Clients have specific expectations and possibilities for their construction project and are looking for a form of procurement that best suits them. In addition to traditional tendering, the construction industry also applies formulas such as design & build or construction team collaboration. Each formula has its specific advantages and disadvantages and also requires a different mindset from the various partners.
The most common form of tendering is still the classic competition, for both the public and private markets. In this case, the client and study team have already worked out a design and now they want a cost estimate to go with it. In this formula, the contractor is usually chosen based on the lowest price. Some clients also factor other factors such as quality or schedule into the final decision. The advantage of this widely known approach is that the client has complete control over the design, ensuring that it fully meets their specific requirements. In addition, competition among different contractors can lead to lower construction costs. The downside, however, is that there is a risk that the contractor may encounter problems or incompleteness in the design during construction. This can lead to additional costs and delays. The fact that architect and contractor work completely separately can also lead to misunderstandings during execution. This stepped construction process also requires a longer lead time than the other formulas.
A first variation on the traditional competition is the design & build formula. In this process, the client looks for a team of architect and contractor to design and build the building for him based on a program of requirements and often a ceiling budget. A major advantage of this approach is that the architect, engineering firms, contractor and any consultants work together from day one, allowing them to solve problems before they set on site. In addition, this approach can lead to faster realization of the project because part of the design and construction process can run in parallel. This ensures a more efficient and integrated approach, which also reduces the risk of miscommunication. For the client, however, there is a significant downside: he has less control over the design because the team of architect and contractor makes decisions without his input. This approach also implies that the different designs differ from each other - because they are prepared by different design teams - making it more difficult to compare bids. In the end, the client also risks paying for something that may not quite meet his expectations.
In a construction team collaboration, the client gathers the design team and the contractor around the table together from the beginning of the project. This way of working creates a continuous interaction that ensures flexibility; adjustments can be made easily without major delays. It also increases the efficiency of design and execution on site. That efficiency gain is often the key to a financially viable project. Intensive communication and cooperation between the various parties also usually leads to a better end product. It also gives the client room to provide input throughout the course of the project, resulting in a building that better meets their needs. An often mentioned disadvantage of this method is that it requires more time and effort from the client. After all, he must be involved in every phase of the project and take on his share of tasks. In addition, it also requires some form of trust in the chosen process. The coordination of this process is also quite complex and the purview of specialists who can keep an overview. Finally, it is more difficult to properly delineate responsibilities; after all, the goal is for all parties to make supported decisions as one team.
Tectum Group has already proven itself over the years as a reliable partner in all these forms of cooperation. We do believe very strongly in the power of a construction team collaboration. If we can contribute our knowledge from the design phase onwards, we can raise the final result to a technically and sustainably higher level, entirely within the spirit of the intended project quality and budget. Our specialists have the necessary knowledge to think along at this stage.
Also looking for a reliable partner who thinks with you? Contact us.
Clients have specific expectations and possibilities for their construction project and are looking for a form of procurement that best suits them. In addition to traditional tendering, the construction industry also applies formulas such as design & build or construction team collaboration. Each formula has its specific advantages and disadvantages and also requires a different mindset from the various partners.
The most common form of tendering is still the classic competition, for both the public and private markets. In this case, the client and study team have already worked out a design and now they want a cost estimate to go with it. In this formula, the contractor is usually chosen based on the lowest price. Some clients also factor other factors such as quality or schedule into the final decision. The advantage of this widely known approach is that the client has complete control over the design, ensuring that it fully meets their specific requirements. In addition, competition among different contractors can lead to lower construction costs. The downside, however, is that there is a risk that the contractor may encounter problems or incompleteness in the design during construction. This can lead to additional costs and delays. The fact that architect and contractor work completely separately can also lead to misunderstandings during execution. This stepped construction process also requires a longer lead time than the other formulas.
A first variation on the traditional competition is the design & build formula. In this process, the client looks for a team of architect and contractor to design and build the building for him based on a program of requirements and often a ceiling budget. A major advantage of this approach is that the architect, engineering firms, contractor and any consultants work together from day one, allowing them to solve problems before they set on site. In addition, this approach can lead to faster realization of the project because part of the design and construction process can run in parallel. This ensures a more efficient and integrated approach, which also reduces the risk of miscommunication. For the client, however, there is a significant downside: he has less control over the design because the team of architect and contractor makes decisions without his input. This approach also implies that the different designs differ from each other - because they are prepared by different design teams - making it more difficult to compare bids. In the end, the client also risks paying for something that may not quite meet his expectations.
In a construction team collaboration, the client gathers the design team and the contractor around the table together from the beginning of the project. This way of working creates a continuous interaction that ensures flexibility; adjustments can be made easily without major delays. It also increases the efficiency of design and execution on site. That efficiency gain is often the key to a financially viable project. Intensive communication and cooperation between the various parties also usually leads to a better end product. It also gives the client room to provide input throughout the course of the project, resulting in a building that better meets their needs. An often mentioned disadvantage of this method is that it requires more time and effort from the client. After all, he must be involved in every phase of the project and take on his share of tasks. In addition, it also requires some form of trust in the chosen process. The coordination of this process is also quite complex and the purview of specialists who can keep an overview. Finally, it is more difficult to properly delineate responsibilities; after all, the goal is for all parties to make supported decisions as one team.
Tectum Group has already proven itself over the years as a reliable partner in all these forms of cooperation. We do believe very strongly in the power of a construction team collaboration. If we can contribute our knowledge from the design phase onwards, we can raise the final result to a technically and sustainably higher level, entirely within the spirit of the intended project quality and budget. Our specialists have the necessary knowledge to think along at this stage.
Also looking for a reliable partner who thinks with you? Contact us.
Tectum Group Is versed in all forms of collaboration in the construction industry
Clients have specific expectations and possibilities for their construction project and are looking for a form of procurement that best suits them. In addition to traditional tendering, the construction industry also applies formulas such as design & build or construction team collaboration. Each formula has its specific advantages and disadvantages and also requires a different mindset from the various partners.
The most common form of tendering is still the classic competition, for both the public and private markets. In this case, the client and study team have already worked out a design and now they want a cost estimate to go with it. In this formula, the contractor is usually chosen based on the lowest price. Some clients also factor other factors such as quality or schedule into the final decision. The advantage of this widely known approach is that the client has complete control over the design, ensuring that it fully meets their specific requirements. In addition, competition among different contractors can lead to lower construction costs. The downside, however, is that there is a risk that the contractor may encounter problems or incompleteness in the design during construction. This can lead to additional costs and delays. The fact that architect and contractor work completely separately can also lead to misunderstandings during execution. This stepped construction process also requires a longer lead time than the other formulas.
A first variation on the traditional competition is the design & build formula. In this process, the client looks for a team of architect and contractor to design and build the building for him based on a program of requirements and often a ceiling budget. A major advantage of this approach is that the architect, engineering firms, contractor and any consultants work together from day one, allowing them to solve problems before they set on site. In addition, this approach can lead to faster realization of the project because part of the design and construction process can run in parallel. This ensures a more efficient and integrated approach, which also reduces the risk of miscommunication. For the client, however, there is a significant downside: he has less control over the design because the team of architect and contractor makes decisions without his input. This approach also implies that the different designs differ from each other - because they are prepared by different design teams - making it more difficult to compare bids. In the end, the client also risks paying for something that may not quite meet his expectations.
In a construction team collaboration, the client gathers the design team and the contractor around the table together from the beginning of the project. This way of working creates a continuous interaction that ensures flexibility; adjustments can be made easily without major delays. It also increases the efficiency of design and execution on site. That efficiency gain is often the key to a financially viable project. Intensive communication and cooperation between the various parties also usually leads to a better end product. It also gives the client room to provide input throughout the course of the project, resulting in a building that better meets their needs. An often mentioned disadvantage of this method is that it requires more time and effort from the client. After all, he must be involved in every phase of the project and take on his share of tasks. In addition, it also requires some form of trust in the chosen process. The coordination of this process is also quite complex and the purview of specialists who can keep an overview. Finally, it is more difficult to properly delineate responsibilities; after all, the goal is for all parties to make supported decisions as one team.
Tectum Group has already proven itself over the years as a reliable partner in all these forms of cooperation. We do believe very strongly in the power of a construction team collaboration. If we can contribute our knowledge from the design phase onwards, we can raise the final result to a technically and sustainably higher level, entirely within the spirit of the intended project quality and budget. Our specialists have the necessary knowledge to think along at this stage.
Also looking for a reliable partner who thinks with you? Contact us.
Read more
Read more
Excessive or necessary?
Read more
Read more
Read more
Nearly 40% of global CO2 emissions are emitted by the construction industry. Time to change course. With a debate on circularity and circular flat roofs, Tectum Group is doing its part. Review the full debate.
Read more
SERV report confirms what we already knew
Read more
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
