Beyond Tradition: Why Progressive Design-Build is Gaining Ground

Summary

---

Construction Leaders Podcast

Episode: Beyond Tradition: Why Progressive Design-Build is Gaining Ground
Date: September 1, 2025
Host: Construction Management Association of America
Guests:

• Daphne Bryant, Executive Director, ACEC Research Institute
• Dr. Keith Moliner, Dean, College of Engineering & Applied Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder

---

Episode Overview

This episode explores the burgeoning rise of Progressive Design-Build (PDB) in the construction industry. Focusing on research from the ACEC Research Institute, the panel analyzes what differentiates PDB from traditional delivery methods, current industry perceptions, risk allocation, market trends, and what makes this methodology attractive to owners and design professionals alike.

---

1. What is Progressive Design-Build?

[02:35–07:12]

Key Insights

• Progressive Design-Build (PDB) is a project delivery method involving a single contract between the owner and an integrated design-builder.
• Unlike “lump sum” or "best value" design-build (often called "traditional"), PDB employs a qualifications-based selection (not lowest cost), negotiating the final price and scope after design validation is underway.
• Two-Phase Process:
  • Phase 1: Select a design-builder and develop a preliminary design (validation phase: 30–60% design), validate scope and agree on price.
  • Phase 2: Complete final design and construction, often overlapping the two for efficiency.
• PDB sits between best value design-build and Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) in terms of collaboration, with PDB involving more risk-sharing and negotiation.

Notable Quote

“When we talk about progressive design build, it is different...it is really a spectrum of project delivery methods...Progressive design build uses a qualifications based approach to selecting a design builder and then works on a negotiated process to get to a design build price.”
—Dr. Keith Moliner [03:12]

---

2. The ACEC Research Institute Study: Origins and Objectives

[07:12–10:09]

Key Insights

• Dr. Moliner has studied design-build delivery for nearly 30 years, typically from the owner’s perspective regarding cost and schedule.
• This research shifts the focus: How do innovative delivery methods affect design professionals?
  • Particularly, the effect on risk, insurance, profitability, and team dynamics for non-integrated or joint venture design professionals.
• The study’s motivation was to see if Progressive DB improves the project environment for the design community.
• Strong industry interest: 439 respondents to the survey reflecting keen engagement and broad adoption.

Notable Quote

"We're just shifting an onerous amount of risk onto the design professionals...The motivation for [the] current study was really to explore Progressive Design Build as a way to mitigate those risks and help with those insurance aspects."
—Dr. Keith Moliner [08:10]

---

3. Surprising Findings from the Study

[10:09–12:46]

Key Insights

• Rapid Growth: Over 80% of firms report increasing PDB project volume and dollar value—remarkably fast adoption.
• Risk Allocation: PDB rated highest in risk allocation out of five delivery methods examined (including best value, low bid, CM at risk, and Integrated Project Delivery).
• The perceived equity of PDB risk allocation even surpassed Integrated Project Delivery because, in practice, PDB’s negotiation period allows for tailored, workable risk divisions.

Notable Quote

“Progressive Design Build was ranked highest in risk allocation of five different delivery methods that we looked at...Meaning...over 400 responses felt that Progressive Design Build was the best for allocating risks across the team.”
—Dr. Keith Moliner [10:38]

---

4. Why Owners and Teams are Shifting to Progressive Design-Build

[13:50–16:19]

Key Insights

• PDB addresses issues of lengthy and redundant procurement seen in best value or lump sum design-build (where RFPs can take 18–24 months to develop).
• PDB’s early collaboration, shorter procurement, and flexible “validation period” allow for more innovation and faster project delivery.
• The industry has learned from both best value DB and CM at risk—PDB borrows the best of both for integration and collaborative validation.

Notable Quote

“I think owners are seeing the value of integration of design build, but also wanting to get that advantage of the two phase work and the validation work that you see from construction manager at risk.”
—Dr. Keith Moliner [15:25]

---

5. The “Off Ramp” Mechanism in PDB

[16:19–19:24]

Key Insights

• The owner retains the option to “off-ramp”: If, after Phase 1, parties cannot agree on price, risk, or scope, the project can proceed via another design-builder, or convert to another delivery method.
• Off-ramps are rarely used but provide critical flexibility—protecting owner interests if the PDB process isn’t achieving value.
• Examples were shared of both outcomes (cost increases after re-procurement, but sometimes savings from changing teams were realized).

Notable Quote

“That off ramp before you get into the second phase can...take that original design and negotiate with another progressive design builder. You can take that out, use just the design team and go ahead and take it all the way to a bid project if you would like. There’s opportunities there...it’s not used frequently, but...there is also one other option...the project’s not a project anymore. But better to know at that phase...”
—Dr. Keith Moliner [17:18]

---

6. Where is PDB Used Most? Market Sectors and Project Sizes

[19:24–22:09]

Key Insights

• Early PDB adoption: Water/wastewater sector, technology-driven industrial/food processing, and, most recently, very large infrastructure projects (often $1 billion+).
• Smaller projects (under $10–20 million): Best value/lump sum methods may remain more practical, unless complexity warrants PDB’s collaborative benefits.
• No “one-size-fits-all”—choice depends on owner, project, and market characteristics.

Notable Quote

“Progressive design build really got its footing and I think its early success in the water wastewater sector...Where we’ve seen a really big move is towards these very large infrastructure projects where the owner wants to get together early on these billion dollar plus projects…”
—Dr. Keith Moliner [20:08]

---

7. Keys to PDB Collaboration Success

[22:09–24:08]

Key Insights

• The owner’s engagement and capability during Phase 1 is fundamental; projects move fast and need decisive leadership.
• Construction Managers add value as independent estimators and risk advisors.
• Poor team dynamics often arise when the owner or CM is slow or unwilling to make timely decisions.
• Case studies are forthcoming to identify the differentiators between best- and worst-performing PDB projects.

Notable Quote

“You certainly have to have an owner who’s knowledgeable and willing to be engaged in that first phase. And I can tell you what’s very frustrating for progressive design builders is when you have an owner who’s not adept at making decisions, because these projects move very quickly…”
—Dr. Keith Moliner [22:33]

---

8. Looking Ahead

• The ACEC Research Institute will continue its PDB research, diving deeper into case studies to surface best practices and lessons learned.
• For the study discussed, visit: www.acec.org/resource — “Progressive Design Build Practice Perceptions and Potential”

---

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• On industry shift:
  “I’m surprised it’s happened so quickly in the last five years or so—a big shift towards progressive design build.”
  —Dr. Keith Moliner [06:13]
• On owner responsibility:
  “It’s really the owner who puts them in that place for success or not…that ability for the owner to be very involved early in that validation phase…”
  —Dr. Keith Moliner [23:31]
• On the collaborative spirit:
  “Integration of teams gets you better solutions quicker and at a better cost with higher innovation than trying to create so many checks and balances that you lose that.”
  —Dr. Keith Moliner [14:25]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Time | Segment | |----------|-----------------------------------------------------| | 02:35 | What is Progressive Design-Build? | | 07:12 | Study Purpose and Motivation | | 10:09 | Surprising Findings | | 13:50 | Why is PDB Gaining Ground? | | 16:19 | The “Off Ramp” Explained | | 19:24 | Where is PDB Used Most? | | 22:09 | Collaboration Keys and Owner Attributes |

---

Conclusion

This episode offers a comprehensive look at a major industry trend—the rise of Progressive Design-Build. Listeners learn how PDB’s collaborative, phased approach shifts risk, improves outcomes for all parties (especially design professionals), and why large, complex projects are increasingly turning to this method. The panel underscores the importance of owner engagement, flexible risk-sharing, and continued research into how PDB methods can advance the industry’s project delivery mindset.

---

For further reading: Visit www.acec.org/resource
Next episode preview: Standardized construction contracts—improving risk and efficiency in CMS.

---

Transcript

[A]

Welcome to the CMAA Construction Leaders Podcast where we explore ideas, people and trends shaping the construction industry. I'm Nick Soto and hosting with me are Carly Trout and Evan Hendershot from cmaa. Today we're exploring one of the most widely discussed shifts in project delivery and that's Progressive Design Build. Now, Progressive Design Build, also known as pdb, is gaining serious traction across the construction landscape for good reason. It's collaborative, transparent and designed to enhance risk sharing and project outcomes. But what does it actually look like in practice? How does it different from traditional Design Build or Construction Management at risk? And what do engineering and construction leaders really think about its potential? In this episode, we're going to be unpacking key insights from a report released earlier this year by AceClosafe, the American Council of Engineering Companies Research Institute. Now, the report is titled Progressive Design Build Practice Perceptions and Potential. We'll talk with industry expert Keith Moliner. But before we get to Keith, let me introduce Daphne Bryant, the Executive Director from ACEC Research Institute. Thanks for joining us.

[B]

Thanks, Nick, for having us. I'm excited to be here with you today. The Research Institute is really focused on research thought leadership education for our member firms in the industry. We have developed a lot of different products around QBs Lump sum design Build. We're going to talk about Progressive Design Build today. Our latest work, we've got economic assessments and five year forecast work. We have quarterly sentiment studies. A lot of work around Firm of the Future. What does that firm of 2035 look like? Who are the people working in that firm? What is the technology of that firm? The business models, how are they adapting? What does the resiliency look like? A lot of work being done on Firm of the Future that we're excited about and hopefully we'll come back talk to you about that more in the future. I'm excited to introduce our lead principal investigator on this project, Dr. Keith Moliner. He is the Dean of the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder. And we're working with Dr. Mullenar on this project in partnership with the Charles Pankow foundation and dbia. So we're very happy to have them as partners in this research as we move forward.

[C]

Thank you for that, Daphne, and welcome to the podcast. Keith, before we start talking about the specific report, I'm wondering if you could start off by explaining to our audience how Progressive Design Build works, maybe how it's different from traditional Design Build and how projects are split into distinct phases.

[D]

Carly, thank you. And Nick, so nice to be here with you today. Before I jump right into that, Carly, I just want to say thank you to CMAA. I've been a member for 30 plus years now, and in my role as a researcher and faculty member, the resources that you provide and the community that you provide for our industry and our students, it's just really wonderful and I'm grateful to be here today. So when we talk about progressive design build, it is different. I'm not going to use the term traditional design build, but design build is really a spectrum of project delivery methods, if you will. And the way that I like to think about it is design build is one contract with an owner between a design and construction firm. That design and construction firm can be integrated, it can be primes and subs. Lots of different variations there. But it's that single contract that we need to keep in mind. Then the spectrum happens when you look at how that team is hired or the procurement method and then how you pay for that work or the contracting method. And so progressive design build uses a qualifications based approach to selecting a design builder and then works on a negotiated process to get to a design build price. So let's look more at a lump sum design build which some people might call traditional. We tried that in the late 80s and early 1990s and discovered that you really can't low bid effectively design build projects. Now you can do it on some very small projects and very straightforward for speed, but it's generally not done. Where you've seen design build evolve in the late 90s and through the early 2000s was with best value lump sum design build where you would bring teams together to compete in the first phase to win a design and price competition through a best value procurement and then you would build it under a lump sum. And that's worked very well for us for quite a number of years and still works today very well on the right types of projects. But it also makes for a very long procurement time. You have to come up with sometimes a very elaborate request for proposal to get through that first phase. And then you're working under a very as a design builder. A very high risk situation through a lump sum contract. That's been a lot of risk has been shifted to you as a design builder. And again for the right projects that can work very well. Where we've evolved to really, I'm surprised it's happened so quickly in the last five years or so is a big shift towards progressive design build. And Carly, as you said, that really is two phases. And the first phase is A qualifications based selection of a design builder for one integrated design and construction contract that you work up to a preliminary design can. I hate to use percentages, but it can generally be anywhere from 30 to 60%. We call that the validation phase. You validate the scope and you validate and you agree upon a price and then once you get to that price, that's where you move into phase two, the final design and construction and you're off to the races, really overlapping design and construction and getting all the benefits of design build. But this two phase approach gives you the ability to look at risk a little bit differently, to negotiate and to really build a team. Carly, you also asked how does that compare to CM at risk or cmgc CM General Contractor, depending where you are in the country. Just that terminology changes a little bit. It's really very similar in the two phases. But the difference is instead of having an independent designer and an independent contractor, you're working with an integrated design builder. So honestly, progressive design build is a little bit closer to CMR or CMGC than a lump sum design build that you would do under a best value. So hopefully that makes things a little bit clearer for you.

[C]

Great.

[E]

Keith, thank you for answering that question and thank you for joining us. This is Evan here. Let's transition to the study that brings us here today. So what was the genesis of this project and what were you hoping to achieve with this study?

[D]

Evan, thanks for the question. As a researcher, I've been doing work studying design build for since the mid-90s, almost 30 years now. And most of the work that you look at in design build and project delivery overall has been looking from the owner's perspective at how does a delivery method meet cost certainty? How quickly can you get the product to market? Is it meeting all of the owner's project goals and constraints? And I think the research has really shown that design build excels in those areas. But a question that wasn't asked, and I'm really excited that ACEC asked this question, was how does that impact a design professional? So in those firms, especially where they're not integrated design builders, but where they're a joint venture or subprime, how does that impact profitability? How does that impact teamwork from the designer standpoint? So the motivation on this has really been to understand the designer's perspective on these innovative design build methods and the variations. And so this study that we're talking about today is actually the second study we looked at overall design build. So that report is available on the ACEC website, which we'll share at the end. But that really showed that our standard design build methods, where we're using a lump sum or a best value, we're just shifting an onerous amount of risk onto the design professionals, shifting insurance challenges onto the design professionals, and was really putting them in a place where they couldn't be delivering in a collaborative method. So the motivation for current study was really to explore Progressive Design Build as a way to mitigate those risks and help with those insurance aspects. And this has been one of the most exciting projects I've been on from my research. And I think it's because of the response we got. We had 439 individuals get back to us just on our preliminary survey that we're doing. There's just so much interest in this method. It's evolving so quickly. And it's been incredible how positive the response has been, both in interest of learning best practices, but also in the level of satisfaction that actually all the parties have been experiencing. And that's again from the owners who we already knew were satisfied with Design Build method. But now this method seems to be helping out the design community quite a bit more in terms of insurance and risk.

[C]

So, speaking of the responses, Keith, after the study was concluded and the report came out, were there any findings that you felt were unexpected either for you or the industry?

[D]

Yeah, there was a couple surprising findings. One was just the volume of projects that are being done out there. Progressive Design Build we looked at both by number of projects and by construction volume. Well over 80% of the firms that responded were seeing increasing volumes in both dollar amounts and projects. So it's a rapid increase. The other thing that was really surprising was that Progressive Design Build was ranked highest in risk allocation of five different delivery methods that we looked at. We thought that would happen. It would be intuitive when we compared it to best Value Design Build, low bid Design Build, as I discussed before, but I wasn't sure about where it would rank with Construction Management at Risk and Integrated Project Delivery. I actually thought Integrated Project Delivery might have a little bit better risk allocation, but it turned out that there was a significant advantage to everyone who answered for Progressive Design Build. Meaning of those five delivery methods, the over 400 responses felt that Progressive Design Build was was the best of the delivery methods for allocating risks across the team. And again, I the reason, if you compare this to Integrated Project Delivery, I had intuitively thought Integrated Project Delivery would be the best because you go into that with the premise of equitable risk allocation and enter into shared contracts. But the practicality of that is actually very difficult to achieve. And I think we've hit a balance, a sweet spot with progressive design build in that during that time you're validating the scope and validating the price. You're also discussing and validating the best risk allocation so which team member can best manage which risk. And it's that conversation period that I think gives us that ability to better manage the risk. Obviously low bid you don't have that. Or with best value design Build, you having to define the risk allocation for that competition. But when you get to progressive design build, it really does seem to be equitable, even more equitable than integrated project delivery in this study.

[C]

Well, we definitely want to continue this conversation, but we're going to take a quick break and hear from today's sponsor.

[F]

Hello, I'm Kara Lentz, HTB's National Construction Services practice Leader. On behalf of my colleagues, we appreciate the opportunity to support conversations about important industry topics like this podcast. At hntb, we are committed to delivering for our clients. Whether a project is design, bid build, cmgc, progressive design, design build or other delivery method, our focus remains the same. Understanding our clients goals, aligning with their vision and driving outcomes that matter. We've served as owner, advisors, design partners and collaborators on numerous complex projects. Our experience spans traditional and collaborative models alike. And we've seen firsthand how the right delivery strategy paired with the right team can deliver extraordinary results.

[A]

So you said earlier that you see an increase in progressive design build around the country. What do you think is driving that from conventional design build processes that would increase what's not working in design build processes is working in progressive design build. Why are people making this adjustment?

[D]

Yeah Nick, I think part of it is I've been lucky to be able to study project delivery over the last 30 years. And some of this is just a natural evolution of our profession of I think moving away from construction managers, just being seen as a commodity and being hired based on their qualifications. Understanding that integration of teams gets you better solutions quicker and at a better cost with higher innovation than trying to create so many checks and balances that you lose that. But specifically when we compare, you know, some of the largest projects in the country, highway, water, have been done through lump sum design builds. But if you look at some of the large highways, you can spend up to 18, even 24 months developing a request for proposal to do a best value design build. Now you get the competition that happens in that next couple of months. But you've created a lot of redundancy you've created a long period of procurement where the industry's seeing that by having this validation period where you work together, you actually get more innovation or there's a potential to get more innovation and then you certainly see a shorter schedule. I think we've evolved from best value design build somewhat through our experience with construction manager at risk as well. I think there was a big shift in the past 10 to 15 years away from best value design build towards CM at risk. But then we found in CM at risk that you don't see the level of integration because you have that separate design firm and separate construction firm or subs as well. And so I think the owners are seeing the value of integration of design build, but also wanting to get that advantage of the two phase work and the validation work that you see from construction manager at risk as well. Yeah.

[E]

While we were putting together CMA's white paper, CMPM responsibilities by project Delivery Method, we discuss progressive design build at length. So I love to see ACEC taking a deeper dive into this. And what I'm curious about is the nature of this quote unquote off ramp and how that works and how that might be implemented during a project.

[D]

Yeah. Thanks, Evan. In those 439 responses, we had a good number of owners, representatives, construction managers, who we did in this case look at from the owner's perspective. I think CM firms can add so much value to a progressive design build because you do need that owner support and a lot of times you need independent cost estimating and independent look at risk. And so there's a lot of value in that that does relate to this idea of an off ramp. And when I described the two phases of progressive design build, the one thing I didn't share and thank you for bringing it up, is that the owner always has this opportunity. If you can't agree on a design build price or risk allocation, or even scope, you don't need to go to the second phase. You can exercise an off ramp. That off ramp before you get into the second phase can turn the project into take that original design and negotiate with another progressive design builder. You can take that out, use just the design team and go ahead and take it all the way to a bid project if you would like. There's opportunities there. It's not used frequently, but there's times when that does work. I think I've seen cases in both ends where owners weren't convinced that they should move forward with the team they had, so, so they went out and reprocured it. And it actually came back costing more. I have though seen a project where the owner wasn't getting the prices they thought they were going to and they went out and reprocured it with another design builder. Turned out that design builder had better relationships with the local sub community, in this case the mechanical contracting community, and they did end up getting a better price. So that off ramp is really just a decision point between phase one and phase two. Either you're going to progress with this team or you're going to take what you developed and look at another way to procure the project. There is also one other option there, and that is you thought you had a budget and a scope that was achievable and the team looked at it and it just wasn't achievable and the project's not a project anymore. But better to know at that phase than once you've started to move earth and really taken advantage of a lot of work packages and things that might get you too far down the road. So again, I think that off ramp shouldn't be seen as a negative thing all the time, but it is something that the owner has in their pocket to know that there's alternative ways to procure this if it doesn't work out as a progressive design build.

[C]

So I have a two part question and I'm thinking construction is such a broad industry, there are so many different project types, market sectors, sizes. So I'm just curious if as we're seeing progressive design build evolve, if you're seeing it used more in with certain market sectors or specific size project, is there a sweet spot as far as project size?

[D]

Carly, that's a great question. Right. We work on really complex projects bringing a lot of different team members together. And I truly believe, although we're talking about progressive design build today, there is no one delivery method that's right for every project. I think we have to keep that in mind. So I'll answer your question first a little bit on the market and then I'll answer your question on the size. Progressive design build really got its footing and I think its early success in the water wastewater sector where frequently you had a treatment technology like an ultraviolet or a some other water treatment technology that was specific to a company. And so having that one company engineering led frequently firm would take that to a progressive design build. And we saw a lot of success there. Other sectors that we've seen is food processing and more the industrial sector where we've been technology driven. Really an owner has a technology, a food something a drug that they're trying to produce and that that really lends itself to one partner who's really an expert in the ide. Where we've seen a really big move is towards these very large infrastructure projects where the owner wants to get together early on these billion dollar plus projects to get a progressive design builder to help with environmental, to help with stakeholder management, to really get in early and help progress the project in a way that's optimal from a design and construction side. I think where perhaps the smaller projects, the 20 million 10 million projects are still very suited for best value design build or even lump sum design build because you're not talking about that very long time to develop the rfp. So the simpler straightforward projects might lend themselves, but really I think owners and construction managers need to look at the owner characteristics, the market characteristics and the project characteristics in a way that melds best with your appropriate delivery method. And then again, you really need to think through how you're procuring the team and what the payment method and contracting strategy is.

[E]

So what maybe helps sustain collaboration between an owner and a design builder and maybe what's an ideal partnership between an owner and a design builder? What are some characteristics that might foster some of these progressive design build projects?

[D]

That's a great question. And I should say we're at a midpoint with our progressive design build study where we've done this initial firm based survey look and now we're going to go into really deep dives, into case studies and compare the best performing projects to the worst performing projects. And so we'll be looking for some folks to partner with us on data collection and we'll really get into that Answer, Evan, what those best practices are, but you certainly have to have an owner who's knowledgeable and willing to be engaged in that first phase. And I can tell you what's very frustrating for progressive design builders is when you have an owner who's not adept at making decisions because these projects move very quickly, or if they have a relationship with their construction manager where the construction manager is there but can't make decisions. So they function more as a mailbox than a real true team member.

[A]

We don't know any of those, Keith. All our listeners are not like that, I promise.

[D]

I think it's really the owner who puts them in that place for success or not. I think it's that ability for the owner to be very involved early in that validation phase, have construction knowledge or a partner who works with them who can make those decisions. And then in phase two it really is a little bit less involved and because that you are have a firm scope that's been validated a firm price. And I would say the the key is that really first phase that you're ready and willing to engage and make decisions.

[C]

Unfortunately that's all we have time for. But Keith and Daphne, we really thank you so much for joining the podcast today. It was great to learn more about this evolving delivery method and we look forward to the case studies and best practices that you mentioned.

[D]

Thank you Carly and thanks to all of the CMAA members. I know I've relied a lot on you all for helping us with research. I have my colleagues here in civil engineering get to break concrete beams and bend big structures to do their research. My research really comes from your projects and interactions with you all. And thank you for participating with us and we'd love for you to be involved with our research projects and our students.

[C]

It's a group effort. For those interested in checking out the study we've discussed today, visit the ACEC research [e-mail] resource and the study is called Progressive Design Practice Perceptions and Potential. You can also visit www.colorado.edu CEM ACECDB. On the next episode of the Construction Leaders Podcast, we will be joined by a member of AIA's contract documents team to discuss key concepts critical to CMS and how standardized construction contracts improve project efficiency, risk management, and help ensure project safety and compliance. As always, we hope you subscribe to the podcast and follow us on social media. Maahq. We would also love for you to leave us a review and let us know your thoughts on today's episode and what topics you would like to hear in the future. On behalf of cmaa, I'm Carly Trout with Nick Soto and Evan Hendershot. Thanks for listening.