Delivery methods
The contract structure decides more than the contractor does. Choose it on purpose.
CM at Risk, design-build, and competitive bid distribute risk, speed, and control differently. Any GC will tell you which one they prefer. We would rather show you the tradeoffs, publish the scoring, and let the answer be checkable.
STA 01 The three ways to buy a building
Each one is right for somebody. Including not us.
A builder at the table while the design is still wet ink.
You hire us on qualifications and fee while the architect is still drawing. We price the design as it develops, guarantee a maximum price when it is ready, and open our books on every dollar under it. Most of our work runs this way.
Not for you if: your documents are already 100% complete and price competition is the whole point. Then CMAR just adds fee to a decision you have already made.
One contract. One throat. One schedule that owns itself.
Architect and builder under a single agreement, ours. Fastest path from idea to occupancy because design and construction overlap, and there is no gap between drawings and price for anyone to argue about later.
Not for you if: you want your architect reporting to you, not to your builder, or your board needs the check-and-balance of separate contracts. That preference is legitimate; say it out loud early.
Complete documents, sealed numbers, lowest responsible wins.
The oldest structure and still the right one for public work with finished drawings. We bid it straight: no gaming allowances, no change-order business model. About a tenth of our revenue is won exactly this way.
Not for you if: the drawings are not truly done. A bid on 80% documents is not a price, it is an opening position for a year of change orders, and it is how hard bid gets its bad name.
STA 02 The advisor
Five questions. Published math. An answer we will stand behind in the room.
Answer the way you would in your own conference room. The advisor runs entirely in your browser, records nothing, and scores against the exact table printed below it, so your committee can check the arithmetic by hand.
| Answer | CMAR | DB | Bid |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1-A · Concept only | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Q1-B · Design underway | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Q1-C · Documents complete | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Q2-A · Speed to occupancy | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Q2-B · Early cost certainty | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Q2-C · Lowest first cost | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Q3-A · Partner at the table | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Q3-B · Single accountability | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Q3-C · Pure price competition | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Q4-A · Program may evolve | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Q4-B · Program locked | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Q5-A · Budget needs validation | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Q5-B · Financing needs early GMP | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Q5-C · Award to lowest bid | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Highest total wins; a one-point margin is called out as a conversation, not a verdict. Sum the columns yourself: CM at Risk tops out at 10, design-build at 9, competitive bid at 12, and each result bar is scored against its own ceiling.