Here are some of the most common project delivery methods other than EPC, along with how they differ:
1. Design-Bid-Build (DBB) – The “Traditional” Method
- Description: This is often considered the traditional or conventional project delivery method. It’s a linear, sequential process where the project is divided into three distinct phases:
- Design: The owner first hires an architect or engineer to complete the full design and prepare detailed construction documents (drawings and specifications).
- Bid: Once the design is 100% complete, these documents are put out for bids from various contractors.
- Build: The owner then selects the lowest qualified bidder (general contractor) and awards them a separate contract for construction.
- How it differs from EPC:
- Separate Contracts: The owner has separate contracts for design and construction. There’s no direct contractual relationship between the designer and the builder.
- Fragmented Responsibility: Responsibility for design errors or construction issues can be fragmented, potentially leading to disputes between the designer, contractor, and owner.
- Owner’s Involvement: The owner is heavily involved in coordinating between the design team and the construction team.
- Risk: The owner typically bears more risk for design completeness and coordination issues, as the contractor bids on a fully defined design.
- Schedule: Generally a longer overall project schedule due to the sequential nature (design must be fully complete before construction bids can be solicited).
2. Design-Build (DB)
- Description: In this method, the owner contracts with a single entity (the “Design-Builder” or “Design-Build team”) to provide both design and construction services under a single contract. This entity can be a single firm with in-house design and construction capabilities, a joint venture between a designer and a contractor, or a contractor who subcontracts the design work.
- How it differs from EPC:
- Single Contract, but scope can vary: Similar to EPC in having a single point of responsibility for design and construction. However, Design-Build contracts may or may not include the full “procurement” responsibility as explicitly and comprehensively as an EPC contract.
- Collaboration: Design-Build emphasizes collaboration between the design and construction teams from the project’s outset, often leading to more constructible designs and fewer change orders.
- Risk: Like EPC, it shifts more risk to the contractor than DBB.
- Schedule: Can lead to faster project delivery compared to DBB because design and construction phases can overlap (fast-tracking).
- Context: While EPC is common for highly complex industrial plants, Design-Build is widely used across various sectors, including commercial buildings, public infrastructure, and smaller industrial projects.
3. Construction Management (CM)
There are a few variations of Construction Management:
- Construction Manager as Agent (CM-A):
- Description: The owner hires a Construction Manager (CM) as a consultant to provide advice and manage the project on the owner’s behalf, without taking on construction risk themselves. The owner holds separate contracts with the designers and multiple trade contractors. The CM coordinates all these contracts.
- How it differs from EPC: The CM acts as an advisor and coordinator, not as a single entity responsible for design, procurement, and construction delivery with guaranteed price/schedule. The owner retains more risk and direct contractual relationships with multiple parties.
- Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR or CM/GC):
- Description: The owner hires a Construction Manager to act as a consultant during the design phase, providing input on constructability, cost, and schedule. At a certain point (often after substantial design completion), the CMAR transitions into a general contractor role, taking on the risk of delivering the project for a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). They then contract with subcontractors.
- How it differs from EPC: While the CMAR provides a GMP and takes on construction risk, they typically don’t take full responsibility for the detailed design (which often begins before their full engagement) and may not handle all procurement in the same “turnkey” fashion as an EPC contractor. The GMP model often has a more collaborative and transparent cost structure than a fixed-lump-sum EPC contract.
4. Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)
- Description: IPD is a collaborative delivery method where all key parties (owner, designer, contractor, and sometimes major subcontractors) enter into a single multi-party agreement. Their interests are aligned through shared risk and reward mechanisms, fostering a highly collaborative and transparent environment.
- How it differs from EPC: IPD emphasizes extreme collaboration and shared outcomes, moving beyond a client-contractor relationship to a partnership where all major players are jointly responsible and benefit from project success. While EPC has a single point of responsibility, it’s still a more traditional owner-contractor dynamic regarding risk transfer. IPD’s risk and reward sharing is much more explicit and embedded across all core participants.
In Summary: Key Differentiating Factors from EPC
The main differences from EPC lie in:
- Contractual Structure: Whether there’s one contract for everything (EPC, Design-Build) or multiple contracts (Design-Bid-Build, CM-A).
- Risk Allocation: How much risk is transferred to the contractor versus retained by the owner. EPC typically transfers the most risk.
- Integration Level: How early and how tightly design, procurement, and construction activities are integrated under one roof or managed separately.
- Owner’s Control/Involvement: The degree to which the owner is involved in the day-to-day decisions and management.
Each method has its pros and cons, and the choice depends heavily on the specific project’s unique requirements, the owner’s capabilities, and their appetite for risk.