Right Team, Right Process, Right

Outcome

Why Project Delivery Matters

When school leaders begin planning a capital improvement project, the conversation often starts with scope and budget. However, one of the most important decisions happens much earlier: selecting the right project delivery method.

There is no universal solution for every school district or every project. A summer roofing replacement has very different requirements than a new career and technical education facility or a district-wide mechanical system upgrade. As project complexity increases, so does the importance of matching the delivery method to the district's staff capacity, risk tolerance, schedule constraints, and operational needs.

Today's school construction environment presents several challenges:

• Ongoing labor and subcontractor shortages
• Compressed summer construction windows
• Aging building systems and infrastructure
• Budget and funding limitations
• Increased board, community, and referendum scrutiny

These conditions are causing project risks to shift, making strategic planning more critical than ever.

Understanding Construction Risk

Before selecting a delivery method, districts should understand the primary categories of risk involved in school construction:

• Cost certainty
• Schedule certainty
• Design alignment with district priorities
• Phasing and logistics
• Student and staff safety
• Operational disruption

Different delivery methods distribute these risks differently among the owner, architect, contractor, and construction manager. The key is determining which party is best positioned to manage each risk.

Design-Bid-Build: The Traditional Approach

Design-Bid-Build remains one of the most commonly used delivery methods in public-sector construction, and for school districts, this is the method your board is most familiar with.

In this process, once construction documents are complete, contractors competitively bid on the project, and the lowest qualified bidder is typically awarded the work.

Advantages

• Clear separation between design and construction
• Strong competitive bidding environment
• Well-understood and familiar process
• Extensive owner control during design

Challenges

• Longer overall project duration
• Limited contractor input during design
• Potential for change orders if unforeseen conditions arise
• Greater responsibility placed on the owner for coordination

Design-Bid-Build is often effective for straightforward projects with clearly defined scopes and sufficient time for sequential design and bidding activities.

Construction Manager as Agent (CMa)

Under the Construction Manager as Agent model, the district hires a construction manager to act as its representative throughout the project.

The construction manager provides scheduling, budgeting, estimating, and construction oversight services but does not hold the trade contracts or provide a guaranteed maximum price.

Advantages

• Independent project oversight
• Enhanced budget and schedule monitoring
• Early constructability input
• Increased owner visibility and control

Challenges

• More responsibility remains with the owner
• No direct cost guarantee from the construction manager
• Requires active district participation

This approach is particularly effective for infrastructure upgrades, phased improvements, and projects where districts desire expert guidance while maintaining direct control of contracts and decisions.

Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR)

Construction Manager at Risk has become increasingly popular for complex educational projects.\

In this model, the construction manager joins the team during design and collaborates with both the architect and owner. The CM assumes greater responsibility for construction risk.

Advantages

• Early contractor involvement
• Improved cost estimating throughout design
• Better schedule management
• Enhanced constructability reviews
• Greater cost certainty through estimates throughout design

Challenges

• Less competitive bidding at the prime contractor level
• Requires strong team collaboration
• Selection process focuses on qualifications rather than lowest bid

CMAR is often an ideal fit for large-scale capital improvements, occupied-campus construction, and projects where schedule certainty is critical. Early collaboration allows teams to proactively address risks before construction begins.

Design-Build: One Team, One Contract

Design-Build combines architectural and construction services under a single contract.

Instead of managing separate relationships with designers and contractors, the district contracts with a single Design-Build entity responsible for both design and construction.

Advantages

• Faster overall project delivery
• Streamlined communication
• Single point of responsibility
• Reduced coordination challenges
• Potential for innovative solutions

Challenges

• Less direct owner control over design details
• Requires clear performance expectations
• Selection process can be more complex

Design-Build is still in an infancy stage for school districts in Illinois, but a good example of use could be for specialized facilities, such as Career and Technical Education (CTE) centers, where speed and integration are critical to project success.

Cooperative Purchasing and Job Order Contracting (JOC)

For smaller-scale projects or recurring facility needs, Cooperative Purchasing and Job Order Contracting provide alternative procurement options.

These methods leverage pre-established contracts and pricing structures, allowing districts to complete projects without undertaking a full traditional bidding process each time.

Advantages

• Accelerated procurement
• Reduced administrative burden
• Faster project initiation
• Effective for repetitive or small-scale work

Challenges

• Less design flexibility
• Not appropriate for all project types
• Requires careful evaluation of pricing and scope

These delivery methods are often effective for mechanical replacements, facility improvements, maintenance projects, and time-sensitive upgrades.

Questions Every District Should Ask

Before selecting a delivery strategy, district leaders should honestly evaluate their internal capacity and risk tolerance:

• How much staff time is available to manage the project?
• What level of budget uncertainty is acceptable?
• How critical is opening-day readiness?
• How politically or publicly sensitive is the project?
• How much operational disruption can the district tolerate?

The best delivery method is not necessarily the most popular or innovative. It is the one that aligns with the district's resources, priorities, and realities.

The JP Architects Perspective

At JP Architects, we believe successful school projects are built on thoughtful planning, clear communication, and selecting the right team at the right time.

Whether a district is pursuing a referendum-funded capital program, a summer renovation, a health life safety project, an addition, or critical infrastructure improvements, the delivery method should support the project's unique goals and challenges. Different constraints create different risk profiles, and understanding those risks early can help protect budgets, schedules, and educational operations.

Final Thought

The question is not which delivery method is best. The question is which delivery method is best for your district.

By understanding how risk shifts among Design-Bid-Build, Construction Manager as Agent, Construction Manager at Risk, Design-Build, and Job Order Contracting, school leaders can make more informed decisions and position their projects for long-term success.

Need guidance on selecting the right delivery method for your next school project? Let's discuss your district's goals, challenges, and opportunities – 708.907.3651.

Until next time,

Jose R. Pareja

President | JP Architects, Ltd.

JP Architects, Ltd. is a full-service architecture firm specializing in K-12 Design, Higher Education, Governmental Design, commercial architecture and residential design. We have a young and vibrant team led by leadership who is progressive in their management style. We serve Chicagoland and North & Central Illinois and are licensed in multiple States. We bring sound principles of design, creativity, innovation, resourcefulness, reliability, quality, and functional architecture and interior design to each project. At JP Architects, Ltd. we REALIZE. the Possibilities, DESIGN. Your Reality. & INFLUENCE. Your Life and Community.