Design-Bid-Build vs. Design-Build

Organizations commonly hire outside designers and builders for an exhibition or experience in two ways.

Caution! The names for these two methods are irritatingly similar.

Design-Bid-Build is the typical approach. First, the museum hires an exhibition designer. The project goes through phases like Concept Design, Design Development, and Construction Documents. Then those documents become the basis for competitive bids from fabricators and producers.

Design-Build (see what I mean?) combines those two jobs. The museum hires a team responsible for both design and production. That might be one company with both capabilities in-house, or separate design and fabrication firms teamed together.

Design-Bid-Build remains the conventional model for many substantial museum exhibitions. Design-Build is a well-known alternative, but the two don’t currently represent equal shares of the market.

To say it another way:

Design-Bid-Build = Design it > bid it > build it.

Design-Build = Design it and build it.

And this isn’t just procurement trivia. The choice we make here affects when we need to involve a builder, how we establish costs, where the risk lies, and how we divide responsibilities.

Here’s the thing:

Before choosing how to make an exhibition, we have to understand how we’re going to buy it.

Next time: which one is right for me?

Warmly,
Jonathan

- - - - - - - - - - - -

MtM Words of the Day:

Design-Bid-Build, or Design/Bid/Build, or D/B/B. A traditional approach to creating an exhibition or experience, where the designer and builder are hired under separate contracts, with the design completed before builders bid to fabricate and install it.

Design-Build, or Design/Build, or D/B. An alternative approach to creating an exhibition or experience, where one contract includes both the designer and the builder, either as a single company or as a team of companies.