Picking the Proper Procurement

Understanding why the choice can dramatically impact a transportation project’s development

By Andrew Wittig and Gord Firth

How important is choosing the right procurement model for a transportation project? It’s not a subject we frequently discuss, as many asset owners have established personal preferences based on their experience.

But proper consultation and consideration on the procurement model to use to develop an infrastructure asset, at the earliest stages of development, can play a significant role in the successful execution of a project.

From risk allocation and overall cost to project timelines and smart practices for operations and maintenance, choosing the right procurement model weighs heavily on the overall success of an infrastructure asset’s development.

Understanding the Differences

With many procurement models available, it’s vital that asset owners understand the key differences between them.

Here are the most popular models currently in use in the Canadian transportation landscape, with key information on each broken down into five categories: Cost/Financing, Design/Construction Timeline, Risk Management and Allocation, Operations and Maintenance (O&M), and Collaboration.

Design Bid Build (DBB) (including PD, DD, DB‑Ready)

• Cost/Financing – Lowest initial design phase cost but high exposure to cost escalation due to scope changes, but no contractor pricing until tender (e.g. design is complete) can potentially limit early risk identification.
• Design/Construction Timeline – Sequential process lengthens schedule, however, it allows for considerable consultation and adjustment to incorporate municipal interests.
• Risk Management and Allocation – Owner accepts majority of design risk; contractor holds construction risk.
• O&M – Handed over entirely to the owner; O&M outcomes depend on quality and completeness of the construction.
• Collaboration – High level of collaboration between Owner and Designer during design, however interaction between designer and contractor is limited

Small and Large Retainers

• Cost/Financing – Lower transaction/procurement cost for Owner, and reduces scope changes as work assignments are scoped collaboratively prior to pricing.
• Design/Construction Timeline – Faster consultant onboarding accelerates PD/DD stages; can be used for emergency/unforeseen work or add‑on work.
• Risk Management and Allocation – Same DBB‑style allocation, with reduced procurement risk but not delivery risk.
• O&M – Same as DBB—O&M fully owner‑managed.
• Collaboration – Slightly improved continuity with known consultants.

Construction Management General Contractor (CMGC)

• Cost/Financing – Earlier and more accurate cost visibility through early contractor pricing.
• Design/Construction Timeline – Parallel design and constructability reviews improve schedule certainty and reduce procurement time, while early works packages can accelerate construction.
• Risk Management and Allocation – Earlier risk identification reduces downstream claims, and joint risk reviews allow appropriate allocation. Owner has an off-ramp if it cannot agree on a construction value with the Construction Manager.
• O&M – O&M remains with the owner, however, improved design/construction quality reduces lifecycle issues.
• Collaboration – Requires Owner to be open to adjusting specifications to adjust to contractor innovations, as well as very high collaboration with early contractor involvement.

Design Build (DB Major / DB Minor)

• Cost/Financing – Design and construction responsibility encourages cost optimization. Higher procurement cost overall with high bid cost that includes stipend from the Owner.
• Design/Construction Timeline – Overlap of design and construction can accelerate delivery. Shorter procurement times. In a DB, the Owner produces DB Ready Package 30%.
• Risk Management and Allocation – Significant risk shifted to contractors, including design, coordination, schedule. Improper shifting of property/utility approvals can add major schedule/cost risk.
• O&M – Usually excluded unless DB‑F or DB‑FM; rare in practice.
• Collaboration – Better integration than DBB.

Progressive Design Build Highways (PDBH)

• Cost/Financing – Two‑phase hybrid model with early cost transparency. Reduces cost risk through open‑book approach. Low procurement costs if the Owner selects based on behaviour and not a technical submission.
• Design/Construction Timeline – Early works can begin while design is refined. Timeline depends on pace of progressive design and commercial negotiations.
• Risk Management and Allocation – PDB works best when the project scope is not well defined.  PDB allows the Owner, Designer and Contractor to jointly develop the project scope, schedule and cost sharing the risks.
• O&M – Flexible, as this can include or exclude O&M. Lifecycle considerations can be integrated early.
• Collaboration – Very high as collaborative behaviour assessed during procurement. Encourages shared problem‑solving before commercial close.

As you can see, each system of procurement has its own set of advantages and what could be seen as potential disadvantages. But their selection is incredibly strategic, as it allows the asset owner to prioritize what it values most in a project’s development: speed, cost, collaboration, ease of operation, innovation, asset life etc.

What is most important is that this evaluation is done very early in the project process. Doing so allows the asset owner to set very clear expectations for scope and project development, as the early contractor input helps set expectations for pricing and constructability. It sets the project narrative, and allows all impacted parties to appreciate what the final product will be, the cost, and the estimated time for delivery.

Selecting the right procurement model isn’t a decision that gets emphasized enough in the development of infrastructure projects, yet it can have a very significant impact on the success of asset delivery.

Andrew Wittig is a Senior Director, Highways & Roads for WSP in Canada.

Gord Firth is the Senior Director for MTO Business Strategy & Client Relationship at WSP in Canada.

Featured image: (Peel Region)