|WikiProject Engineering||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
what are the merits and demerits from design - build system to the architect, to the client and also to the profession ?
Stating or implying that "many" design-build-bid architects are "prone to" cost estimating errors is both vague and unfair to design professionals, particularly without any citations that support if, and to what extent, that the design-build process results in a more accurate estimation for project costs. This could be more objectively written with sets of statistics comparing design/build estimated project cost and final project cost vs. traditional DBB estimated costs vs. final project costs, number of project change orders, etc. This is a very tricky comparison to make, since design-build projects are typically priced at the conceptual design stage, where DBB projects are priced at final design, at a higher level of cost estimating accuracy. Also, there is no indication of the extent to which traditional projects tend to run over budget compared to D/B, which is important -- is it possible that the average cost overrun on design-build projets is actually higher than traditional projects? The point at which the contract is awarded also affects the assertion that the majority of D/B changes are owner-driven, since many of the owner-driven changes may have also occurred during the design phase of the traditional project.
Sorry for this being kind of disjointed. This isn't to dispute that there are significant potential advantages to D/B delivery, just that its characterization in relation to traditional projects needs to be clarified, and the assertions about traidtional DBB projects need to be quantified and supported with citations.
Maybe make this section more clear. How does a lack of "finger pointing" equate to accountability? An unknown problem is an unresolved one. The purpose of Construction Administration is to identify (point to) potential problems and get them clarified/resolved before it's too late. PaulShanks talk 18:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Design-build development. It is a poorly written stub that is already covered here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariokempes (talk • contribs) 22:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I have tryed to improve this article by adding references and inserting some of what I know about Design and Build, as we call it in Ireland.
I have removed few tags, which I think are not anymore relevant. However, this article can be improved by more input and citations, once the new tag. I have also replaced the Weasel Words tag with a neutrality issue tag. I am not convinced that this article still have neutrality issue, but this may be decided by others.--Christophe Krief (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Remove tag for neutrality issue?
I am proposing to remove the tag for neutrality issue from this article. If anyone is against the removal of this tag, please let us know your reasons.--Christophe Krief (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Architect-led design–build merger proposal
I propose that Architect-led design–build be merged into Design–build. I think that the content in the Architect-led design–build article can easily be explained in the context of Design–build. The Architect-led article has both contractor-led project and architect-led project specific material, and that specific material can be bundled in the appropriate subsections. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)