At Cliftons Projects, we regularly guide clients through this decision-making process, helping them to weigh the pros and cons in the context of their specific project requirements, risk appetite, and internal resource. In this article, we unpack the key differences, advantages, and disadvantages of both routes, offering insight from real-world experience across sectors such as healthcare, education, commercial, and hospitality.
What is a Traditional Contract?
Under a Traditional contract, the client engages a design team (architect, structural engineer, M&E consultant, etc.) to fully design the project before a contractor is appointed. The contractor is then responsible solely for construction, working to the pre-prepared drawings and specifications.
Typical Structure:
- Client appoints design consultants
- Full design completed before tender
- Contractor tenders based on fully developed design
- Client retains control over design decisions
Common Contract Forms: JCT Standard Building Contract, NEC ECC Option A (with detailed design provided by the client)
What is Design & Build?
With a Design & Build contract, the contractor takes responsibility for both the design and construction. The client typically provides a performance or employer's requirements specification, and the contractor develops the detailed design post-appointment.
Typical Structure:
- Client issues an outline or performance brief
- Contractor is responsible for design development and build
- Design team often novated from client to contractor post-tender
Common Contract Forms: JCT Design & Build Contract, NEC ECC Option C/D with contractor-led design
Pros and Cons: Design & Build vs Traditional
1. Cost Certainty
Design & Build offers earlier cost certainty. Since the contractor provides a lump sum price based on the Employer's Requirements, the client has a clearer picture of total cost from the outset. However, variations or unclear requirements can quickly lead to claims.
Traditional allows for more accurate costing once the full design is complete, but there is a risk of exceeding budget during design development or due to tender returns exceeding expectations.
Cliftons Projects Insight: We often recommend D&B where clients require early cost certainty or are under pressure to fix capital budgets. For example, on a recent NHS modular ward project, the D&B route allowed early contractor involvement and a fast-track programme with predictable costs.
2. Programme Duration
Design & Build can significantly reduce programme duration. Aspects of design and construction can overlap, and contractor-led coordination often improves sequencing.
Traditional requires full design completion before tender, meaning a longer pre-construction phase. However, it can be advantageous for complex projects requiring detailed stakeholder input during design.
Cliftons Projects Insight: For a university teaching facility, we recommended Traditional procurement to allow end-users to influence room layouts and M&E strategies before locking into a contractor-led design. The extra time upfront paid dividends in stakeholder satisfaction.
3. Quality Control
Traditional gives the client greater control over design quality, materials, and detailing. The design team remains client-side throughout and monitors works on site.
Design & Build can result in contractor-led value engineering, which may compromise design intent unless well-managed. The client has less direct influence over detailing unless clear ERs and compliance procedures are established.
Cliftons Projects Insight: We always stress the importance of a robust set of Employer’s Requirements in D&B contracts. Without this, clients can be disappointed when the end product falls short of expectations. Quality monitoring through client-side advisers is essential.
4. Risk Allocation
Design & Build transfers more risk to the contractor, particularly around design coordination, buildability, and cost overruns. This can benefit clients with limited in-house technical expertise.
Traditional retains more risk with the client, particularly during design development. However, it also provides more flexibility to make changes or optimise the brief.
Cliftons Projects Insight: Where clients want to reduce their exposure, D&B is often appealing. However, we caution that risk transfer does not mean risk disappears, poor briefing or weak contract management can still lead to disputes.
5. Client Involvement
Traditional allows the client to remain closely involved in design decisions, which is valuable in projects where aesthetics, function, or user needs are paramount.
Design & Build suits clients who prefer a more hands-off approach, but they must be confident in the brief and willing to trust the contractor to deliver.
Cliftons Projects Insight: For a recent boutique hotel spa project, the client had a strong vision for the guest experience. We advised Traditional procurement to retain design control and to work closely with specialist consultants and craftspeople.
Choosing the Right Route
There is no universally superior option – the right contract route depends on your project's nature, your organisation’s internal capabilities, risk appetite, and priorities.
Consider the following questions:
- How important is design control and quality?
- Do you need early cost certainty?
- Is programme speed a key driver?
- Do you have internal resource to manage detailed design and changes?
- Are you comfortable with transferring design responsibility to a contractor?
Hybrid Approaches & Trends
Many projects now adopt hybrid approaches, such as a two-stage Design & Build. Here, a contractor is appointed early (Stage 1) to assist with buildability and pricing while design continues. The final price is agreed at the end of Stage 2.
This can offer the best of both worlds: early engagement with contractor expertise, but greater client input in design development.
Cliftons Projects Insight: We frequently recommend two-stage D&B for complex healthcare and university projects where speed, risk control, and stakeholder involvement must all be balanced. Managing this process carefully, with clear roles and deliverables, is key to success.
Final Thoughts
Selecting the right procurement route is not a box-ticking exercise. It requires a nuanced understanding of the project's goals, constraints, and client capacity. At Cliftons Projects, we offer impartial advice to help clients make the right call, drawing on decades of experience delivering projects across sectors.
Whether you choose Design & Build, Traditional, or a hybrid, early planning, clear briefing, and proactive project management are what ultimately drive success.
Need help choosing your route? Talk to us today about how we can help structure your next project for success. We can be contacted via the website www.cliftons-projects.com or at info@cliftons-projects.com