Integrated project delivery (IPD) is a collaborative delivery method that brings the owner, architect, contractor, and other key participants into the process early. In full IPD, the primary participants work under a multi-party agreement that aligns project goals, decision-making, risk, and financial incentives.
This early alignment helps project teams address design and constructability challenges when solutions are less costly. Some parties, however, find the multi-party structure unfamiliar or hard to manage.
AIA Contract Documents (ACD) publishes standard agreements for delivery methods that retain early collaboration through familiar two-party contracts. Progressive design-build, construction manager as constructor (CMc), and standard design-build each offer a different balance of collaboration, accountability, and risk. Choosing the right structure can help your team build smart from the start.
Why IPD Appeals to Project Teams, and Why Some Teams Hesitate
IPD aligns the owner, architect, and contractor around one outcome. All three parties sign a single agreement and decide as one team, with compensation tied to project results. Shared incentives surface problems early, when the team still has options.
Full IPD uses C191™ – Multi-Party Agreement for Integrated Project Delivery. C191 brings the primary project participants under one agreement. A separate transitional IPD model uses A195™ – Agreement Between Owner and Contractor for Integrated Project Delivery and B195™ – Agreement Between Owner and Architect for Integrated Project Delivery, both of which incorporate A295™ – General Conditions, Integrated Project Delivery.
IPD suits large, complex projects with teams experienced in collaborative delivery. Schools, stadiums, hospitals, and shopping centers are common examples.
The barriers are practical. IPD requires the project team to invest in relationships before design begins, and the owner’s organization needs people who can decide in real time. Smaller organizations may lack the staff for that level of coordination. If the project team can’t agree to C191 during review, the next step is to determine which agreement structure will support collaboration and work for everyone involved.
What to Watch for in a Custom IPD Agreement
Because IPD is a less conventional delivery method, an owner may have opportunities to structure the contract in ways that favor their interests and shift IPD’s benefits, risks, and trade-offs to other project participants. Owners typically drive the decision to use IPD and may take the lead in drafting a custom or heavily modified agreement. Labeling an agreement “IPD” does not mean its risk allocation reflects the collaborative principles typically associated with the delivery method.
Owners and other project participants should carefully review custom or heavily modified IPD agreements for provisions that:
- Put the design and construction team’s profit at risk without offering a comparable opportunity to earn shared savings or other incentives. One of IPD’s defining features is the alignment of risk and reward among project participants. If a compensation structure primarily benefits the owner, other project participants should view that as a significant red flag.
- Create overly complicated or formal payment procedures. Contractual tripping hazards that delay or reduce payment may be buried in the fine print of a custom IPD agreement. Review notice and documentation requirements, conditions precedent, and other procedural requirements that could affect payment.
- Give the owner unilateral control over project governance. Collaborative governance may be undermined when the owner has sole decision-making authority over matters such as the use of contingency funds, schedule changes, force majeure relief for events outside the parties’ control, scope changes, and related costs.
- Give the owner unilateral control over dispute resolution. Review provisions that allow the owner to determine how disputes are resolved, who decides them, or what remedies are available.
- Depart substantially from the AIA standard forms. The AIA standard forms are developed with balanced risk allocation and fairness among project participants as central goals. A heavily modified or custom agreement may not reflect those same considerations.
Progressive Design-Build: The Closest Alternative to IPD
Progressive design-build (PDB) is governed by A141PDB® – Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Design-Builder for a Progressive Design-Build Project. It’s a standalone agreement, not an add-on to standard design-build.
Under progressive design-build, the owner typically selects a design-builder based on qualifications before a baseline design exists. The owner and the design-builder then work together to develop the project’s design, scope, schedule, budget, and quality requirements. Pricing develops as the design advances, allowing the parties to align the design and budget before they establish the final contract sum, often as a guaranteed maximum price (GMP).
Unlike full IPD, PDB uses two-party agreements. The owner contracts with the design-builder, and the design-builder retains the architect under B141PDB™ – Standard Form of Agreement Between Design-Builder and Architect for a Progressive Design-Build Project.
The design-builder holds primary responsibility to the owner for design and construction, so PDB does not distribute risk and incentives across the owner, architect, and builder in the same way as full IPD. PDB can fit complex projects that need builder input while design is still developing and where the owner prefers one accountable partner to a multi-party agreement.
CMc: Early Collaboration With a Cost Ceiling
Construction manager as constructor (CMc) delivery, also called CM at Risk or CMAR, is governed by A133™ – Agreement Between Owner and Construction Manager as Constructor (CMc) With Guaranteed Maximum Price, which incorporates A201® – General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. For early involvement without a GMP, use A134™ – Agreement Between Owner and Construction Manager as Constructor (CMc) Without Guaranteed Maximum Price.
CMc brings the construction manager in during design. The construction manager reviews constructability, develops cost estimates, advises on scheduling as drawings progress, and can procure long-lead items and begin authorized early work. With A133, the owner and construction manager establish a GMP that sets the owner’s cost ceiling, subject to the agreement’s terms and approved changes.
Unlike IPD, CMc keeps the contracts separate. The owner holds separate agreements with the architect and the construction manager, and the CM carries construction risk rather than sharing it across the team. Unlike PDB, design and construction remain under separate contracts, preserving the owner’s direct relationship with the architect.
When the owner wants independent advice without shifting construction risk to the construction manager, the parties can use C132™ – Agreement Between Owner and Construction Manager as Advisor.
ACD also publishes A135™ – Agreement Between Owner and Construction Manager as Constructor (CMc) for Collaborative Project Delivery With Guaranteed Maximum Price and B135™ – Agreement Between Owner and Architect for Collaborative Project Delivery Construction Manager as Constructor (CMc).
These coordinated agreements incorporate IPD principles, including team management and open communication, while retaining the familiar CMc contract structure and compensation model. For owners who want more collaboration without adopting full IPD, A135 offers a practical bridge.
Design-Build: Single-Point Responsibility With Collaborative Potential
Standard design-build is governed by A141™ – Agreement Between Owner and Design-Builder, with A142™ – Agreement Between Design-Builder and Contractor and B143™ – Agreement Between Design-Builder and Architect addressing the downstream relationships.
Design-build places design and construction under one responsible party. The owner signs one contract with the design-builder, which takes responsibility for coordinating the designer and builder. This structure can reduce the owner’s administrative burden and shorten the project schedule.
Compared with IPD, standard design-build offers less shared decision-making among the owner, architect, and builder. Compared with PDB, it generally gives the owner less involvement in developing the design and price after selection.
The advantage is broad applicability. Design-build can work across project sizes and is often a fit when speed and single-point accountability matter more than shared design development. Common applications include commercial, industrial, and repeat-program work.
Choosing Your Path: A Decision Framework for Owners
Start by asking how much collaboration the project needs and how much contractual complexity the organization can carry. Then compare how each method allocates design responsibility, construction risk, cost control, and decision-making authority. Select the most collaborative structure the team can execute and manage. When risk allocation is the deciding factor, compare the delivery methods by risk first.
KEY: 🟥Maximum Collaboration 🟨High Collaboration 🟦Moderate Collaboration
Delivery Method | Collaboration Level | AIA Contract Documents | Best Suited For |
Full IPD | 🟥 Multi-party agreement with shared goals, risk, and incentives | Large, complex projects with experienced, collaborative teams | |
Progressive design-build | 🟨 Owner and design-builder develop design, scope, and price together | Complex projects needing early builder input without a multi-party agreement | |
CMc for collaborative delivery | 🟨 CMc joins during design under collaborative terms and a GMP | Owners seeking IPD-style collaboration in a familiar CMc structure | |
CMc | 🟨-🟦 CM joins during design, GMP optional | Owners wanting early builder input, a separate architect, and optional cost certainty | |
Standard design-build | 🟦 Design-builder coordinates design and construction under one owner agreement | Projects prioritizing speed and single-point accountability |
For further comparison, review AIA contract documents by delivery method.
Find the Right Contract for Your Delivery Method
For each major delivery method, AIA Contract Documents offers a coordinated family of standard agreements designed to work together. Get access to the agreements, exhibits, and administrative forms for your delivery method, and improve your workflow with a contract management system.
Frequently Asked Questions
The primary alternatives are progressive design-build under A141PDB, construction manager as constructor under A133, and standard design-build under A141. Each offers early collaboration through two-party contracts instead of a multi-party agreement. Progressive design-build most closely mirrors IPD’s early collaboration between the owner and builder, while A135 and B135 incorporate selected IPD principles into a CMc structure.
IPD uses a multi-party agreement, such as C191, that aligns the owner, architect, contractor, and potentially other participants through shared goals, risk, and incentives. Progressive design-build uses two-party agreements under A141PDB and B141PDB. The owner and design-builder develop the design, scope, schedule, and budget together before establishing the final contract sum.
CMc brings the construction manager into the project during design, providing early constructability, cost, and scheduling input. Unlike IPD, CMc uses separate owner-architect and owner-construction manager agreements. The construction manager assumes construction risk under the owner-CMc agreement rather than sharing it across the team.
That depends on your specific situation. Typically, owners choose progressive design-build when the project needs early design-builder input and one accountable design-build partner, CMc when early builder involvement, a separate architect relationship, and a GMP are priorities, and standard design-build when speed and single-point accountability matter most. Consider the team’s experience, the owner’s decision-making capacity, applicable procurement rules, and counsel’s advice before selecting a method.
