Design-Build.

One contract from owner covering both design and construction. Architect and engineering team work under us, not under the owner. Owner negotiates with one entity.

Architects, engineers, and builders at the table from day one. Cost and constructibility inform design choices in real time. Late-stage scope cuts and value engineering become unnecessary because they happen continuously during design.

Phased construction can begin before full design completion. Site work and structural scope can mobilize while interior design is still being finalized.

Constructibility issues caught during design. The builder's input during DD eliminates most of the change orders that happen in the traditional model when drawings hit the field.

Budget validated continuously through design. Less risk of an out-of-budget design that requires VE or rebid. The team commits to a number with confidence because they helped develop the scope.

Traditional model: owner hires architect, architect designs, owner bids construction separately. Design-build: owner hires one team for both. Single accountability, faster delivery, fewer interface issues.

We engage an architect under our contract, selected for the project type and the owner's preferences. The owner sees and approves the architect; the contract relationship is between us and the architect.

Usually. Phased construction can start before full design completion, and constructibility issues are caught during design rather than during construction. 10–20% schedule compression is typical on commercial projects.

Not generally. Lower change-order risk and less rework often offset any premium on integrated team coordination. On complex projects, design-build is frequently lower total cost than traditional.

Strongest fit for owners who don't have in-house construction management, projects with aggressive schedules, or projects where the design and construction need to influence each other (industrial, complex MEP, occupied-building work).