Delivery methods compared: DBB, CM, DB, PDB, IPD and P3

Before anyone signs a CCDC form, the owner makes a bigger decision: how the project will be delivered. The delivery method decides who designs, who builds, who carries which risks, and when you learn the real price. Choose badly and no Supplementary Condition will fully fix it.

Learning outcomes

• Describe the six main delivery methods used in Canada: design-bid-build, construction management, design-build, progressive design-build, integrated project delivery and public-private partnerships.
• Match each method to the Canadian standard form that usually carries it, including the 2025 and 2026 CCDC editions.
• Explain how each method moves design risk, price risk and schedule risk between owner and industry.
• Test a delivery choice against a real set of owner priorities, using the Northgate case.

The lesson

Delivery method, contract form and pricing are three different choices

People often blur three decisions together. The delivery method is the structure: who is responsible for design, who for construction, and whether they sit in one contract or several. The contract form is the document that records that structure, such as CCDC 2 or CCDC 14. The pricing model is how the money works: a stipulated price, unit prices, cost-plus, a guaranteed maximum price or a target cost. Pricing is the next lesson. Here we focus on structure, because structure decides which pricing options even make sense.

A simple test for any method is to ask four questions. Who owns the design? When is the price firm? Who manages the trades? Who does the owner call when something goes wrong? Figure 1 answers the first and last of those visually.

1. Design-bid-build (DBB)

The owner hires a consultant to complete the design, tenders the complete documents, and signs a separate construction contract with the winning general contractor. In Canada that construction contract is usually CCDC 2-2020 (stipulated price), with CCDC 3 for cost-plus and CCDC 4 for unit price work. The consultant is typically engaged under OAA 600 in Ontario or RAIC Document Six nationally, and administers the construction contract for the owner.

The strength of DBB is a firm, competitive price on a complete design. The owner keeps full control of what is designed. The cost is time: construction cannot start until design and tender are done, and the owner warrants the design to the contractor. Every design error or omission becomes a change, and the owner pays for it. CCDC 2-2020 also introduced Ready-for-Takeover, a completion milestone that goes beyond substantial performance and that we cover in Lesson 7.

2. Construction management (CM)

The owner brings a construction manager on board during design to advise on cost, constructability and sequencing, then manages construction through trade packages that can be tendered as the design for each package is ready. That overlap is the main reason owners choose CM: work on site can start before the whole design is finished.

Canada has two CCDC forms, both updated on June 30, 2025. CCDC 5A-2025 is CM for services: the CM is the owner's adviser and manager, and the owner holds each trade contract directly, usually on CCDC 17-2025. CCDC 5B-2025 is CM for services and construction: the CM also takes on the construction work and holds the trade contracts itself. 5B is the closest Canadian form to what the U.S. calls CM at risk, and owners who want a guaranteed maximum price usually add one through Supplementary Conditions. The 2025 editions add separately defined pre-construction services, owner termination for convenience, and payment within 28 days of a proper invoice to align with prompt payment legislation.

The trade-off is that the owner commits to construction before the total price is known. CM rewards owners who have the staff, or an owner's representative, to manage packages and watch the CM's costs.

3. Design-build (DB)

In design-build the owner signs one contract with a design-builder, who hires its own consultant and delivers both design and construction. The owner describes what it needs in a statement of requirements, often prepared with an owner's advisor or "bridging" consultant. The Canadian form is CCDC 14 (updated 2026 edition), with CCDC 15 for the design-builder's contract with its consultant.

DB gives the owner a single point of responsibility and usually the fastest route to site. Design errors become the design-builder's problem, not a change. The owner gives up detailed control: if the requirements do not say it, the design-builder does not have to provide it. DB works best when the owner can describe performance clearly and cares more about outcomes than details.

4. Progressive design-build (PDB)

Progressive design-build selects the design-builder early, mostly on qualifications and fees, then develops the design and price together with the owner before committing to construction. CCDC published its first progressive form in 2026: CCDC 32, with CCDC 33 for the design-builder's consultant. CCDC 32 runs in two phases. In the Project Development Phase the design-builder submits more refined proposals at project gates, with design, estimate and schedule. The owner can accept, ask for changes or exit. If the owner accepts the Final Project Proposal, the Design/Construction Phase proceeds on a stipulated price.

PDB suits projects where the owner cannot yet write a firm statement of requirements, or where the market is too volatile for a lump-sum bid on day one. The owner's protection is the gate. The owner's risk is that the price arrives late, without competition at the point it is fixed, so open-book estimating and a credible exit are essential.

5. Integrated project delivery (IPD)

IPD puts the owner, the designer, the contractor and key trades under one multi-party contract. Their profit sits in a shared pool that rises or falls with project results, and claims between the parties are largely waived. The Canadian form is CCDC 30-2025, organized into a Validation Phase, where the team confirms the owner's goals can be met for a target cost, and a Project Execution Phase. The 2025 edition expects Big Room practice: the team co-locates, physically or virtually, and works together continuously.

IPD can deliver remarkable results on complex, uncertain projects, but it needs a mature owner and a team willing to work in the open. It is rarely worth the overhead on a simple, repeatable building.

6. Public-private partnerships (P3)

A P3 is a public-sector model. A government owner signs a long-term project agreement with a private project company that designs, builds and finances the asset, and in some models also maintains or operates it. In Ontario, Infrastructure Ontario uses design-build-finance (DBF), design-build-finance-maintain (DBFM), and since 2021 progressive P3 variants for hospitals and other major projects. The private partner's financing is the discipline: it is paid on completion or over the concession term, so it carries real schedule and performance risk. P3s are complex and expensive to procure and are only worth it on large public assets, typically hundreds of millions of dollars and up.

Price certainty arrives at different times

The most useful comparison for owners is timing. Each method fixes the price at a different point in design development, and the earlier the price is fixed, the less design the bidder has to price. Figure 2 shows the typical range.

View the data

Method	Typical design completion when price is firm	Price basis
Design-bid-build	100% (tender documents)	Stipulated price bid
CM at risk (CCDC 5B + GMP)	About 50–90%	Guaranteed maximum price added by Supplementary Conditions
Design-build (CCDC 14)	About 10–30%	Stipulated price on the owner's statement of requirements
Progressive design-build (CCDC 32)	About 60–90%	Stipulated price in the Final Project Proposal
IPD (CCDC 30)	About 20–40%	Target cost set in the validation phase
P3 (DBF / DBFM)	About 15–35%	Fixed price at financial close

Ranges are illustrative teaching values, not standards; actual practice varies by project and owner.

Early price certainty is not free. A design-builder pricing at 20% design adds risk allowances for everything it cannot yet see. A DBB bidder pricing a complete design carries far less unknown risk, but the owner has already spent months on design before learning whether the project is affordable. Neither is wrong. The question is which risk the owner is better placed to carry.

Northgate worked example

Northgate Distribution Centre (fictional) is a 12,000 m² tilt-up concrete warehouse with an office mezzanine in Vaughan, Ontario, for Northgate Logistics Inc. (fictional). The owner chose design-bid-build: Ridgeline Architects Inc. (fictional) completed the design under an OAA 600 agreement, the tender closed on December 8, 2026, and the owner signed a CCDC 2-2020 stipulated price contract with Halvorsen Builders Ltd. (fictional) for $34,950,000 excluding HST on January 11, 2027. With an owner contingency of $3,050,000, the construction budget is $38.0M.

Was that the right call? An owner's representative should be able to defend it against every alternative. Here is the test, scored in Figure 3.

• CM at risk (CCDC 5B with a GMP). It could have started sitework and foundations while the mezzanine design was finished, perhaps saving a few months. But a tilt-up warehouse has few trade packages that benefit from early release, and the owner would have committed before knowing the full price. Gain: speed. Cost: price certainty and more owner effort.
• Design-build (CCDC 14). Many GTA industrial builders offer design-build, and it would have been fast. The risk is control: dock layout, slab flatness, clear height and the office fit-out drive how the building works for a logistics tenant, and a loose statement of requirements invites a design-builder to value-engineer them. Workable with a strong owner's advisor, but not obviously better.
• Progressive design-build (CCDC 32). Best when requirements are unclear. Northgate's requirements were clear, so the gating process would add time and remove price competition for little benefit.
• IPD (CCDC 30). Too much structure for a simple, repeatable building of this size.
• P3. Not available: Northgate is a private owner, and P3 is a public procurement model.

View the data

Method	Price certainty at award	Speed to site	Owner design control	Low owner effort	Fit for Northgate
DBB (chosen)	3	1	3	2	3
CM at risk	2	3	3	1	2
Design-build	2	3	1	3	2
Progressive DB	1	2	2	1	1
IPD	1	2	3	1	1
P3	2	1	1	1	0

The conclusion: DBB is defensible because the building type is well understood, the GTA tilt-up market is competitive, the owner's lender wanted a firm price before funding, and the owner wanted control of the features that make the warehouse leasable. The weakness DBB brings is also clear. Every design gap in Ridgeline's documents becomes a change order priced by a contractor who no longer has competition. That makes the quality of the tender documents, and the owner's review of them before tender, the biggest cost control on this project.

Owner's move

• Demand a written delivery-method decision before design starts, with the criteria and the alternatives considered. It is cheap to write and hard to argue with later.
• Check the match between method and form. A design-build project on a modified CCDC 2, or a "CM" that is really a lump-sum general contract, creates gaps in who owns design and who is paid for what.
• Match your staffing to the method. CM, PDB and IPD all need an owner who makes decisions quickly and reviews open-book costs. If you cannot staff that, budget for an owner's representative or choose a simpler method.
• In DBB, invest in the documents. Fund a constructability and coordination review before tender. It is the cheapest change-order prevention you can buy.
• Reject "fast-track DBB" where tender documents are issued incomplete and finished by addenda and changes. You carry design risk without the price certainty that justifies DBB.

Common mistakes

1. Choosing by habit. Using the method the organization used last time, without asking whether this project's priorities are the same.
2. Treating design-build as hands-off. A weak statement of requirements is the most expensive document in a DB project, because the design-builder only owes what it says.
3. Starting CM without cost controls. If the owner has no budget for each trade package and no review of the CM's costs, the overlap of design and construction becomes an overlap of scope and money.
4. Using a progressive model without a real exit. If the owner cannot afford to walk away at the gate, the gate does not protect anything.
5. Assuming the newest form is the best form. The 2025 and 2026 CCDC editions modernize the documents, but the delivery method still has to fit the project.

Quick quiz

1. Under design-bid-build with CCDC 2-2020, who usually carries the risk of errors in the design?

   1. The general contractor
   2. The owner, as between owner and contractor
   3. The subtrades
   4. The surety

2. Which CCDC form is the construction management contract for services and construction?

   1. CCDC 5A-2025
   2. CCDC 17-2025
   3. CCDC 5B-2025
   4. CCDC 14

3. In CCDC 32 progressive design-build, what happens if the owner does not accept the Final Project Proposal?

   1. The design-builder must build at its estimated price
   2. The owner can end the agreement without proceeding to construction
   3. The dispute goes straight to arbitration
   4. The price defaults to cost-plus

4. What is the defining feature of IPD under CCDC 30-2025?

   1. A guaranteed maximum price set at tender
   2. A private partner that finances the project
   3. One multi-party contract with a shared profit pool
   4. Separate trade contracts held by the owner

5. Why is P3 not an option for Northgate Logistics Inc.?

   1. The project is under $50M
   2. P3 is a public-sector model and Northgate is a private owner
   3. P3s cannot be used for warehouses in Ontario
   4. CCDC does not publish a P3 form

Show answers and explanations

1. B. In DBB the owner supplies the design, so as between owner and contractor, design errors and omissions usually become changes the owner pays for. The owner may recover from its consultant if the consultant was negligent.
2. C. CCDC 5B-2025 covers both CM services and construction. CCDC 5A-2025 is services only, and CCDC 17-2025 is the trade contract used with CM.
3. B. The gates are the owner's off-ramp. The owner has no obligation to proceed to the Design/Construction Phase, although it pays for the development work done.
4. C. IPD brings the owner, designer, contractor and key trades into one contract and ties their profit to shared project results.
5. B. P3 is a way for governments to procure public assets with private financing. A private owner can use design-build-finance arrangements, but that is not a P3.

Key terms

Delivery method

The structure of responsibility for design and construction, and how the parties are contracted.

Design-bid-build (DBB)

Design is completed by the owner's consultant, then tendered to contractors for a separate construction contract.

Construction manager (CM)

A firm engaged during design to advise and then manage construction, either as adviser only (CCDC 5A) or also as builder (CCDC 5B).

Design-builder

One firm responsible for both design and construction under a single contract with the owner.

Statement of requirements

The owner's description of what the project must achieve, used as the basis for design-build pricing.

Project gate

A decision point in progressive design-build where the owner accepts, changes or ends the work based on an updated proposal.

Profit pool

In IPD, the shared profit that grows or shrinks with project outcomes.

Project Co

In a P3, the private special-purpose company that signs the project agreement with the public owner.

References

1. Pallett Valo LLP, 2025 CCDC Contract Updates: What Construction Professionals Need to Know (CCDC 5A, 5B, 17 and 30, 2025 editions).
2. Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, CCDC releases 2026 documents for design-build and progressive design-build contracting (July 2026).
3. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, New CCDC progressive design-build contract: the CCDC 32 (June 2026).
4. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, CCDC 2: updates to the stipulated price contract (December 2020).
5. Infrastructure Ontario, Procurement and Delivery Model Selection Process (September 2021).
6. Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships, Types of P3s.
7. BRC Insights, CCDC 2 vs CCDC 5B for owners and Progressive design-build and IPD in Canada.

Verified on November 4, 2026.

Next lesson in this trackPricing models: stipulated, unit, cost-plus, GMP, target cost