Design-build construction: Debunking 5 myths holding back AEC firms

Although the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry has embraced innovation and technology over the years, some core processes—like splitting design and construction—have remained largely unchanged. That separation can make it harder to keep project teams aligned and deliver on client expectations.

Today, construction owners are under more pressure than ever. Tighter budgets. Faster timelines. More complex building projects. They’re driven by the need to meet customer demand, outpace competitors, maximize returns, and stay viable in a competitive U.S. construction market. The divide between planning and execution is increasingly hard to justify when it slows down projects and inflates costs.

Why Design-Build Matters for the Construction Industry

The design-build delivery method eliminates barriers and miscommunication between architecture, engineering, and construction teams. It speeds up delivery timelines, improves cost certainty, and reduces overall project risk. According to the Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA), design-build is projected to account for 47% of U.S. construction spending—roughly $2.6 trillion—by 2028.

Compared to the traditional design-bid-build approach, design-build projects are delivered 102% faster (essentially twice as fast) and with 3.8% less cost growth.

Real-world examples highlight its value:

• Qcells, a leading solar energy manufacturer, turned to design-build for its three U.S. manufacturing operations totaling nearly 4 million square feet, accelerating its launch to the U.S. market.
• The New York City Department of Design and Construction expects 42 public projects delivered through design-build to finish two years faster than with other methods, saving $1.4 billion.
• In Atlanta, Grady Memorial Hospital used design-build to fast-track an expansion after a nearby hospital closed—completing it in just eight months.

The DBIA helped popularize design-build more than three decades ago, and in 2018, a landmark study named it the best-performing project delivery system in the U.S. construction industry. Still, some AEC leaders remain hesitant. Let’s debunk the five most common myths about design-build.

Myth 1: Design-build lacks clarity and certainty, especially at the beginning

Some believe design-build trades early certainty for speed, starting construction without enough planning. But that’s a misunderstanding of how this integrated project delivery method works.

Design-build actually provides more clarity earlier by bringing designers, builders, and owners together from day one. Instead of waiting for fully developed drawings, teams align early on scope, budget, priorities, and site constraints, while establishing real-time feedback loops between design, cost, and constructability.

This early collaboration avoids costly surprises, ensures better decision-making, and gives owners earlier cost predictability. As designs evolve, budgets are refined in tandem, offering visibility into how each choice affects costs before they are locked in.

Far from skipping planning, design-build strengthens it—leading to faster, more predictable delivery with tighter cost control.

Myth 2: Design-build gives owners less control

Owners want to stay in control of budget, scope, schedule, and outcomes. In traditional delivery methods, however, they often end up managing fallout when architecture and construction teams aren’t aligned.

Design-build changes that dynamic. The owner partners with one integrated team and makes decisions based on direct trade-off comparisons between cost, schedule, and long-term operations. This means fewer handoffs and fewer misunderstandings.

For example, whether to use asphalt vs. concrete paving is not just a price decision. It’s about durability, long-term maintenance, and site usage patterns. Design-build teams present those trade-offs clearly, empowering owners to make informed choices.

Control, in design-build, is about making the right decisions with the right information at the right time.

Myth 3: Design-build sacrifices quality or creativity for speed

Some assume moving faster means compromising quality. In reality, when design and construction teams collaborate from the start, they can pursue more innovative solutions and ambitious architecture that might never surface in siloed processes.

Take Hill’s Pet Nutrition manufacturing facility in Tonganoxie, Kansas—one of the nation’s most advanced industrial plants. Built using design-build, the project met Colgate-Palmolive’s strict brand and performance standards and was recognized for its complexity and execution.

Design-build’s speed comes not from cutting corners, but from eliminating miscommunication and duplicate steps. Quality is embedded throughout the process.

Myth 4: Design-build results in more change orders

This misconception is mostly about terminology. What traditional construction calls a “change order” is often just a normal scope adjustment in design-build.

In design-bid-build, all decisions must be finalized before breaking ground. In design-build, design and construction overlap, so choices like materials or layouts may evolve during construction based on market pricing or owner priorities.

This flexibility leads to fewer surprises and smoother project delivery—not instability.

Myth 5: Design-build eliminates competitive bidding

Competitive bidding still exists in design-build—it just happens earlier and with more context. Pricing and design progress together, sometimes beginning when design is only one-third complete. Owners get cost feedback sooner and can refine plans before they’re locked into blueprints.

Project managers continuously update pricing based on market conditions, ensuring owners understand trade-offs and maintain budget alignment without costly redesigns.

The Best Approach to Construction Projects

Design-build works best when all stakeholders—owners, architects, engineers, and builders—collaborate from the start. Field input during design, scope validation against real numbers, and continued engagement from the owner help ensure fewer surprises and faster results.

By consolidating accountability under one roof, design-build firms help owners focus on their core business while delivering projects with greater speed, adaptability, and cost certainty.

You don’t have to change everything overnight. But if your AEC firm is still separating design from construction, it may be time to ask: what is that really costing your projects?