Design-Build: Why Some Don’t
As Battaglia, a leader in the Design-Build community, we have observed several factors that influence the decision of clients when considering the Design-Build approach versus traditional construction methods. The choice not to engage in Design-Build often stems from various organizational structures and pre-established processes.
In some cases, large corporations possess their own construction divisions, mandating adherence to specific protocols. This traditional method, typically involving separate entities for design and construction, necessitates obtaining detailed drawings prior to soliciting bids for construction work. Such a procedure is especially prevalent in sectors like retail, commercial, and franchising, where a corporate construction division oversees the process.
Design-Build, in contrast, tends to appeal more to projects that are owner-driven. This approach enables the owner to work closely with a general contractor (GC), thereby exercising comprehensive control over both design and construction aspects. The integration of design and construction services not only streamlines communication but also often leads to more efficient project delivery, cost savings, and a cohesive vision from inception to completion.
Moreover, the flexibility and collaborative nature of Design-Build are particularly advantageous for smaller or medium-scale projects where direct owner involvement is feasible and desirable. This contrasts with larger corporate structures where the separation of design and construction functions may be ingrained in their operational model.
Understanding these distinctions helps Battaglia tailor our services to meet the unique needs of each client, whether they prefer the integrated approach of Design-Build or the more segmented traditional construction methods. Our expertise lies in adapting to diverse project requirements and ensuring excellence in delivery, regardless of the chosen methodology.
