Resource
Progressive Design-Build (PDB) is emerging as a significant and growing project delivery method across U.S. infrastructure and building sectors. This 2026 research by the ACEC Research Institute, in partnership with the University of Colorado Boulder, the Charles Pankow Foundation and DBIA, examines how PDB is currently practiced, where it performs well, and what distinguishes stronger and weaker project outcomes. Drawing on firm-level surveys, project data, and in-depth case analysis, the study finds that while PDB is widely viewed positively, its success depends less on the delivery method itself and more on how collaboration is structured, governed, and translated into project decisions.
Why This Research Matters
• Progressive Design-Build is expanding across the industry, yet adoption remains uneven across markets, sectors, and owner types.
• While PDB emphasizes collaboration, inconsistent execution—particularly during early project phases—can lead to misalignment, disputes, or project off-ramping.
• As owners and firms seek more predictable, collaborative delivery methods, understanding how PDB performs in practice is critical to improving outcomes and reducing risk.
Key Findings
• 88% of firms report an increase in PDB project volume, 81% report increased project value, and 79% express overall satisfaction with the delivery method, indicating strong industry momentum.
• Project-level analysis of 239 projects shows that PDB is applied across a wide range of sectors, sizes, and structures, with no single dominant commercial or governance model.
• Completed projects demonstrate strong performance delivered on or ahead of schedule.
• Stronger-performing projects consistently demonstrate disciplined Phase 1 Design and Preconstruction processes, clear governance structures, and early management of enabling conditions such as permitting and utilities.
• Weaker and off-ramped projects are most often driven by unresolved alignment issues, including scope-funding mismatch, unclear commercial terms, and inconsistent decision-making.
Implications for Practice
The findings demonstrate that PDB performance is driven by execution discipline rather than delivery method selection alone. Projects perform best when Phase 1 Design and Preconstruction is treated as a formal alignment process supported by clear governance, transparent commercial terms, and early identification of risks and external constraints. The study also reframes off-ramping as a potentially productive outcome when alignment on scope, cost, and feasibility cannot be achieved, rather than simply a project failure.
Methodology
The study uses a multi-method research approach, integrating firm-level survey responses from 581 participants representing 439 firms, project-level data from 239 projects (including completed, in-progress, and off-ramped projects), and detailed case study interviews. The dataset spans major sectors including buildings, transportation, and water/wastewater and is weighted toward public-sector projects, reflecting current industry practice.
Practical Applications
This research enables public owners to improve project outcomes by structuring Phase 1 Design and Preconstruction as a disciplined decision-making process and establishing governance and commercial clarity early. Engineering firms and design-build teams can apply these findings to strengthen alignment, improve risk management, and enhance project delivery performance. Policymakers and industry leaders can use the results to advance guidance, education, and procurement frameworks that support more consistent and effective implementation of Progressive Design-Build.