CM/GC & Progressive Design-Build: Member Comparison
This page compares CM/GC and Progressive Design-Build from the perspective of consulting support, governance, risk profile, and when each delivery method is typically used.
These materials are for CALINFRA members and should be used alongside your agency's legal, procurement, and technical advisors.
CM/GC and Progressive Design-Build – Consulting Support & Governance
- These are resource-intensive delivery methods for the Owner.
Consulting support should include:
- Personnel with experience working within a contractor team.
- Experience performing contractor-style or production-based estimates.
- Experience with CM/GC, Progressive Design-Build, or equivalent delivery method (across levels and functions).
- Understanding of the risk management tasks and objectives during pre-construction.
Internal governance framework:
- Multi-disciplinary team (technical, legal, procurement, planning, project controls) to manage pre-construction phase and to negotiate the terms and pricing for the construction work.
- Updated policies and procedures to reflect the delivery method.
- Agile decision-making process.
- Sufficient senior-level engagement.
CM/GC and Progressive Design-Build – Owner's Risk Profile Comparison
CM/GC and Progressive Design-Build – Summary: When to use these Delivery Methods
CM/GC – When is it typically used
- Contracts where the Owner needs to retain full control of the design.
- Where the Owner has sufficient capacity and sufficient time in the schedule to manage multiple procurements and multiple contracts.
- Value engineering / innovation opportunities in construction means and methods.
CM/GC – When is it not suitable
- Affordability challenges or complexity requiring value engineering and innovation in design / integration of design and construction risk.
- Contract scope involving proprietary technologies.
- Where private financing is required.
Progressive Design-Build – When is it typically used
- Contracts where there is opportunity or need (for example, due to affordability constraints) for value engineering and innovation in design, in addition to construction means and methods.
- Contracts where there is a high degree of unknown risk or uncertainty at the time of procurement.
- Contracts where there is design complexity and the Owner wants to transfer that risk to the contractor but the Owner also wants / needs to retain involvement in design development (e.g., to manage interfaces).
Progressive Design-Build – When is it not suitable
- Contracts where Owner needs specific design, such as an extension or redevelopment of a legacy project.
- Where private financing is required.
- For a straightforward project with clear scope and minimal risk of changes (i.e., sufficient certainty to benefit from competitive fixed-price proposals).
Next steps for members
Use this comparison to support project delivery selection workshops, internal governance discussions, and early risk allocation strategy for complex projects.