Office Design and Build vs. Traditional Procurement

Two approaches dominate the field: Office Design and Build (D&B) and Traditional Procurement. Each method has its unique characteristics, advantages, and potential drawbacks.

Understanding these approaches is key to making an informed decision that aligns with your project goals and organisational needs. In this article we’ll provide a comprehensive comparison of office design and build versus the traditional procurement route, helping you navigate this critical decision with confidence.

The D&B process typically follows this pattern. One of the key advantages of D&B is the potential for overlap between design and construction phases, often leading to shorter overall project durations.

Let's compare these two approaches across several key factors:

Cost Considerations and Certainty

Traditional Procurement:

• Initial costs are often unclear, with final costs determined later in the process
• Potential for cost overruns due to changes or unforeseen issues
• Competitive bidding process may lead to lower initial estimates

Design and Build:

• Earlier cost certainty, often with a fixed price agreed at the outset
• Potential for cost savings through integrated design and construction
• Less likelihood of unexpected costs, as the D&B contractor bears more risk

Time Efficiency and Project Duration

Traditional Procurement:

• Longer overall timelines due to sequential nature of the process
• Potential for delays between design completion and construction start
• Changes during construction can lead to significant delays

Design and Build:

• Often faster overall completion due to overlapping design and construction phases
• Single point of responsibility can lead to quicker decision-making and problem-solving
• Changes can be incorporated more easily without major timeline impacts

Risk Allocation and Management

Traditional Procurement:

• Client retains more risk, particularly regarding design-construction coordination
• Potential for disputes between designer and contractor
• Client may be caught in the middle of inter-party conflicts

Design and Build:

• More risk is transferred to the D&B contractor
• Reduced likelihood of disputes as design and construction teams work together
• Single point of responsibility simplifies issue resolution

Quality Control and Assurance

Traditional Procurement:

• Client can select high-quality specialists for each aspect
• Independent oversight of construction quality
• Potential for gaps between design intent and construction reality

Design and Build:

• Quality dependent on the chosen D&B contractor's standards
• Integrated approach can lead to more buildable designs
• Potential for improved coordination between design and construction

Communication and Project Management

Traditional Procurement:

• Client often acts as the central point of communication
• Multiple contracts and relationships to manage
• Potential for miscommunication between parties

Design and Build:

• Single point of contact simplifies communication
• Reduced administrative burden for the client
• Integrated team can lead to more efficient problem-solving

While both the traditional procurement route and design and build approach have their merits, at OP, we've developed a hybrid methodology that combines the strengths of both approaches while mitigating their weaknesses. This innovative approach offers a third option that may be ideal for many office refurbishment and relocation projects.

Ultimately, the success of your office refurbishment or relocation project hinges on clear communication, thorough planning, and choosing the right partners. Whether you opt for the traditional procurement route, the integrated design and build approach, or OP's hybrid methodology, ensure you work with experienced professionals who understand your vision and can deliver a workspace that meets your organisation's needs both now and in the future.