Project Delivery Methods for Commercial and Industrial Construction: A Complete Guide

Choosing between project delivery methods is one of the most important early calls made in commercial and industrial construction. The delivery method is what sets the tone for how design comes together, pricing is established, and everything is managed.

In simple terms, a project delivery method is the overall structure for how your project will be designed and built; who you contract with, how teams collaborate, and how risk, cost, and schedule are shared.

For commercial and industrial work, the most common options are design-bid-build (DBB), design-build (DB), construction manager at risk (CMAR), and integrated project delivery (IPD). Each balances cost certainty, schedule, design control, and collaboration differently.

This guide will walk through what those methods are, how they compare, and how to choose the right approach that fits your next project.

​

What Are Project Delivery Methods in Commercial and Industrial Construction?

A project delivery method is the “playbook” for your project. It defines how design and construction will work together, who you hire, who reports to whom, and how decisions move from idea to action.

How Delivery Methods Shape Contracts, Communication, and Risk

Most construction delivery methods influence four significant areas:

Contracts

• Who signs directly with the owner.
• Whether there are separate design and construction contracts, or one integrated team.
• How trade partners are brought on board (competitive bidding, qualifications-based, or a combination of the two).

Responsibility when something goes wrong

• Who carries design risk.
• Who is responsible for cost overruns or delays.
• Whether risk is divided between parties or shared by one entity.

Communication and decision speed

• How quickly do questions move between design and construction.
• Whether teams work in silos with multiple handoffs, or within one coordinated structure.

Change orders and cost control

• How changes are priced, approved, and documented.
• How much cost certainty the owner has at various stages of the project’s timeline.

One of the key differences to note between any delivery method is who is responsible for design and construction, and how communication will occur between parties.

The Main Construction Delivery Methods for Commercial and Industrial Projects

Most commercial and industrial projects use one of four primary construction methods:

Design-Bid-Build – The owner hires a designer first, completes the drawings, then solicits competitive bids from contractors and awards the project to a selected bidder.

Design-Build – The owner signs a single contract with a team that provides both design and construction, creating one point of responsibility from concept through completion.

Construction Manager at Risk – The owner engages a construction manager (CM) early to assist with budgeting, phasing, and constructability; that same firm later delivers the project under a guaranteed maximum price (GMP).

Integrated Project Delivery – The owner, designer, and key builders enter into a multi-party agreement, share risk and reward, and operate as one highly collaborative team.

​

Key Factors to Consider When Choosing a Project Delivery Method

Every project delivery method changes how risk, cost, schedule, and decisions flow through your project. Before you commit, it helps to be clear on what matters most for your project and team. Let’s discuss the key factors to consider.

Risk and Accountability

Construction always carries risk. The question is who carries it and how clearly that’s defined.

• Separated models (DBB): Design and construction sit under separate contracts. That can preserve balance and accountability, but the owner may spend more time in disputes between teams.
• Integrated models (DB): More responsibility sits with a single team. This simplifies risk and accountability for the owner, but places greater weight on selecting the right partner.
• Hybrid models (CMAR): The owner still contracts directly with the designer, while a construction manager takes on defined cost and schedule risk once pricing is set.

Budget, Cost Certainty, and Change Orders

Most owners care about two pricing questions: When will we know the real cost, and how much can it fluctuate once we start building?

• Separated, hard-bid models (DBB): You get a clear, competitive price after full design. But if drawings have gaps or the scope changes, cost often shifts through change orders.
• Early-builder models (DB, CMAR): The builder participates during design, providing earlier cost input, more realistic budgets, and fewer surprises in the field.
• Highly integrated models (IPD): The team sets shared targets and manages costs together, aligning everyone around a single budget while requiring greater trust and transparency.

How Competitive Bidding Fits In

Competitive bidding is central to many owners’ procurement policies, and it fits more naturally with some methods than others:

• Design-Bid-Build: Built around competitive bidding of a complete design set. Often required for commercial or industrial work, or by corporate purchasing policies.
• Construction Manager at Risk: The construction manager is typically selected on qualifications and fees, but trade packages are still bid competitively.
• Design-Build & Integrated Project Delivery: The core team is often chosen based on qualifications and approach, with a mix of negotiated and competitive pricing.

If competitive bidding is a must-have, that doesn’t rule out collaboration; it just means you’ll want to be intentional about where the low bid applies.

Schedule and Speed to Market

For many industrial and commercial property owners, speed to market is a top priority. Different methods support that in different ways:

• Sequential models (DBB): Design, bid, and build happen one after another. This is straightforward, but usually the slower path.
• Fast-track capable models (DB, CMAR): Design and construction can overlap, eliminating months off the schedule when paired with timely owner decisions.
• Highly integrated approaches (IPD): Robust planning and coordination can help keep aggressive schedules predictable.

Design Control, Quality, and Flexibility

How much design control you want is another important factor when looking at delivery methods like design-build vs. design-bid-build:

• High owner design control (DBB, some CMAR): The owner contracts directly with the design team and can heavily influence details before bidding. Contractors have less influence early, which some owners prefer when they have strong internal standards.
• Integrated Design and Construction (DB, IPD): Design and construction teams act as a unified group. The owner often sets performance goals and lets the team propose solutions that balance quality, cost, and constructability.

Methods that involve the builder early typically handle mid-project adjustments more smoothly, because cost and schedule implications can be evaluated in real time.

Complexity of Project and Collaboration Goals

Not every project justifies a highly integrated model. Consider:

• Project Complexity: Tight tolerances, heavy MEP, process systems, or dense coordination favor methods with early contractor and trade input.
• Stakeholder Complexity: The more stakeholders and constraints there are, the more valuable strong collaboration becomes.
• Culture and Readiness: IPD and highly collaborative DB/CMAR models ask all parties to embrace transparency, share information, and attend regular working sessions.

​

Design-Bid-Build: The Traditional, Sequential Approach

Design-Bid-Build at a Glance

• Best for: Straightforward or repeatable projects, industrial and commercial projects, or owners with strict low-bid requirements.
• Owner profile: Has internal bandwidth to manage separate design and construction contracts.
• Top strengths: Clear roles, strong design control, transparent competitive bidding.
• Watch-outs: Longer schedules, greater potential for change orders due to design gaps, and the owner sitting between the designer and contractor.

What is Design-Bid-Build?

Design-bid-build is the most traditional of the project delivery methods. It follows a sequence of:

1. Design first – The owner hires an architect and engineers to fully design the project.
2. Bid second – The completed drawings and specifications are issued for competitive bids.
3. Build third – The owner awards the work to the contractor whose bid was selected.

Since this method involves the owner holding two separate contracts, the builder and designer are not typically tied to each other.

Advantages and Challenges of DBB for Commercial and Industrial Projects

Design-bid-build can have multiple advantages and challenges for projects.

Advantages include:

• Clear separation of roles: The designer designs, the contractor builds, and the owner manages both.
• Strong design control: The design team reports directly to the owner, which supports detailed standards and aesthetics.
• Familiar process: Many institutions already have policies, contracts, and procedures tailored to DBB.
• Competitive bidding: Multiple contractors bid on the same documents, providing transparent competition.

Common challenges can include:

• Longer project duration: Design, bidding, and construction happen one after another with limited overlap.
• Increased change order risk: Design gaps or differing conditions can lead to more change orders if not carefully managed.
• Owner disputes: Project owners are more involved in deciding whether an issue falls to the design or construction team.
• Limited builder input: Contractors usually join after design is complete, reducing opportunities to optimize constructability.

When Design-Bid-Build Works Best

Design-bid-build can be a strong choice when its strengths align with your project type, procurement requirements, and internal teams.

DBB generally works best when:

1. The project is straightforward and repeatable.
2. You must follow strict low-bid or public procurement rules.
3. You want a clear separation between designer and builder.
4. You have the internal capacity to manage both contracts.

Owners often get the most from design-bid-build by investing in thorough design documentation, encouraging pre-bid constructability reviews, and carefully managing bidding, change order review, and schedule oversight.
​

Design-Build: Integrated Design and Construction in One

Design-Build at a Glance

• Best for: Time-sensitive, complex, or performance-driven projects where speed and coordination matter.
• Owner profile: Wants a single accountable partner and strong cost/schedule visibility during design.
• Top strengths: One contract, faster decisions, strong potential for fast-tracking, and fewer coordination gaps.
• Watch-outs: Less traditional separation between designer and builder; picking the right team up front is critical.

What is Design-Build?

In design-build, the owner signs one contract with a team responsible for both design and construction. That team might be:

• A contractor-led group with in-house designers.
• An architect-led team partnered with a builder.
• A joint venture between design and construction firms.

This integrated structure is what sets design-build apart from more traditional construction delivery methods.

Advantages and Challenges of DB for Industrial and Commercial Projects

Advantages:

• Single point of accountability: The owner has one primary contract and one team to turn to for answers.
• Stronger alignment: Because the builder is involved from the start, constructability is considered with every major design decision.
• Potential for faster delivery: Design and construction can overlap, supporting fast-tracked schedules.
• Fewer coordination-related change orders: Designers and builders work as one team, resolving many conflicts before they reach the field.

Common challenges:

• Less traditional separation of roles: Owners who are used to the designer as an independent advocate now work with a more unified team. That can be an adjustment.
• Emphasis on team selection: Because you commit to a single design-build partner up front, experience, culture, and communication matter as much as cost.
• Need for performance definitions: The owner must define what success looks like, so the team can design and build to those outcomes.

When Design-Build Works Best

Design-build is often an excellent fit when:

1. Speed to market is a priority.
2. Projects are complex or highly coordinated.
3. You want strong cost visibility during design.
4. You value a single accountable partner.

Owners who succeed with design-build invest time in selecting the right partner, clearly define project goals and constraints, and stay engaged through planning and design decisions.

​

Construction Manager at Risk: Preconstruction Partner with Cost Protection

CMAR at a Glance

• Best for: Larger or more complex projects where early cost input and phasing are critical.
• Owner profile: Wants to maintain a direct relationship with the design team while gaining builder insight and a guaranteed maximum cost.
• Top strengths: Early collaboration, realistic budgeting, phasing around live operation, and cost protection with a GMP.
• Watch-outs: More complex contracts require an engaged owner during design and GMP development.

What is Construction Manager at Risk?

Construction manager at risk is a project delivery method where the owner hires a construction manager early in the process. That construction manager:

• Provides preconstruction services (budgeting, constructability, scheduling, phasing support).
• Typically becomes the general contractor for construction.
• Commits to deliver the project within a guaranteed maximum price once the scope and design are defined.

Unlike design-build, the designer still contracts directly with the owner, while the construction manager and design team work side by side.

Advantages and Challenges of CMAR for Commercial and Industrial Projects

Advantages:

• Early collaboration without losing designer independence: The owner maintains a direct relationship with the architect while gaining builder input during design.
• Greater cost predictability: The GMP gives a defined cost ceiling for the agreed scope, supported by real trade bids.
• Better fit for complex projects: CMAR supports detailed phasing and constructability planning around existing operations.
• Competitive pricing at the trade level: Subcontractor packages are typically competitively bid, maintaining transparency.

Challenges:

• More complex contract structure: GMP exhibits, contingencies, allowances, and savings provisions add terms that owners must understand.
• Requires an engaged owner during design: To get full value, the owner must participate in preconstruction decisions.
• Some shared risk: Design-related risk is still shared among the owner, designer, and CM when the scope is unclear.

When CMAR Works Best

CMAR often makes the most sense when:

1. The project is large, complex, or highly phased.
2. You want early builder input, but a separate design contract.
3. You need a guaranteed maximum price before a final design is complete.
4. You care about both collaboration and cost protection.

Owners who succeed with CMAR usually choose their construction manager based on experience and transparency, stay engaged throughout preconstruction, and encourage open conversations about contingencies and possible savings.
​

Integrated Project Delivery: Shared Risk, Shared Reward

Integrated Project Delivery at a Glance

• Best for: Large, complex, or high-risk projects where tight coordination and innovation matter.
• Owner profile: Comfortable being an active team member and sharing risk/reward with designers and builders.
• Top strengths: Deep collaboration, aligned incentives, fewer silos, strong fit for technically complex work.
• Watch-outs: More complex contracts, higher cultural/behavioral demands, often more than is needed for simple projects.

What Is Integrated Project Delivery?

Integrated project delivery is a highly collaborative project delivery method in which the owner, designer, builder, and, often, key trades sign a single, multi-party agreement. The team agrees on shared project goals, ties a portion of profit or fees to those goals, and manages risk and reward collectively.

The core idea: reduce adversarial behavior and waste while aligning everyone around overall project success.

Advantages and Challenges of IPD for Industrial and Commercial Projects

Advantages:

• Aligned incentives across the team: Profit is linked to shared outcomes, encouraging joint problem-solving.
• Less waste and rework: Early involvement of key trades helps avoid impractical details.
• Strong fit for technical projects: Complex facilities with dense systems benefit from all expertise at the table from day one.
• Improved transparency: Open-book costing and shared planning give owners clear visibility into decisions.

Challenges:

• More complex contract setup: Multi-party agreements take time and legal effort.
• High demands on culture: IPD requires openness, trust, and a willingness to share information and take on risk.
• Harder for smaller projects: The additional structure can outweigh the benefits on straightforward jobs.
• Requires high owner engagement: Owners must actively participate in planning and decision-making.

When Integrated Project Delivery Works Best

IPD usually is the best choice when:

1. The project is large, complex, or high-risk.
2. The owner wants deep collaboration and innovation.
3. There is real potential to remove waste and add value.
4. You have the right team and culture.

For many owners, full formal IPD may be a stretch. In those cases, you can still use aspects of it within a more familiar structure, such as design-build.
​

Side-by-Side Comparison of Project Delivery Methods

Here’s a high-level look at how the four main project delivery methods line up on contracts, cost timing, schedule, and collaboration.

Method	Primary Contracts	Cost Certainty Timing	Phases Schedule Style	Collaboration Level
Design-Bid-Build	Owner & Designer, Owner & Contractor	After full design and competitive bidding	Sequential – design, bid, then build	Low to moderate
Design-Build	Single-Contract Team	Early & refined throughout design	Overlapping – design and build	High
Construction Manager at Risk	Owner & Designer, Owner & CM	GMP set during late design with trade bids	Can overlap when fast-tracked	High during preconstruction
Integrated Project Delivery	One Multi-Party Agreement	Shared target cost set early and refined as a team	Highly coordinated schedules	Very high

Key Takeaways from Comparing Project Delivery Methods

• Design-Bid-Build works best when you need strict low-bid transparency and clear separation between designer and contractor, and your schedule is less time-sensitive.
• Design-Build is typically the best fit when you want a single accountable partner, faster schedules, and tighter alignment between design decisions and costs.
• Construction Manager at Risk is a strong middle ground for larger or more complex projects where you want early builder input and a GMP, but still prefer a direct contract with your design team.
• Integrated Project Delivery makes the most sense for large, complex, or high-risk projects where you’re ready for deep collaboration, shared risk/reward, and a very integrated team culture.

​

How to Choose the Best Project Delivery Method for Your Project

There is no “right” project delivery method; you have to pick the method that best fits your priorities, constraints, and internal capacity. Use these four steps as a quick decision framework.

Step 1: Clarify Your Project Drivers

Decide what success looks like before you talk about methods. Pick your top 2-3 priorities, whether that be cost certainty, speed, design control, risk reduction, etc.

Step 2: Understand Your Constraints

Be clear about the rules you have to play by:

• Procurement: public low-bid rules, RFP requirements, preferred vendor list.
• Funding and Approvals: need for a firm cost or GMP before approvals.
• Internal Bandwidth: how many people can realistically manage this project.

This framework will often naturally steer you toward the project delivery method that best fits your needs.

Step 3: Assess Your Internal Team

Match the method to the team you actually have. If you have strong internal facilities, you may be able to handle more contracts and coordination. Need a less hands-on approach? Maybe a delivery method that has one fewer contract and a single primary partner.

The delivery method shouldn’t require more time or expertise than your team can handle; it should complement what your team can do.

Step 4: Engage With a Construction Partner Early

Once you know your priorities and constraints, talk with a builder before design is locked in. A good construction partner can quickly show you how your project would play out under each delivery method, when you’d know your real cost, and how they affect the moving parts of each build.

​

The Role of Project and Construction Management Across All Methods

No matter what project delivery method you choose, the process will only go as well as it is managed. The method may set the project’s structure, but it still requires someone to oversee the full process and keep everything aligned.

Why Strong Project Management Matters

No matter the delivery method, whether simple or complex, a project manager will help the project perform and meet deadlines. Good project management keeps the fundamentals tight:

• Clear scope, milestones, and responsibilities.
• Realistic schedules that are updated, not just created once.
• Fast, documented decisions instead of lingering questions.
• Simple, honest communication between owner, designer, and builder.

When those basics are in place, the contract becomes a safety net and not the primary tool for managing risk.

How Construction Management Supports Project Delivery Methods

Construction Management Services brings the same core values across all methods: tying together design intent, trade work, budget, safety, and schedule.

Across design-bid-build, design-build, and construction manager at risk, that looks like:

• Coordinating trades and logistics so crews aren’t stacked on top of each other and critical paths stay clear.
• Tracking budgets and changes so everyone knows where the project stands against the contract value.
• Driving safety and quality with site rules, inspections, and accountability.
• Protecting the owner’s interests by flagging issues early and documenting decisions clearly.

​

How Moltus Building Group Manages Projects from Concept to Completion

For Moltus, project delivery is more than a contract type—it’s a full lifecycle process. When it comes to commercial and industrial construction delivery methods, Moltus focuses on:

Planning and Preconstruction

• Clarifying project planning and goals, constraints, and priorities with the owner.
• Building realistic budgets and schedules early.
• Studying site logistics, safety, and phasing.

Design-Phase Support

• Coordinating with designers to flag constructability issues early.
• Tracking cost and schedule impacts as design develops.
• Helping owners make informed trade-off decisions.

Construction Execution

• Detailed look-ahead scheduling and trade coordination.
• Active safety management and quality checks in the field.
• Transparent cost tracking, including changes, allowances, and contingencies.

Closeout and Turnover

• Driving punch list completion and commissioning.
• Delivering documentation that supports operations and maintenance.
• Ensuring the facility performs the way it was planned.

The goal is the same at Moltus across every method: fewer surprises, clearer communication, and a smoother path from idea to execution.

​

Why Work with Moltus Building Group on Your Construction Projects

Choosing a project delivery method is important, but the partner you trust to build your facility matters even more. Moltus’ construction management services focus on helping owners get from idea to operating building with fewer surprises, clearer communication, and a structure that supports the way you work.

From the earliest planning conversations, Moltus works to understand your business drivers: how quickly you need to be operational, how firm your budget is, what risks you’re most concerned about, and how the project fits into your long-term strategy.

Moltus emphasizes disciplined project management and field execution. That means realistic schedules that are actively managed, transparent cost tracking, and early coordination with trade partners so field work matches expectations. Safety, quality, and communication are treated as daily practices to keep project owners and stakeholders informed.

The goal is simple: deliver facilities that perform as promised, with a process that feels organized, responsive, and aligned with your priorities. Whether design-build, design-bid-build, or another method, Moltus is here to support you throughout the full project. If you are looking for your next partner in commercial or industrial construction, contact the Moltus Building Group team today.