Recently, I had an opportunity to discuss one of our D-B projects at the Design Build Institute of America's health care conference in Connecticut. I have been active in the D-B process since the mid-1980s, when I migrated from a traditional consulting engineer role to a single-source approach to the building infrastructure industry. Although I am a proponent of D-B, it is a project delivery method with a shadow cast over it from years of misuse. As a result, I intentionally avoid advocating the approach by name, instead using the term "teamwork." I believe in D-B for the partnership, the application and maximization of each participant's best skills, the ownership, and the win-win-win results. No other project delivery method draws upon these attributes, so let's assess each of their benefits.
Partnership. D-B embraces this "coming together" of a team; although it may have a quarterback to facilitate the process, it is still a team effort. For several years, the term has been a misunderstood and often misapplied concept by companies that truly didn't understand the process. Even today, I see companies market D-B services, but the single-source contract is between them and the owner. All the D-B firm's participants (trade contractors and consultants) continue to provide their services in a design-bid-build (D-B-B) format. Sure some of these trade contractors and consultants are preferred vendors of the D-B firm, but they are not partners. In a true D-B project, there is a team effort, with more interaction between those trade contractors, consultants, and the owner and not simply interaction between the D-B firm and their client. More participation inherently equates to more ownership.