Part of the Ontario construction contracts guide for owners.
Design-build promises owners something attractive: one contract, one party responsible for both design and construction, and a fixed price earlier than a traditional tender would give you. When it works, it removes the familiar fight between architect and contractor over whose fault a problem is. When it doesn't, it's usually because the owner gave away more control than it realized, or tried to keep more control than the model allows.
This guide explains how design-build works under the Canadian standard forms, CCDC 14 and CCDC 15, what goes into the owner's statement of requirements, where bridging documents fit, and the risks owners take on when they try to control the design.
How design-build works
In a traditional design-bid-build project, the owner hires a consultant to design the building, then tenders the finished drawings to contractors. The owner holds two separate contracts and sits between them when the drawings and the construction don't line up.
In design-build, the owner signs one contract with a design-builder who is responsible for both. The Canadian Design-Build Institute (CDBI) lists the main advantages as consolidated risk, integrated design and construction, early price confirmation, a shorter schedule through overlapping design and construction, and less coordination work for the owner.
The Canadian standard forms are:
- CCDC 14, Design-Build Stipulated Price Contract. The contract between owner and design-builder, covering design services and construction for a single fixed price. The 2013 edition has been widely used. A 2026 edition was released this year.
- CCDC 15, the contract between the design-builder and its consultant. The architect or engineer works for the design-builder, not the owner. The CCDC 14-2013 edition requires that subcontract to follow CCDC 15 or be consistent with it, according to the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA).
- CCDC 44, a guide to using CCDC 14 and 15.
The schedule advantage comes from overlap. Design and construction don't have to run in sequence, so early packages such as excavation and structure can start while later design is still being finished.
View the data
| Phase | Start month | End month |
|---|---|---|
| DBB: design | 0 | 10 |
| DBB: tender and award | 10 | 13 |
| DBB: construction | 13 | 31 |
| DB: requirements, RFP | 0 | 4 |
| DB: design | 4 | 12 |
| DB: construction | 8 | 26 |
The owner's statement of requirements
In design-build, the owner doesn't hand over drawings. It hands over requirements. Under CCDC 14, these are captured in the Owner's Statement of Requirements, defined by the CDBI as the site information and program requirements listed in the agreement, plus any amendments agreed by change order.
That document becomes the yardstick for the entire project. The design-builder's price is based on it, the design is checked against it, and disputes are decided by what it says. A strong statement of requirements typically covers:
- Functional program: spaces, areas, adjacencies, occupancy and operating hours.
- Performance requirements: energy targets, acoustic ratings, mechanical system capacity, durability and maintenance expectations.
- Owner standards: brand standards, preferred equipment, building automation protocols, security and IT requirements.
- Site information: surveys, geotechnical reports, environmental reports and known constraints.
- Quality benchmarks: finish levels, approved products or reference buildings, so "equivalent" has a meaning.
The CDBI distinguishes performance specifications, which describe the outcome required, from prescriptive specifications, which describe the products and methods. Design-build works best with performance language. Every prescriptive requirement narrows the design-builder's options and, as discussed below, can shift responsibility back to the owner.
Under the 2013 form, the owner is the first interpreter of its own requirements, the OAA notes. That's a powerful position, but only if the requirements are clear. Vague requirements get interpreted in disputes, and the design-builder will argue that anything not clearly required wasn't included in its price.
Bridging documents
Many owners aren't comfortable buying a building from a list of requirements. Bridging is the answer some of them use. The CDBI describes bridging as a two-contract approach: the owner first hires a bridging consultant to develop the design to an advanced stage, then hires a design-builder to complete the construction documents and build the project.
Bridging gives the owner more say over layout, appearance and key systems before the price is set, and gives bidders a clearer basis for pricing. It also costs time and design fees, reduces the room for design-builders to propose cheaper solutions, and raises a harder question: who is responsible if the bridging design is wrong?
The risks of design control
Design-build's central promise is single-point responsibility. The more the owner designs, the weaker that promise gets.
Owner-provided design can come back to the owner. If the owner supplies detailed design and the design-builder relies on it, errors in that design may become the owner's risk. US commentary on bridging documents describes courts finding that owners can implicitly warrant designs that contractors reasonably relied on, especially where the design reflects specialized knowledge the contractor couldn't check. The new CCDC 14-2026 addresses this directly: according to Fasken's summary, the owner may use other consultants or provide design itself, and the design-builder must coordinate with those owner inputs and identify and address deficiencies in them. How far that shifts the risk will depend on the wording and the facts, so it's one for legal advice.
Review isn't approval. Owners usually want to review the design as it develops. That's sensible, but every comment that changes the design against the statement of requirements is a potential change order. The contract should say that owner review doesn't relieve the design-builder of responsibility, and owner teams should frame comments as "does this meet the requirement?" rather than "I'd prefer this."
The architect works for the builder. Under CCDC 15, the consultant's client is the design-builder. Its professional obligations to code and public safety remain, but its commercial loyalty runs to the party paying it. Many owners hire their own owner's advisor to review design submissions, check compliance with the requirements and monitor quality. The OAA notes that no standard contract defines that role, so it must be described in the contract documents.
Payment certification needs care. The owner designates the payment certifier under CCDC 14. If the design-builder's own consultant certifies payment, it's effectively certifying its own fees, which the OAA flags as a conflict of interest. An independent certifier avoids that.
Early termination and design reuse are restricted. Under the 2013 edition, according to a Blaney McMurtry summary, the owner can use the design once, for the project built, and terminating or suspending more than 20 days before construction starts can trigger payment for design work performed plus damages including reasonable profit. Owners who might pause a project after design should read these clauses before signing.
View the data
| Approach | What the owner gets | Main risk |
|---|---|---|
| Performance requirements only | Most room for design- builder solutions | Requirements must be clear and complete |
| Bridging or concept design | Owner sets layout and key systems first | Owner may carry risk of bridging errors |
| Detailed owner design | Owner controls almost everything | Single-point responsibility largely lost |
Procuring a design-builder
Because the design-builder is pricing a design it hasn't finished, selection can't be on price alone. Most owners run a two-step process: a request for qualifications to build a short list of capable teams, then a request for proposals asking each to submit a concept design, a technical approach, a schedule and a price against the statement of requirements. Proposals are scored on both quality and price, with the weighting published in advance.
Preparing a concept design is expensive for bidders, so owners on larger projects often pay unsuccessful proponents an honorarium. That keeps strong teams interested and, if the contract allows it, gives the owner the right to use ideas from losing proposals. Owners should also hold confidential meetings with each proponent during the RFP, so misunderstandings of the requirements surface before prices are fixed rather than after.
When design-build fits
Design-build tends to fit when:
- The owner can describe what it needs in performance terms and doesn't need to control every design decision.
- Schedule matters and overlapping design and construction is worth more than a fully competitive tender of finished drawings.
- The building type is well understood by the market: warehouses, retail boxes, parking structures, repeat prototypes.
- The owner has a clear budget and wants price certainty early.
It fits less well when the owner's requirements are still evolving, when the design itself is the point, such as a flagship or civic building, or when the owner's internal stakeholders will want to weigh in on every finish. For projects where scope can't be defined well enough to fix a price at the outset, progressive design-build may suit better. Our guide to progressive design-build and IPD in Canada covers that option.
What owners should do
- Invest in the statement of requirements. It's the most important document you'll write. Have operations, facilities and end users review it before it goes out.
- Decide how much design you'll do, and own the consequences. Performance requirements, bridging or something in between: each moves risk differently. Choose deliberately.
- Retain an owner's advisor. Someone on your side should review design submissions against the requirements, monitor quality on site and check payment applications.
- Use an independent payment certifier. Don't let the design-builder's own consultant certify its own fees.
- Read the termination, design-use and change-proposal clauses. Get legal advice on supplementary conditions before tendering, especially if you're moving from the 2013 form to the 2026 edition.
The bottom line
Design-build gives owners a single point of responsibility and an earlier price, in exchange for less direct control over the design. The owners who do well with it put their effort into a clear, performance-based statement of requirements and an independent check on what they're getting. The owners who struggle are those who try to design the building themselves and still expect the design-builder to carry the risk.
Considering design-build for your next project? Book a 30-minute call with Benjamin R. Consulting.
Sources: CCDC Standard Construction Documents (descriptions of CCDC 14, 15 and 44); Ontario Association of Architects, Practice Tip PT.23.6: Design-Build CCDC 14-2013; Canadian Design-Build Institute, Design-Build Terminology (2014); Canadian Design-Build Institute, Document 105: Design-Build Now (2016); Fasken, Redefining design-build: key updates in CCDC (June 2026); Blaney McMurtry, The new CCDC design-build contracts (2013); Peckar & Abramson via Mondaq, Bridging documents and design-build warranties (2025). The schedule comparison is illustrative. This article is general information, not legal advice. Get legal advice on your contract and specific circumstances.