DESIGN-ASSIST: PHILADELPHIA’S PATH TO COLLABORATION AND PROJECT SUCCESS

WRIGHT SAUNDERS | CLEMENS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.

In Philadelphia’s union-driven construction market, collaboration is the difference between projects that struggle and those that succeed. From healthcare expansions to higher-ed renovations, it has become clear that the delivery method chosen at the outset determines how a project ends. For GBCA members, and for the owners and institutions we serve, finding the right balance between cost, collaboration, and flexibility is critical.

The Pitfalls of Hard Bid

In the beginning of my career the default for construction contracting was hard bid. On the surface, it made sense: soliciting multiple bids drove competition, lowered prices, and ensured fairness. It makes sense when construction procurement can be treated like a commodity. But most projects are not commodities. They are fast-tracked, budgetsensitive, and operationally complex. Hard bid is perilous for an owner if the documents are less than 100%, even with contingencies. There is minimum collaboration and maximum friction. Everyone on the team works to protect themselves rather than work together.

The Promise and Limits of IPD

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) works beautifully for those who can commit, but very few owners can afford the complexity. I spent 8 years on an IPD team, and it was a great experience. However, from a contractual and practical standpoint, IPD can be a challenge. Getting the contract executed is time-consuming, owners need an in-house leader for IPD, and the subcontractor community with the resources to participate effectively is limited. The IPD team and contract need to be in place at the very conception of a project — a threshold many owners are not prepared to meet.

The “Competitive GMP” — A Step, but Not a Solution

Many projects in our region utilize the Competitive Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). On paper, this looks like an upgrade from lump sum bidding, but the reality is different. A GMP delivered late in design is still essentially a lump sum with a cap. By the time a CM is engaged, opportunities for collaboration and constructability review are already gone — the GMP simply locks in an incomplete plan. Owners often believe they are buying cost certainty, but what they are really buying is a cap on an imperfect process.

Fee and General Conditions

Another procurement model invites CMs to compete on Fee and General Conditions while the trade costs are carried later. This moves the focus away from chasing the lowest GMP number and emphasizes team selection. But here, too, there are pitfalls. To stay competitive, CMs often undervalue staffing, offering leaner project teams than they know are truly required. This risks slower decision-making and weaker coordination. I have seen many projects awarded on a staff basis that is clearly less than the effort required for success. Undervaluing staff may win the work, but it rarely wins the project.

The Sweet Spot: Design-Assist

The real key to building a successful project is getting the right people in the same room early. That means experienced CM staff, a few key subcontractors, the design team, and the owner sitting together in structured planning sessions. This is the essence of design-assist. The effort is relatively inexpensive, but the payoff is enormous. During these sessions, constructability can be vetted, logistics planned, budgets aligned, and risks identified. Everyone has a seat at the table: owners and facilities staff, design professionals, the CM, and key trades.

We’ve seen this approach deliver real value on projects across the Philadelphia region in hospitals, universities and in our high rise and multi-family commercial construction.

The early planning sessions establish expectations, define the unknowns, minimize disruption, and build a definition for project success that the team lives by.

Team surveys are followed up with fully vetted schedules and logistics plans that are completed alongside the design development drawings. The result is a workable plan that drives value by fully defining the scope and building trust among all participants.

Conclusion

Contract structure sets the tone for behavior. Lump sum creates adversaries. Competitive GMP and fee-only models try to soften the process but don’t always bring the builder in early enough with the resources to change the game. IPD holds great promise, but for many owners it remains too complex. Design-assist, on the other hand, is practical, flexible, and proven. For GBCA members, it represents a delivery method that leverages our region’s greatest strength — skilled trades and collaborative partnerships — while protecting owners’ interests. If owners truly want comprehensive planning and predictable outcomes, designassist is the most economical path forward.