Project delivery methods (how the project is structured)

Design-Bid-Build (DBB) — the traditional path. The owner hires an architect to complete the full design, then puts that design out to bid, then hires the lowest qualified general contractor (GC) to build it. Three separate relationships, sequential. Pros: price competition on a complete design, owner control. Cons: slowest method; the GC has no input during design, so constructability problems and budget surprises surface late; change orders and owner-caught-in-the-middle disputes are common.

Design-Build (DB) — single point of accountability. The owner hires ONE entity that handles both design and construction. Pros: faster (design and construction overlap), one throat to choke, fewer disputes, earlier cost certainty, the builder informs the design so it's buildable and on-budget. Cons: owner gives up some direct control of design; requires trust in the design-builder. This is Pereff's core model.

Design-Build-Finance — Pereff's differentiator. Standard design-build PLUS integrated project financing — Pereff brings capital partners to the table alongside architecture and construction. The owner gets design, construction, AND a financing path coordinated by one team. No major DFW competitor integrates all three.

Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR / CM@R). The owner hires a construction manager early (during design) to advise, then that CM holds the construction contract at a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). Blends early collaboration (like DB) with a separate designer (like DBB). Common on larger/institutional work. Pereff uses CMAR especially for project rescues and complex jobs.

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD). Owner, designer, and builder share one contract, risk, and reward. Highly collaborative, used on sophisticated projects. Less common in the $500K–$20M mid-market.