Every construction project allocates risk. Assessing the construction project delivery method by risk determines how much exposure you take on as the owner. Explore five common construction delivery methods across cost, schedule, design, performance, and coordination risk so you can choose the approach that best fits your project.
The Five Risk Questions Every Owner Should Ask
Your delivery method should address these risk questions across these categories:
- Cost risk. Who bears cost overruns? Is the contract price fixed, reimbursable, or capped with a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)?
- Schedule risk. Who bears delay risk? Does the method require sequential phases, or can design and construction overlap?
- Design risk. Who bears the risk of design errors or omissions? Does the owner retain a separate architect, or does one entity hold both responsibilities?
- Performance risk. Who bears the risk of construction quality failures?
- Coordination risk. Who bears the risk of trade conflicts? Does one entity coordinate all trades, or does the owner hold separate contracts with each contractor?
How Different Construction Delivery Methods Manage Risk
Design-Bid-Build Separates Design and Construction Risk
Design-bid-build is the traditional sequence: the owner hires an architect to complete the design, then takes competitive bids from contractors and awards a fixed-price contract. Design and construction are separate contracts with separate parties.
The owner carries design risk through the owner-architect agreement. If the design contains errors or omissions, the consequences typically flow through to the contractor in the form of change orders. The contractor carries construction risk under a stipulated-sum contract, and once the price is set, any cost overruns are the contractor’s responsibility.
Because design is completed before construction begins, the owner has a fully defined scope before committing to the construction price. The architect and contractor hold separate contracts with the owner, so coordination between the two runs through the owner rather than directly between the parties.
Best fit when: Your scope is well defined, and price transparency matters most.
AIA design-bid-build documents:
Design-Build Puts Accountability Under One Roof
Design-build consolidates design and construction under a single contract with one party. The design-builder carries both design risk and construction risk. Errors in design, coordination failures, and construction quality issues all flow to the same party, simplifying accountability for the owner.
The trade-off is reduced design oversight and an earlier scope commitment. If the scope is not well defined when the design-build contract is signed, the owner may lose cost certainty.
Best fit when: Speed and single-point accountability are your top priorities.
AIA documents for design-build:
- A141™ – Agreement Between Owner and Design-Builder
- A142™ – Agreement Between Design-Builder and Contractor
- B143™ – Agreement Between Design-Builder and Architect
Considerations for Progressive Design-Build
Progressive design-build is a variant worth considering. In progressive design-build projects, the owner and design-builder work collaboratively throughout the early design phases under a cost-reimbursable arrangement before agreeing to a GMP or stipulated sum. The owner retains more design influence during early phases, and the two parties defer pricing until the scope is better defined.
Best fit when: You need collaboration before locking in a final price. View all progressive design-build agreements.
CMc Uses a GMP To Cap Cost Risk
In the construction manager as constructor (CMc) model, also called CMAR, the owner hires a construction manager for the project during design. The CMc provides preconstruction services alongside the architect, then transitions to construction under a GMP.
The GMP caps the owner’s cost exposure. If construction costs exceed that ceiling, the CMc absorbs them. The CMc’s early involvement also reduces schedule risk because constructability issues get resolved during design rather than in the field.
Design risk still flows through a separate owner-architect agreement, the same as in design-bid-build. The owner retains design risk, and the CMc carries construction risk above the GMP.
Best fit when: You want GMP protection with early contractor involvement.
AIA documents for CMc:
- A133™ – Agreement Between Owner and Construction Manager as Constructor (CMc) With Guaranteed Maximum Price
- A134™ – Agreement Between Owner and Construction Manager as Constructor (CMc) Without Guaranteed Maximum Price
- A201® – General Conditions of the Contract for Construction
Construction Manager as Constructor vs. Design-Build
Both models bring contractors in early, but accountability is structured differently. In the CMc model, the owner has a direct relationship with the architect, which means more design influence and exposure.
In design-build, design and construction risk are consolidated under one party. Owners who want design input alongside cost protection often choose CMc with GMP.
CMa Keeps Risk With the Contractor
The construction manager as adviser (CMa) model brings a construction manager in to advise and represent the owner, but not as the constructor. The CMa does not hold trade contracts or carry construction risk.
- Separate contractors perform construction under separate agreements.
- Construction risk remains with the contractor holding the prime agreement.
- Design risk remains with the owner through the architect contract.
The CMa’s risk profile is closer to design-bid-build than to construction manager as constructor. The CM’s value is in managing complexity across multiple contracts, not in absorbing risk.
Construction manager as adviser is a practical choice for experienced owners managing large or complex programs who want independent professional oversight without moving their adviser into a constructor role.
Best fit when: You need independent oversight on a complex project.
AIA documents for CMa:
- A132™ – Agreement Between Owner and Contractor Construction Manager as Advisor (CMa)
- B132™ – Agreement Between Owner and Architect Construction Manager as Advisor (CMa)
- C132™ – Agreement Between Owner and Construction Manager as Advisor (CMa)
Integrated Project Delivery: Shared Risk, Shared Reward
Integrated project delivery (IPD) is built around shared decision-making, shared risk, and shared reward. The owner, architect, and contractor sign a single multi-party agreement. Risk and reward are shared across all three parties, including financial upside if the project performs better than targets.
The integrated project delivery agreement establishes a shared target cost and a shared savings or risk pool. If costs stay within target, all parties benefit. If costs overrun, all parties contribute to the resolution. That shared structure creates alignment incentives no other delivery model can match.
Integrated project delivery demands a high level of trust and open-book accounting from all participants. It is not suited to every project or team, but for complex projects where design, engineering, and construction require deep collaboration from early phases, it can significantly reduce waste and disputes.
Best fit when: Collaboration and shared outcomes outweigh traditional risk allocation.
AIA documents for IDP:
- C191™ – Multi-Party Agreement for Integrated Project Delivery
- C195™ – Single Purpose Entity Agreement for Integrated Project Delivery
Delivery Methods Across the Five Risk Questions
The table below summarizes how each delivery method allocates risk across the five risk questions.
| Project Type | Cost Risk | Schedule Risk | Design Risk | Performance Risk | Coordination Risk |
Design-Bid-Build | 🟩 Fixed-Price | 🟥 Sequential | 🟥 Owner | 🟨 Contractor | 🟥 Owner |
Design-Build | 🟨 Scope Driven | 🟩 Fast-Track | 🟩 Single Entity | 🟩 Single Entity | 🟩 Single Entity |
CMc (GMP) | 🟩 GMP Cap | 🟨 Early Input | 🟥 Owner | 🟨 Shared | 🟨 CMc Leads |
CMa | 🟨 Variable | 🟧 Complex | 🟥 Owner | 🟥 Owner | 🟧 Owner |
IPD | 🤝 Shared Pool | 🤝 Shared Goals | 🤝 Shared Team | 🤝 Shared Team | 🤝 Shared Team |
Key
🟩 Lower owner exposure
🟨 Shared or manageable exposure
🟧 Meaningful owner exposure
🟥 Significant owner exposure
🤝 Risk intentionally shared among parties
Match Your Risk Tolerance to the Right Delivery Method
Every project is different, but these guidelines can provide a useful starting point to choose the best delivery method.
- Use design-bid-build when your project scope is well defined before construction begins and competitive price certainty is your priority. Design-bid-build gives you the most transparent market-tested price, and the fixed-price contract protects you once construction starts.
- Use design-build when you want a single point of accountability for design and construction, your schedule cannot accommodate sequential phases, and you can define performance outcomes clearly. Consider using progressive design-build if you need design collaboration before locking on a final price.
- Use a CMc with GMP when you want cost certainty with early contractor involvement. CMc gives you more design control than design-build while still protecting against cost overruns.
- Use a CMa when you are managing a complex, multi-contract program and want independent professional oversight without moving your adviser into a constructor role.
- Use IDP when your project demands deep design-construction collaboration from the earliest phases, all three parties can operate under an open-book model, and shared risk and reward are acceptable to your organization.
Find the Contract That Fits Your Delivery Method
Once you have identified the delivery method that fits your project, the next step is selecting agreements that align with that risk profile. The right contract structure helps ensure responsibilities, expectations, and risk allocation match the way your project will be delivered.
With an unlimited subscription, you get access to the full document library across every delivery method, so the right contract is ready when you are.
