Resource
Executive Summary – Design-Build Project Delivery in the United States: Current Practices, Performance Outcomes, and Risk Allocation Challenges
As public owners and design-builders strive for faster delivery, cost predictability, and improved outcomes, Design-Build (DB) project delivery has expanded across U.S. infrastructure and building markets. This 2022 research by the ACEC Research Institute, conducted with the University of Colorado Boulder, examines the state of practice for DB delivery, focusing on firm experience, project performance, risk transfer, insurance implications, and team dynamics. By analyzing survey data, project outcomes, and in-depth case studies, the research identifies key performance patterns and structural challenges that shape DB success across sectors.
Why This Research Matters
- Design-Build continues to grow in market share, yet DB performance is inconsistent when risk allocation is unbalanced.
- Engineering firms and owners are increasingly challenged by claims, disputes, and insurance market constraints linked to contractual risk transfer.
- Understanding how risk, insurance, and relationships influence project outcomes helps stakeholders make informed delivery method, contract, and insurance decisions that support long-term project and firm resilience.
Key Findings
- 84% of engineering firms report growth in Design-Build workload over the past five years, indicating strong market momentum.
- Despite growth, 78% of firms still prefer traditional Design-Bid-Build delivery and 65% prefer Progressive Design-Build, reflecting ongoing concerns about DB risk exposure.
- 59% of firms assess that risk transfer in DB contracts is inappropriate or unbalanced, contributing to an elevated level of claims, disputes, and adverse outcomes.
- 35% of DB projects experienced claims or disputes overall; for large projects, this rate rises to 56%, demonstrating that project size is strongly correlated with performance challenges.
- 70% of firms indicate frequent use of uninsurable subcontract clauses, and 50% report rising Professional Liability Insurance (PLI) costs due to constrained availability of Project-Specific Professional Liability (PSPL) policies.
Implications for Practice
These results demonstrate that imbalanced risk transfer—when owners shift disproportionate liability onto design firms—drives higher claims activity, strained professional relationships, and increased insurance costs. The research reinforces that effective Design-Build execution depends not just on delivery method selection, but on balanced contract language, appropriate risk sharing, and robust insurance strategies such as Owner’s Protective Professional Indemnity (OPPI) and PSPL where available.
Methodology
The research methodology included a mixed-methods approach consisting of a firm survey of 155 engineering firms, performance outcome data from 105 completed DB projects across U.S. sectors, and 16 detailed case studies representing both high- and low-performing projects. Data collection occurred through 2022, and while findings reflect strong trends, the study acknowledges that a small number of large projects can disproportionately influence aggregate results.
Practical Applications
This research enables public owners to redefine project selection and risk allocation practices, equipping them to pursue Design-Build with balanced contractual risk and insurance frameworks. Engineering firms can apply these insights to strengthen internal go/no-go evaluations, contract negotiation strategies, and liability planning. Policymakers and industry leaders should consider updating DB guidance, education, and standard contract provisions to promote sustainable risk allocation and improve project delivery outcomes across markets.