What Contractors Might Miss About Progressive Design-Build Partnering

Three months into a Progressive Design-Build contract, a federal project can face a difficult decision about scope. The owner might want the project delivered faster, the designer might be trying to protect their design responsibility, and the contractor will be stuck managing cost and schedule. If the team has not agreed on who has the decision authority, the work will probably slow while each party debates its role.

Establishing clear decision authority gives contractors a way to prevent that delay. Many articles and guides discuss Progressive Design-Build (PDB), including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Partnering Playbook and Federal Highway Administration material. Much of the available guidance explains the delivery method from an owner’s or project team’s perspective. However, contractors need guidance on how to manage the different incentives of all parties involved.

A PDB project depends on decisions that come from stakeholders including the owner, the designer, and the prime contractor. Goals can support one another when stakeholders agree on how to make decisions. Without that agreement, each party may see a different path forward resulting in project delays, scope creep, or increased costs.

Rarely do good intentions settle disagreements. Team members may commit to collaboration but find themselves losing weeks debating who has decision authority to resolve a conflict. Before mobilization, the team needs to define who has that authority, who provides input, and when the decision must be made.

The USACE Partnering Playbook offers owners a useful model through its Three C’s: Commitment, Communication, and Collaboration. The playbook ties those principles to team commitment, communication, and shared project goals. Contractors can learn from the partnering model by looking beyond the call for collaboration. Collaboration can produce better results when a clear process supports it.

Prime contractors need to focus on decision authority as they enter a PDB project. A clear authority framework can give collaboration a practical purpose. It can also help each party understand how to raise concerns and resolve them through a structured framework.

Federal projects have shown how much the decision process can affect coordination. Projects move well when the team formally defines who has decision authority prior to, or in the early stages of, starting work. Projects will struggle when the team expects authority to emerge as the work progresses. If it eventually emerges, quite often it is too late.

Progressive Design-Build changes how the parties should work together. In traditional DBB, the owner hires the designer, the designer prepares specifications, and the contractor builds according to those specifications. The contract sets out the parties’ roles and provides a process for resolving disputes. FHWA describes design-bid-build as a sequence in which design is completed before construction is separately contracted.

Progressive Design-Build brings the contractor into design and requires the owner and project team to develop the scope, schedule, and budget together. FHWA describes the method as early contractor involvement, with constructability and cost feedback as the design develops. The parties make decisions across design and construction periods in a more integrated process. A process built for sequential work may not guide those decisions very well.

More collaboration rarely resolves unclear authority by itself. The team needs to establish decision authority first, then use collaboration to make and carry out those decisions.

A useful framework covers five decision categories before the team starts designing. Each category should identify the decision owner, the parties who provide input, the timeline, and the steps for resolving disagreement. The framework also needs to explain how the team will document decisions.

Scope and requirements decisions belong to the owner. The process should set a clear timeline and explain how the owner will approve additions or deletions. The designer and contractor can provide input, while the owner determines and documents what falls within the agreed scope. A defined process helps the team make these decisions in meetings and record the outcome.

Design and constructability decisions need a clear sequence. The designer leads decisions about design intent, while the contractor reviews how the design will work during construction. The designer then makes the design decision after considering the contractor’s feedback. If that feedback identifies an unacceptable cost or schedule impact, the owner can resolve the disagreement. This sequence lets each party contribute while keeping responsibility clear.

Construction-phase decisions belong to the contractor when they concern means and methods. The contractor should notify the designer about site conditions that affect design intent and notify the owner about conditions that may change scope. The designer and owner then have a chance to raise concerns before the contractor commits resources. This process keeps the contractor responsible for execution while giving the other parties needed visibility.

Cost and schedule coordination should use one shared baseline. The three parties can update that baseline together and record how they plan to address risks. A common set of figures helps the team focus on recovery steps instead of debating which numbers to use. The process should also identify who can approve a recovery plan when the parties disagree.

Change management needs a defined process because federal projects often face changes. Design assumptions may prove inaccurate, site conditions may differ from expectations, or government-furnished property may arrive late. Requiring unanimous agreement for every change can delay approval and stall work. Allowing the contractor to make unilateral changes can lead to disputes with the owner and designer. A clear authority framework and escalation path help the team review changes through an agreed process.

Teams struggle when they expect the partnership to resolve conflicts on their own. They need to help establish the governance that allows the partnership to work. A defined process gives the team a way to resolve them without disrupting the contract.

Effective partnering begins with governance. The team should define decision authority, build a decision process, and use the partnership to carry out decisions. Deliberate preparation helps the parties address pressure and competing incentives without inventing a process during a conflict.

Clear governance helps the team make decisions and keep work moving.