New Research Gives Design-Build Contractors a Clearer Roadmap for Getting Projects Across the Finish Line
ACEC Research Institute Releases New Study on Progressive Design-Build
The ACEC Research Institute released a new study on Progressive Design-Build (PDB), offering construction and engineering professionals on-the-ground guidance on what separates projects that succeed from those that stall and why more teams are turning to PDB to manage risk, control costs, and deliver on schedule.
The study, Progressive Design-Build: Implementation Final Report, was built on:
- 239 projects analyzed at the project level, including 129 completed and 110 in-progress
- 581 survey responses representing 439 firms — including design-builders, trade partners, owners, architects, and engineers
- In-depth interviews with project teams on completed, weaker-performing, and off-ramped projects across the buildings, transportation, and water/wastewater sectors
4 Numbers That Define This Study:
For contractors, tradespeople, and field-side professionals, the findings cut straight to what makes or breaks a job.
- Median cost variance: just 0.6%
- Median schedule variance: 0.0%
- 49% of projects finished at or below initial cost
- 66.7% finished on or ahead of schedule
Those aren’t numbers you see every day in construction. And the research makes clear what’s driving them.
The single biggest factor in PDB project success is how seriously the team treats Phase 1 — the preconstruction and design alignment phase that happens before the Final Contract Price is locked in. When teams use Phase 1 as a real decision-making process — working through costs, risks, schedules, and scope with full transparency — they enter construction with fewer unresolved issues and a much clearer picture of who owns what risk. When they don’t, those problems don’t disappear. They show up later, and they cost more.
“The data is clear — when Phase 1 is treated as a disciplined process rather than a formality, teams enter construction with fewer surprises, better cost certainty, and a shared understanding of who owns what risk. That’s what every contractor wants going into a job.” — Dr. Keith Molenaar, Dean, College of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Colorado Boulder, and lead researcher
PDB has real momentum. Among firms with PDB experience surveyed for this study:
- 88% reported an increase in the number of PDB projects over the last five years
- 81% reported an increase in PDB project value over the same period
- 79% reported overall satisfaction with PDB as a delivery method
Respondents also rated PDB higher than other delivery methods on risk and insurance-related considerations — scoring it 4.2 out of 5.0.
PDB activity in the study was concentrated in the public sector, with 203 of 239 projects being public-sector work. The project mix spanned buildings (120 projects), transportation (61), and water/wastewater (58), and covered a wide range of project sizes — from under $15 million to well above $70 million.
How Winning Projects Are Structured
The research dug into what the strongest-performing projects had in common — and the patterns are consistent enough to be actionable.
- Procurement favored qualifications over price: Among completed projects, most were awarded based on qualifications combined with fee/price considerations (57 projects) or qualifications alone (40 projects). Only 5 projects used price-only selection. Teams selected for capability, not just the lowest number, tended to perform better.
- Compensation structures shifted between phases. In Phase 1, teams used a mix of cost-plus (17%), cost-plus with GMP (42%), and lump sum (41%) arrangements. By Phase 2, the balance shifted — 61% used cost-plus with GMP, 35% used lump sum, and only 4% used straight cost-plus. That shift toward GMP structures in construction reflects how risk gets resolved through a disciplined preconstruction process.
- Governance mattered as much as collaboration. The study found that good working relationships weren’t enough on their own. Projects performed best when collaboration was backed by clear decision-making authority, defined escalation paths, consistent coordination routines, and continuity of key personnel from Phase 1 into Phase 2. Teams that had strong chemistry but weak structure still ran into trouble.
- Enabling conditions were handled early. The strongest projects didn’t wait for permitting, utility conflicts, site access issues, or third-party approvals to surface on their own. They identified those constraints early, built them into planning, and actively monitored them throughout Phase 1.
“Progressive Design-Build puts contractors and designers at the table earlier, which means fewer late-stage surprises and a better shot at a job that works for everyone. This research confirms what we’ve seen in practice — the teams that put in the work upfront are the ones that finish strong.” — Steve Lefton, Executive Chair | Kimley-Horn
Hear More: Keith Molenaar on the Engineering Influence Podcast
Want to go deeper on the findings? Watch this episode of the Engineering Influence podcast, featuring Dr. Keith Molenaar discussing the study’s key findings and what they mean for the industry. The episode will be available soon on all major podcast platforms.
➡️ View the key findings of the Progressive Design Build Study
