Design-Build, Bridged Design-Build, and IPD: single- and shared-contract deliveries

One-line orientation

These methods change the usual owner-architect-contractor contract chain. Compare who contracts with the owner, when the builder joins, and how risk and reward are shared.

Key points

• Design-Build (DB):

  • One entity (DB contractor or design-build firm) provides both design services and construction under a single owner contract.
  • Single point of responsibility — no architect/contractor finger-pointing.
  • Design-Build can shorten the schedule because design and construction may overlap. It is a tendency, not a guaranteed ranking.
  • Owner gives up independent design advocacy and some control over design decisions. The architect within the DB entity works for the contractor, not the owner.

• Bridged Design-Build:

  • Owner retains a separate bridging architect (bridging consultant) to develop design through Schematic Design (SD) and potentially Design Development (DD).
  • Bridging architect establishes design intent, performance requirements, and criteria.
  • Owner then hands the project to a DB entity, which completes design and executes construction.
  • Gives owner more design control and quality assurance than pure DB, while still gaining single-point-of-responsibility for construction.

• Integrated Project Delivery (IPD):

  • IPD generally brings the owner, architect, and contractor into early collaboration with shared risk and reward. A multi-party agreement is one common form, but transitional and single-purpose-entity forms also exist.
  • All three parties collaborate from early design stages; decisions are made jointly.
  • Profit is typically tied to project outcomes (schedule, budget, quality targets) — incentivizes collective performance.
  • Often useful where early collaboration and shared outcomes add value; it is not limited to one project size.

Design-Build vs bridged DB vs IPD: who contracts with whom

Three deliveries on one relationship grid — count the owner's contracts and the method names itself.

View diagram Hide diagram

Scroll horizontally to explore →

The IPD panel shows a common multi-party model, not the only possible IPD contract form. Document numbers are shown without year suffixes.

Confusions / comparison

	Design-Build	Bridged Design-Build	IPD
Owner contracts	One (DB entity)	Two (bridging architect + DB entity)	Commonly one multi-party agreement; other forms exist
Design responsibility	DB entity	Bridging architect (SD/DD) → DB entity (CD+)	Architect within multi-party team
Single point of responsibility	Yes (DB entity)	Partial (DB entity for construction)	Shared among all parties
Owner control of design	Low	Moderate (protected through SD/DD)	High (collaborative)
Schedule tendency	Often shorter through overlap	Can preserve some overlap	Early collaboration can reduce later delays
Best for	Cost-driven; schedule-sensitive projects	Owner wants design intent protected before DB handoff	High-trust teams seeking early collaboration and shared outcomes
Risk	DB entity carries design + construction risk	Split: bridging architect (design intent), DB entity (execution)	Shared among all parties

Related

→ Design-Bid-Build (pp-delivery-design-bid-build): the traditional sequential baseline · CM-as-Constructor (pp-delivery-construction-manager): another early-collaboration method with a different contract structure · Cross-method comparison (pp-delivery-method-comparison): DB and IPD in the full delivery method matrix.