Before you talk finishes or square footage, you make one decision that shapes the whole job: how you buy the construction. The delivery method sets who designs the building, who prices it, when you get a firm number, and who carries the risk if something goes sideways. Get it right and the rest of the project runs smoother. Here is what the three common commercial methods really mean, in plain English.
What "Delivery Method" Actually Means
A delivery method is just the contract structure that connects the three parties on a commercial project: the owner, the designer (architect and engineers), and the builder (the general contractor or construction manager). The difference between the methods comes down to when the builder joins the team, how the price is set, and who is on the hook for gaps between the drawings and the finished building.
The three you will hear most often in North Texas are design-bid-build (often called hard-bid GC), construction manager at risk (CMAR), and design-build. None of them is automatically "best." Each trades off price certainty, speed, and control in a different way.
Design-Bid-Build (Hard-Bid GC)
This is the traditional path. The owner hires an architect, the design gets finished to full construction documents, and then those completed drawings go out to several general contractors who each submit a lump-sum bid. The owner typically awards to the low qualified bidder, and that contractor builds exactly what the drawings show.
Because you are bidding a complete set, the numbers are easy to compare apples to apples, and competition tends to sharpen the price. The trade-off is time and coordination. Design and construction happen back to back rather than overlapping, and the builder had no say in the drawings, so anything the documents miss or get wrong tends to surface later as a change order.
Who it fits
- Owners who want maximum price competition on a well-defined building
- Projects with straightforward, low-risk scope where the design can be fully drawn before pricing
- Public or institutional work where competitive low-bid is often required
The risk to watch: the builder is bound to the documents as drawn. If those documents have gaps, the owner usually pays to close them once construction is underway.
Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR)
In CMAR, the owner brings the builder on early, during design, as an advisor first. The construction manager sits alongside the architect, prices the work as the drawings develop, flags constructability and long-lead issues, and helps keep the design inside the budget. Then, usually before the documents are fully complete, the CM commits to a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) and switches roles from advisor to the contractor "at risk" for delivering the job at or under that number.
That GMP is the heart of the method. It caps the owner's exposure: overruns above the guaranteed maximum are the construction manager's problem, while savings below it typically return to the owner or get shared. Because the builder helped shape the design, there are usually fewer surprises once the work starts.
Tip: A GMP is only as solid as the drawings behind it. If the design is still loose when the number is set, the GMP will carry contingency (padding) to cover the unknowns. The more complete the documents, the tighter and more reliable the guaranteed maximum will be.
Who it fits
- Owners who value the builder's input during design without giving up an open-book price
- Complex or phased projects where constructability and scheduling matter early
- Anyone financing a project who needs a firm ceiling to take to a lender
Design-Build
Design-build folds design and construction under a single contract with one accountable party. Instead of hiring an architect and a builder separately, the owner hires one design-build team, and that team carries both the drawings and the construction. There is one point of contact and one entity responsible for the finished result.
Because the same team is designing and building at once, the two can overlap. Foundations can go in while later phases are still being detailed, which usually compresses the overall schedule. It also removes the classic finger-pointing between designer and builder, since a single party owns both.
The trade-off is that the owner gives up some direct control over the design and leans harder on trust in the team. You are buying an outcome, so the up-front conversation about scope, quality standards, and budget has to be clear and honest from day one.
Who it fits
- Owners who prioritize speed and a single point of accountability
- Projects with a clear program but flexibility on exactly how it gets detailed
- Ground-up work where an early, budget-driven design saves both time and money
How Pricing and Risk Compare
The clearest way to see the difference is to line up when you get a firm price and who owns the gaps:
- Hard-bid GC: firm lump-sum price, but not until the design is 100 percent complete. Strong price competition; the owner carries the risk of anything the drawings miss.
- CMAR: a guaranteed maximum price set during design, open-book, with the builder capping the overrun risk above the GMP and the owner often keeping the savings below it.
- Design-build: a single price and a single responsible party early, with design and build overlapping. The team owns both the drawings and the construction, which reduces gaps but asks more trust of the owner.
The real question is not "which method is cheapest," it is "where do I want the risk to sit, and how early do I need a number I can plan around."
How to Choose the Right One
There is no universal winner, but a few questions usually point to the answer. Is the design fully defined, or still taking shape? Do you need the lowest competitive price, or the most schedule certainty? How much builder input do you want during design, and how comfortable are you sharing control?
As rough guidance: if the building is fully drawn and you want the sharpest competitive number, hard-bid tends to fit. If you want the builder's help during design but still need a firm ceiling for the bank, CMAR is a strong middle path. If speed and single-source accountability matter most and you have a clear program, design-build is often the cleanest route. Whatever you choose, good preconstruction work early is what keeps any of these methods honest.
How Aghorn Interests Approaches This
We deliver commercial projects across the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex under all three structures, and we help owners pick the one that actually fits their deal instead of pushing a single model. When you want one accountable team from first sketch to certificate of occupancy, our design-build approach carries design and construction under one contract. When the drawings are already complete or you need competitive lump-sum pricing, our general contracting service covers hard-bid and CM-at-risk work run in the field by our own people.
Either way, it starts the same: with real preconstruction. If you are still weighing the options, tell us about the project through our contact form and we will help you sort out which delivery method makes the most sense before you commit a dollar.