalâis a better advocate for the client or project owner and/or that by representing different perspectives and remaining in their separate spheres, designers and builders ultimately create better buildings.
Proponents of designâbuild counter that designâbuild saves time and money for the owner, while providing the opportunity to achieve innovation in the delivered facility. They note that value is added because design-build brings value engineering into the design process at the onset of a project. Designâbuild allows the contractor, engineers and specialty trade contractors (subcontractors) to propose best-value solutions for various construction elements before the design is complete. Designâbuild brings all members of a project team together early in the process to identify and address issues of cost, schedule and constructability. Proponents suggest that as a result, design-build alleviates conflict between architects and contractors and reduces owner risk for design errors. [15] They argue that once design is finalized and construction begins, the greatest opportunity to achieve cost savings has already been lost, and the potential for design errors is greater, leading to change orders that create cost growth and schedule delays. Proponents note that designâbuild allows owners to avoid being placed directly between the architect/engineer and the contractor. Under designâbidâbuild, the owner takes on significant risks because of that position. Designâbuild places the responsibility for design errors and omissions on the designâbuilder, relieving the owner of major legal and managerial responsibilities. The burden for these costs and associated risks are transferred to the designâbuild team.
The cost and schedule reduction and decreased litigation associated with designâbuild project delivery have been demonstrated repeatedly. Researches on Selecting Project Delivery Systems [16] by Victor Sanvido and Mark Konchar of Pennsylvania State University found that designâbuild projects are delivered 33.5% faster than projects that are designed and built under separate contracts (design-bid-build). Sanvido and Konchar also showed that designâbuild projects are constructed 12% faster* and have a unit cost that is 6.1% lower than design-bid-build projects. Similar cost and time savings were found in a comparison study of designâbuild, and design-bid-build for the water/wastewater construction industry, a peer-reviewed paper authored by Smith Culp Consulting that will be published in July 2011 by the American Society of Civil Engineers. [17] A benchmarking and claims study by Victor O. Schinnerer, one of the world's largest firms underwriting professional liability and specialty insurance programs, found that, from 1995 to 2004, only 1.3% of claims against A/E firms were made by designâbuild contractors. Advantages have been summarized as:
Architect-led designâbuild is suited primarily to less prescriptive architectural projects (private residences, non-profit institutions, museums), for the efficiencies it yields and the sophisticated design interpretation it affords, particularly:
These less prescriptive projects need not be stuck with the "broken buildings and busted budgets" [18] described by Barry Lepatner. Rather, the less prescriptive the project, the more the client needs an architect to steward an emergent design from vision to completion. So it follows that for the broadest range of building projects, the rigors of architect-led designâbuild is compelling and preferable where design is of paramount importance to the client.
The process and the knowledge it produces is recursive: Since subcontractors are engaged early and often in an architect-led design build project, to assess efficiencies, opportunity costs, payback rates and quality options. Their input informs overall design decisions from the outset. Cost-benefit is also a constant consideration that informs design decisions from the outset. Building performance is measured early too, so that trade offs between budget, schedule, functionality and usability can inform specification and continuous refinement of the design.
Architects engaged in this dynamic process understand and keep up to date with the potential of contemporary technology [19] and materials available to building professionals, and translate what they learn into their design work. This knowledge is fed back, not just to the specific project but can be shared to other project teams, throughout a studio, or more broadly to the profession, and can become an active source of insight in and of itself.
A 2011 study analyzing the designâbuild project delivery method in the United States shows designâbuild was used on about 40 percent of non-residential construction projects in 2010, a ten percent increase since 2005. The study was commissioned by the Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA) and was completed by RSMeans Reed Construction Data Market Intelligence. [20]
A study from the US Department of Transportation claims that: "Design-build delivery has been steadily increasing in the U.S. public building sector for more than 10 years, but it is still termed experimental in transportation. To date, under Special Experimental Project 14 (SEP-14) the FHWA has approved the use of designâbuild in more than 150 projects, representing just over half of the States. The European countries visited have used designâbuild delivery for a longer time than the United States and provided the scan team with many valuable insights. The primary lessons learned on this scan tour relate to the types of projects using designâbuild, the use of best-value selection, percentage of design in the solicitation, design and construction administration, third-party risks, the use of warranties, and the addition of maintenance and operation to designâbuild contracts." [21]
During the designâbuild procedure, the contractor is deciding on design issues as well as issues related to cost, profits and time exigencies. Whilst the traditional method of construction procurement dissociates the designers from the contractors' interests, designâbuild does not. On these grounds it is considered that the designâbuild procedure is poorly adapted to projects that require complex designs for technical, programmatic or aesthetic purposes. If the designer/architect is 'kept' by the construction company, they probably will never push the envelope as to what might be possible. A notable designâbuild project that received significant criticism, not only for excessive cost but for environmental issues, was the Belmont Learning Center. The scandal involved alleged contaminated soil that caused significant delays and massive cost overruns. [22] In Los Angeles, District Attorney Steve Cooley, who investigated the Los Angeles Unified School District's Belmont project, produced a final investigative report, released March 2003. [23] This report concluded that the designâbuild process caused a number of issues relating to the Belmont scandal:
It concluded the "designâbuild" approach and "mixed-use concept" together caused controversy, uncertainty, and complexity of the Belmont project which helped increase the potential for project failure. While the Belmont investigation cleared the Los Angeles Unified School District of any criminal wrongdoing, the task force recommends strict oversight, including written protocols, a vigorous Office of the Inspector General, and other recommendations if it decides to continue to use the designâbuild approach. During the period in question, the ex-Superintendent of LAUSD, Ramon C. Cortines, working with the LAUSD Board of Education, whose president is Monica Garcia, actively tried to cut the Office of Inspector General by 75% (compromising on 25%) and subsequently removed the Inspector General Jerry Thornton after he produced critical audits that showed misuse of construction funds. [24]
Others have argued that architect-led designâbuild still does: [5] [25] [26]
It also imposes:
Examples of contractor-led designâbuild projects include:
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (
link)
This article needs additional citations for
verification. (January 2011) |
Designâbuild (or design/build, and abbreviated DâB or D/B accordingly), also known as alternative delivery, [1] is a project delivery system used in the construction industry. It is a method to deliver a project in which the design and construction services are contracted by a single entity known as the designâbuilder or designâbuild contractor. It can be subdivided into architect-led designâbuild (ALDB, sometimes known as designer-led designâbuild) and contractor-led designâbuild.
In contrast to " designâbidâbuild" (or "designâtender"), designâbuild relies on a single point of responsibility contract and is used to minimize risks for the project owner and to reduce the delivery schedule by overlapping the design phase and construction phase of a project.
Designâbuild also has a single point responsibility. The design-build contractor is responsible for all work on the project, so the client can seek legal remedies for any fault from one party. [2]
The traditional approach for construction projects consists of the appointment of a designer on one side, and the appointment of a contractor on the other side. The designâbuild procurement route changes the traditional sequence of work. It answers the client's wishes for a single point of responsibility in an attempt to reduce risks and overall costs. Although the use of subcontractors to complete more specialized work is common, the design-build contractor remains the primary contact and primary force behind the work. It is now commonly used in many countries and forms of contracts are widely available.
Designâbuild is sometimes compared to the "master builder" approach, one of the oldest forms of construction procedure. Comparing designâbuild to the traditional method of procurement, the authors of Design-build Contracting Handbook noted that: "from a historical perspective the so-called traditional approach is actually a very recent concept, only being in use approximately 150 years. In contrast, the designâbuild conceptâalso known as the "master builder" conceptâhas been reported as being in use for over four millennia." [3]
Although the Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA) takes the position that designâbuild can be led by a contractor, a designer, a developer or a joint venture, as long as a designâbuild entity holds a single contract for both design and construction, some architects have suggested that architect-led designâbuild is a specific approach to designâbuild.
Design-build plays an important role in pedagogy, both at universities and in independently organised events such as Rural Studio or ArchiCamp.
The "designâbuilder" is often a general contractor, but in many cases a project is led by a design professional ( architect, engineer, architectural technologist or other professional designers). Some designâbuild firms employ professionals from both the design and construction sector. Where the designâbuilder is a general contractor, the designers are typically retained directly by the contractor. Partnership or a joint venture between a design firm and a construction firm may be created on a long-term basis or for one project only.
Until 1979, the AIA American Institute of Architects' code of ethics and professional conduct prohibited their members from providing construction services. However today many architects in the United States and elsewhere aspire to provide integrated design and construction services, and one approach towards this goal is designâbuild. The AIA has acknowledged that designâbuild is becoming one of the main approaches to construction. In 2003, the AIA endorsed "The architect's guide to designâbuild services", [4] which was written to help their members acting as designâbuild contractors. This publication gives guidance through the different phases of the process: design services, contracts, management, insurances, and finances.
On contractor-led designâbuild projects, management is structured so that the owner works directly with a contractor who, in turn, coordinates subcontractors. Architects contribute to contractor-led designâbuild projects in one of several ways, with varying degrees of responsibility (where "A/E" in each diagram represents the architect/engineer):
Architect-led designâbuild projects are those in which interdisciplinary teams of architects and building trades professionals collaborate in an agile management process, where design strategy and construction expertise are seamlessly integrated, and the architect, as owner-advocate, project-steward and team-leader, ensures high fidelity between project aims and outcomes. In architect-led designâbuild projects, the architect works directly with the owner (the client), acts as the designer and builder, coordinating a team of consultants, subcontractors and materials suppliers throughout the project lifecycle.
Architects lead designâbuild projects in several ways, with varying degrees of responsibility (where "A/E" in each diagram represents the architect/engineer):
A single set of integrated contracts combining design and construction responsibilities, rather than two discrete contracts for each, acknowledges the interdependence of the architects' and construction trades' project responsibilities, and reduces the likelihood of disputes. [5]
In 1993, the Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA) [6] was formed. Its membership is composed of design and construction industry professionals as well as project owners. DBIA promotes the value of designâbuild project delivery and teaches the effective integration of design and construction services to ensure success for owners and design and construction practitioners. The Design-Build Institute of America is an organization that defines, teaches and promotes best practices in designâbuild.
The Canadian Design-Build Institute (CDBI) describes itself as "The recognized voice of Design-Build practitioners in Canada, promoting and enhancing the proper use of Design-Build method of procurement and contracting". [7]
Not all designâbuild projects are alike. [8] Here, there is a distinction between designâbuild projects led by contractors and those led by architects. Architect-led Design Build is a form of 'designâbuild' that, according to the DBIA, [9] has been rapidly gaining market share in the United States over the past 15 years.[ timeframe?] The Design Build Institute of America describes the designâbuild process as follows:
Taking singular responsibility, the designâbuild team is accountable for cost, schedule and performance, under a single contract and with reduced administrative paperwork, clients can focus on the project rather than managing disparate contracts. And, by closing warranty gaps, building owners also virtually eliminate litigation claims.
The DBIA's 2005 chart shows the uptake of designâbuild methods in non-residential design and construction in the United States. [10]
Architect-led designâbuild is sometimes known by the more generic name "designer-led designâbuild". Although employed primarily by architects, architectural technologists and other architectural professions, the designâbuild structure works similarly for interior design projects led by an interior designer who is not an architect, and also for engineering projects where the designâbuild team is led by a professional structural, civil, mechanical or other engineers. In addition, it is common for the design professional who leads the designâbuild team to create a separate corporation or similar business entity through which the professional performs the construction and other related non-professional services.[ citation needed]
In 2011, designâbuild continued to gain ground as a significant trend in design and construction. [11]
In March 2011, industry consultants ZweigWhite published "Design-Bid-Build meets the opposition". [12] In it, they suggest that while Design-Bid-Build "still rules", the traditional approach is losing favor as "alternative project delivery methods threaten [the] design-bid-build model." While not referencing the architect-led designâbuild approach specifically, the article states that D/B already accounts for 27% of projects, according to their 2010 Project Management Survey and goes on to argue that,
The emerging trends in delivery seem to point to a return to the primordial concept of the masterbuilder, as exemplified by D/B and IPD [Integrated Project Delivery].
According to the DBIA, the designâbuild approach offers advantages to owners, including: "One team, one contract, one unified flow of work from initial concept through completion." [13]
The rise of designâbuild project delivery has threatened the traditional hierarchies and silos of the design and construction industry. As a result, a debate has emerged over the value of designâbuild as a method of project delivery. [14]
Critics of the designâbuild approach claim that designâbuild limits the clients' involvement in the design and allege that contractors often make design decisions outside their area of expertise. They also suggest that a designerârather than a construction professionalâis a better advocate for the client or project owner and/or that by representing different perspectives and remaining in their separate spheres, designers and builders ultimately create better buildings.
Proponents of designâbuild counter that designâbuild saves time and money for the owner, while providing the opportunity to achieve innovation in the delivered facility. They note that value is added because design-build brings value engineering into the design process at the onset of a project. Designâbuild allows the contractor, engineers and specialty trade contractors (subcontractors) to propose best-value solutions for various construction elements before the design is complete. Designâbuild brings all members of a project team together early in the process to identify and address issues of cost, schedule and constructability. Proponents suggest that as a result, design-build alleviates conflict between architects and contractors and reduces owner risk for design errors. [15] They argue that once design is finalized and construction begins, the greatest opportunity to achieve cost savings has already been lost, and the potential for design errors is greater, leading to change orders that create cost growth and schedule delays. Proponents note that designâbuild allows owners to avoid being placed directly between the architect/engineer and the contractor. Under designâbidâbuild, the owner takes on significant risks because of that position. Designâbuild places the responsibility for design errors and omissions on the designâbuilder, relieving the owner of major legal and managerial responsibilities. The burden for these costs and associated risks are transferred to the designâbuild team.
The cost and schedule reduction and decreased litigation associated with designâbuild project delivery have been demonstrated repeatedly. Researches on Selecting Project Delivery Systems [16] by Victor Sanvido and Mark Konchar of Pennsylvania State University found that designâbuild projects are delivered 33.5% faster than projects that are designed and built under separate contracts (design-bid-build). Sanvido and Konchar also showed that designâbuild projects are constructed 12% faster* and have a unit cost that is 6.1% lower than design-bid-build projects. Similar cost and time savings were found in a comparison study of designâbuild, and design-bid-build for the water/wastewater construction industry, a peer-reviewed paper authored by Smith Culp Consulting that will be published in July 2011 by the American Society of Civil Engineers. [17] A benchmarking and claims study by Victor O. Schinnerer, one of the world's largest firms underwriting professional liability and specialty insurance programs, found that, from 1995 to 2004, only 1.3% of claims against A/E firms were made by designâbuild contractors. Advantages have been summarized as:
Architect-led designâbuild is suited primarily to less prescriptive architectural projects (private residences, non-profit institutions, museums), for the efficiencies it yields and the sophisticated design interpretation it affords, particularly:
These less prescriptive projects need not be stuck with the "broken buildings and busted budgets" [18] described by Barry Lepatner. Rather, the less prescriptive the project, the more the client needs an architect to steward an emergent design from vision to completion. So it follows that for the broadest range of building projects, the rigors of architect-led designâbuild is compelling and preferable where design is of paramount importance to the client.
The process and the knowledge it produces is recursive: Since subcontractors are engaged early and often in an architect-led design build project, to assess efficiencies, opportunity costs, payback rates and quality options. Their input informs overall design decisions from the outset. Cost-benefit is also a constant consideration that informs design decisions from the outset. Building performance is measured early too, so that trade offs between budget, schedule, functionality and usability can inform specification and continuous refinement of the design.
Architects engaged in this dynamic process understand and keep up to date with the potential of contemporary technology [19] and materials available to building professionals, and translate what they learn into their design work. This knowledge is fed back, not just to the specific project but can be shared to other project teams, throughout a studio, or more broadly to the profession, and can become an active source of insight in and of itself.
A 2011 study analyzing the designâbuild project delivery method in the United States shows designâbuild was used on about 40 percent of non-residential construction projects in 2010, a ten percent increase since 2005. The study was commissioned by the Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA) and was completed by RSMeans Reed Construction Data Market Intelligence. [20]
A study from the US Department of Transportation claims that: "Design-build delivery has been steadily increasing in the U.S. public building sector for more than 10 years, but it is still termed experimental in transportation. To date, under Special Experimental Project 14 (SEP-14) the FHWA has approved the use of designâbuild in more than 150 projects, representing just over half of the States. The European countries visited have used designâbuild delivery for a longer time than the United States and provided the scan team with many valuable insights. The primary lessons learned on this scan tour relate to the types of projects using designâbuild, the use of best-value selection, percentage of design in the solicitation, design and construction administration, third-party risks, the use of warranties, and the addition of maintenance and operation to designâbuild contracts." [21]
During the designâbuild procedure, the contractor is deciding on design issues as well as issues related to cost, profits and time exigencies. Whilst the traditional method of construction procurement dissociates the designers from the contractors' interests, designâbuild does not. On these grounds it is considered that the designâbuild procedure is poorly adapted to projects that require complex designs for technical, programmatic or aesthetic purposes. If the designer/architect is 'kept' by the construction company, they probably will never push the envelope as to what might be possible. A notable designâbuild project that received significant criticism, not only for excessive cost but for environmental issues, was the Belmont Learning Center. The scandal involved alleged contaminated soil that caused significant delays and massive cost overruns. [22] In Los Angeles, District Attorney Steve Cooley, who investigated the Los Angeles Unified School District's Belmont project, produced a final investigative report, released March 2003. [23] This report concluded that the designâbuild process caused a number of issues relating to the Belmont scandal:
It concluded the "designâbuild" approach and "mixed-use concept" together caused controversy, uncertainty, and complexity of the Belmont project which helped increase the potential for project failure. While the Belmont investigation cleared the Los Angeles Unified School District of any criminal wrongdoing, the task force recommends strict oversight, including written protocols, a vigorous Office of the Inspector General, and other recommendations if it decides to continue to use the designâbuild approach. During the period in question, the ex-Superintendent of LAUSD, Ramon C. Cortines, working with the LAUSD Board of Education, whose president is Monica Garcia, actively tried to cut the Office of Inspector General by 75% (compromising on 25%) and subsequently removed the Inspector General Jerry Thornton after he produced critical audits that showed misuse of construction funds. [24]
Others have argued that architect-led designâbuild still does: [5] [25] [26]
It also imposes:
Examples of contractor-led designâbuild projects include:
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (
link)