Project Delivery Archives - �鶹��

Design-Build for Education Projects: Progressive and Traditional Approaches

Lindsey Coulter — Wed, 29 Oct 2025 22:42:39 +0000

Caption: Gavilan College worked with the Volz Group and Steinberg Architects to develop a site master plan. | Photo Credit (all): Jason O’Rear

By Aaron Jobson��

In the realm of educational facilities, the design-build project delivery method has gained significant traction due to its efficiency, cost-effectiveness and collaborative nature. This approach, which integrates design and construction services under a single contract, offers a streamlined process with two primary approaches: traditional design-build and progressive design-build. This article will explore the use of design-build project delivery in education projects, comparing the two approaches and looking at successful project examples.��

Understanding Design-Build��

Design-build is a project delivery method where a single entity, known as the design-build entity (DBE), is responsible for both the design and construction of a project under a single contract. This method contrasts with the traditional design-bid-build approach, where the design and construction phases are separate, and the owner must manage two contracts. The design-build method can offer several advantages, including faster project delivery, reduced costs and improved communication and collaboration among project stakeholders. However, there are important considerations for any school project pursuing this delivery method to ensure it is set up for success.��

The Role of Design-Build in Education Projects��

Educational institutions are increasingly adopting the design-build method for their construction projects. The reasons for this shift are manifold:��

Efficiency and Speed: The design-build method allows for overlapping design and construction phases, which can significantly reduce the overall project timeline. This is particularly important for educational institutions that often face tight schedules and need to minimize disruptions to the academic calendar.��
Cost Savings and Certainty: By integrating design and construction services, the design-build method can reduce costs associated with project management and coordination. Additionally, the DBE can provide a guaranteed maximum price early in the process, offering greater cost certainty.��
Collaboration and Innovation: The design-build method fosters a collaborative environment where the design and construction teams work together from the project’s inception. This collaboration can lead to innovative solutions that enhance the functionality and sustainability of educational facilities.��

Traditional Design-Build Approach��

The 35,000 square-foot facility includes a welcome desk, lobby, café, community room, administrative offices, learning resource center, two computer labs, four general lecture classrooms, three science labs and a flex lab.

The traditional design-build approach involves selecting a DBE based on a competitive bidding process. The DBE is responsible for both the design and construction phases, and the project is typically delivered under a lump sum or guaranteed maximum price contract. Key features of the traditional design-build approach include:��

Single Point of Responsibility: The owner works with one contract, simplifying communication and accountability.��
Faster Project Delivery: With design and construction phases overlapping, projects often progress more quickly.��
Cost Certainty: The DBE provides a lump sum or guaranteed maximum price early in the process.��
Bridging Documents and RFQ/P: The district or school must engage a separate architecture or program management firm to work with stakeholders to create a preliminary design for the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Proposals (P) process, often called bridging documents. This is essential to make sure the DBE scope is clear, and the district receives competitive proposals.��

This approach is well-suited for projects with defined scopes, minimal expected changes and a short timeframe for completion.�� Some of the challenges can be the time required to create bridging documents and conduct the RFQ/P process, as well as potential changes in design and approach from the bridging documents to the DBE team. It should also be noted that the district gives up a certain amount of control over the details of the final design to the DBE to stay within the contracted guaranteed maximum price.��

Progressive Design-Build Approach��

The progressive design-build approach builds on the principles of traditional design-build but offers greater flexibility during the early stages of a project. In progressive design-build, the owner selects a DBE based on qualifications rather than cost and collaborates closely during the design phase before finalizing the price and construction details. Key features of the progressive design-build approach include:��

Two-Phase Process: The project is developed in two stages: pre-construction (collaborative planning and design) and construction.��
Owner Involvement: Owners actively participate in design decisions, ensuring alignment with project goals.��
Flexibility: This approach allows adjustments to scope, budget and schedule as the design progresses and includes significant community engagement during the process.��
Streamlined Selection Process: Because the DBE does not provide a guaranteed maximum price at selection, a combined RFQ/P process can be used, and separate bridging documents are not required.��

The progressive design-build approach is ideal for complex projects with evolving or uncertain budget, scope and design requirements. It is particularly beneficial for educational institutions that need to accommodate changing needs and priorities and would like to include significant community engagement throughout the project lifecycle.��

To read the full article, including a case study on Gavilan College, check out��the of �鶹��.��

Aaron Jobson is president and CEO of Quattrocchi Kwok Architects in Santa Rosa and Oakland, Calif., and is a member of the �鶹�� Editorial Advisory Board. He can be reached at aaronj@qka.com.

The post Design-Build for Education Projects: Progressive and Traditional Approaches appeared first on �鶹��.

Jeremy Dearborn

School News — Mon, 07 Apr 2025 22:29:25 +0000

HDR, a global professional services firm specializing in architecture, engineering, environmental and construction services, recently welcome Jeremy Dearborn, LEED AP, to the Boston team as an education and science principal.��

Dearborn has worked in design and architectural project management for almost three decades, and most recently served for 12 years as senior project manager with Chicago-based architecture and planning firm Perkins+Will. In this position, Dearborn worked globally with diverse sectors such as information technology, pharmaceutical, biotechnology and more to create high-quality design and deliverables. Dearborn holds both a bachelor’s degree and master’s degree in architecture from Norwich University in Northfield, Vt.��

The post Jeremy Dearborn appeared first on �鶹��.

School Procurement

This is a historic period for players in the school construction sector. There is now an abundance of funding available to make improvements to the physical plants and facilities at our nation’s schools. The race is on for districts and various entities to reach out and qualify for this money.

However, this economic-stimulus momentum poses the threat of haste, a dangerous rush through the procurement process that could: 1) result in uncompleted projects and cost overruns, 2) cause widespread criticism and negative scrutiny, and 3) mean a prohibition and halt of similar support for many years to come.

It is critical that titleholders at school districts in business operations, procurement or buildings and grounds undertake a careful examination of the contractors and building trades enterprises they are engaging. They need to make sure these vendors and service providers have the performance capacity, credit scores and financing capacity to handle the work.

Contractors and subs who have been working under rigorous cost accountability the past several years may be tempted by laxity, in their hurry to get at the pot of public works funding. Not adhering to the business discipline they have followed in the recent difficult period could pose a latent threat to their finances. Because of this latest massive public works initiative, many of the highest quality contractors are already at capacity with work orders.

Be wary of contractors and subs coming in extremely low on bids in order to walk away with the job — figuring that they are going to make up what they are missing on the back end through change-orders. While this sounds professionally demeaning and unethical, school officials can easily get drawn into becoming the unwitting victims. Sadly, this scenario can get further complicated through local politics, where contract decisions and monetary commitments are then made on the basis of who knows who.

A key integrity safeguard for school procurement officers means using a construction risk-management strategy that evaluates a contractor’s ability to perform on a project. If the contractor is capable of doing the work, the next important question is: Where will the contractor get the working capital and cash flow necessary to pay for labor, materials and all related costs while it is waiting to get paid by the school district or general contractor?

The general contractor and its subs are financing a project and usually they are not going to get paid for 45 to 60 days after they physically start construction. Bid bonds, payment, and performance bonds should be required. Bonding through a surety brings about the performance evaluation along with a guarantee of the work according to the terms of the contract.

A designated construction risk manager, employing a funds control disbursement system, must keep close tabs on the project’s production schedule. This administrator has to evaluate all invoices against the project’s schedule of values to insure that funds are only advanced on specific budgeted job costs.

Checks are written here for payroll, benefits, taxes, and every deduction and job specific overhead for insurance, trailer rental, portable bathrooms, and other similar costs. Every item gets coded and every time funds are disbursed, the disbursement is debited against the cost codes in the budget and the schedule of values.

Funds control provides an extremely high level of certainty to owners, general contractors, subcontractors, sureties and lenders that project funds and advances pay budgeted job costs and nothing more. As the job gets started, disbursement is cost projected over a number of weeks.

Why wouldn’t a contractor or sub want to do this? Because of the controls that ensure that the money only goes to pay the specified allocated items, defined according to the project. There are easy temptations to use the funds for something else — steel instead of concrete or a different job.

In the past, general contractors have given their subs money and autonomy to buy whatever they want. Temptation and weakness to use this money for something else does not necessarily appear to be wrong, but it can severely undermine the project in question for which a contractor or sub has received money.

In today’s environment, a factor using a funds control program should not have a problem with a surety being in first position with receivables. The factor will have already paid the people that have any rights to file a claim against the bond for the project. The factor is really helping to perfect the payment bond, working hand-in-hand with the surety.

All public works projects over $25,000 require bonding from sureties, which are required to be first in line on receivables. How factors advance becomes the issue. Factors using funds control people can advance because they have control mechanisms in place to assure that all of the lien-holders are paid. Factors can work well with the surety because of the control mechanism on bonded public works.

Factors are able to allow sureties who have disbursement programs, the financial administration on the projects they finance. Sureties will generally not issue a bond to a contractor who lacks adequate working capital. Many times a sub cannot qualify for bonding without a factor, especially since banks will not finance a sub when a surety is involved.

According to recent studies, the average age of school buildings in America is 42 years old, with 45 percent built between 1950 and 1969, and more than 60 percent reporting at least one serious maintenance problem. This economic stimulus allocation poses an enormous, rarely seen opportunity. It would be a national tragedy if school administrators waste it. It will be a profound contribution to our economy if school administrators properly use and demonstrate value for what is now available, to its fullest extent.

Earl Harper is senior vice president at RMP Capital Corp., a national factor specializing in public works construction based in Islandia, N.Y. Harper also serves as president of the Central Texas chapter of the Construction Financial Management Association.

The post School Procurement appeared first on �鶹��.

Project Delivery Archives - �鶹������