Planning a new industrial facility is a significant undertaking that starts with choosing the right project delivery method. In today’s industrial construction market, you have two main options.
The design, send out to bid, then build… process represents the traditional construction approach, following a sequential building process that outsources steps to individual companies. Meanwhile, the design-build approach is a faster alternative with single-point accountability and overlapping stages.
Explore the differences between design-build construction vs. the traditional way of building to understand which is right for your next industrial build project.
How Traditional Construction (Design-Bid-Build) Works
The traditional design-bid-build (DBB) process follows a linear construction project delivery method in which designing, bidding, and construction happen sequentially, often through distinct contracts.
The Sequential Process and Its Impact on Industrial Timelines
The DBB approach usually follows these steps, which happen one at a time:
- Hire a designer and architect of record
- Finish full plans
- Send plans to contractors for competitive bidding
- Choose a general contractor based on the submitted construction documents
- Start building
Where Owners Carry the Most Risk
Design-bid-build places more risk on the project owner, including budget overruns and scheduling delays. The overall timeline of the project is dependent upon the completion of each stage, which means delays are common.
How Design-Build Construction Works
In contrast, design-build construction presents a new approach in which construction phasing happens concurrently rather than linearly. Instead of working with separate teams, you can hire one company to do everything under a single contract.
One Team, One Contract, One Timeline
Having a single point of responsibility allows for better planning, communication, and collaboration throughout your industrial project. Staying within deadline and budget constraints becomes easier when all parties involved in the project are operating within the same company and under unified management.
Overlapping Phases That Compress Project Schedules
In the design-build approach, design and construction phases overlap rather than happening one by one. This compresses timelines and improves coordination between the teams involved in each phase.
How Vertical Integration Goes a Step Further
At ENQOR, we are a vertically integrated construction contractor that take this approach a step further through in-house steel fabrication. This gives the builder direct control over both steel production and construction scheduling for even faster timelines, fewer delays, and more predictable costs.
Five Key Differences That Affect Industrial Facility Projects
The differences between these approaches directly affect the timeline, cost, and risk.
Timeline and Schedule Performance
The design-build process often allows for a faster timeline and better adherence to pre-planned project schedules. A 2018 study by the Construction Industry Institute (CII) and Charles Pankow Foundation found that design-build completed projects up to 102% faster compared to design-bid-build. This is primarily due to the concurrent design-build stages, in which processes from each stage can happen simultaneously rather than needing to wait for one stage to be complete before moving forward.
Vertically integrated construction further benefits project scheduling by removing reliance on third-party steel suppliers and their lead times. Steel production can start earlier in the process for a tighter timeline overall.
Cost Certainty and Change Order Frequency
Another design-build benefit is increased cost certainty and reduced change order frequency. Consolidating design and construction under a single contract allows construction expertise to inform design decisions and vice versa, preventing expensive issues that may arise down the line in the DBB process.
Shortening project timelines also limits exposure to market-driven material price increases that may increase overall costs. With a vertically integrated design-build approach, the risk of price changes decreases further due to less reliance on third-party vendors.
Risk Distribution Between Owner and Builder
The distribution of risk between owners and builders is significantly different between design-build and design-bid-build project delivery methods. In the traditional design-bid-build approach:
- The owner’s risk is high. They act as the intermediary between the designer and contractor and assume risk for design errors and omissions.
- The builder’s risk is low. Contractors are only responsible for building according to the provided plans.
Meanwhile, in the design-build approach:
- The owner’s risk is low. The design-build company takes on the risk of design errors, construction quality, and project scheduling, not the owner.
- The builder’s risk is high. The builder or DB entity has increased liability compared to the DBB approach.
Manufacturing plant owners who want to minimize their risk often choose the design-build approach to pass liability over to the design-build entity.
Communication and Coordination Across Trades
In the traditional design-bid-build approach, collaboration is a challenge because each process is handled by an independent, outsourced team. In design-build, one entity oversees the entire industrial project, and trades can directly coordinate schedules, timelines, and costs to fast-track construction. A vertically integrated approach allows for even fewer handoffs, as design, building, and fabrication all happen under the same roof.
Flexibility During Construction
With the traditional construction approach, making changes to plans is often challenging because it requires coordinating with multiple teams. Design-build is a more flexible process, and vertically integrated design-build entities allow for even faster changes.
Why Manufacturing and Industrial Projects Favour Design-Build
The design-build approach has proven to be an effective alternative to traditional construction methods for many types of projects, but manufacturing and industrial projects have unique challenges that you must evaluate when choosing the right delivery method.
Design-Build Adoption Trends in Manufacturing
Industry research on design-build adoption tracks how different sectors use this delivery method. Across North America, manufacturing consistently ranks among the three industries holding the greatest share of design-build spending. According to FMI research, manufacturing holds the largest share of design-build construction spending at 21% of total volume through 2028. Design-build also facilitates greater use of prefabrication, with three quarters of industry respondents reporting that the delivery method improves prefabrication utilization.
How In-House Fabrication Accelerates Industrial Builds
Combining design-build with a vertically integrated in-house fabrication approach further streamlines the industrial construction process. Steel is critical in industrial builds, and fabrication delays can significantly extend construction timelines even within the design-build model.
In-house fabrication aligns production precisely with construction schedules, reduces shipping and logistics delays, and removes queue times, allowing for fully turnkey delivery.
When Traditional Construction Still Makes Sense
When comparing design-build construction vs. the traditional step-by-step process, it is important to evaluate times in which the DBB model may still be preferable, such as:
- When the project owner wants maximum control over the design
- When the owner wants to facilitate competitive bidding for the lowest price.
- When the project is fairly standardized and low-risk
Vertically Integrated Design-Build in Practice
For companies planning industrial facilities in Ontario, working with a vertically integrated design-build firm can reduce timelines and risk. Enqor is a vertically integrated industrial builder in Leamington, Ontario, that combines in-house design, a 208,000 square-foot steel fabrication facility, and full construction capabilities under one roof.
Review our MC3 Manufacturing case study to see how our vertically integrated approach benefited a past manufacturing facility build. If you are planning an industrial facility in Ontario, contact Enqor for a consultation.