Design-build is authorized in virtually every state.  This map – published by DBIA – shows the current status of design-build authorization throughout the U.S.  It implies (somewhat accurately) that public design-build is exploding in popularity, but the map can be deceiving because many states:  1) have only limited authority; or 2) refuse to use the authority they’ve been given.  Why is this?  To answer this question, you have to understand the political movement that led to the separation of design and construction services. 

If you’ve spent time following the so called “integrated design” movements, you’ve undoubtedly heard of the “Master Builder.”  This is a term used to describe architects who designed and built projects under a single contract with an owner or government agency.  It was the most common delivery method until Congress began requiring more detailed plans and specifications in the late 19th century. 

In 1893 – due in large part to the emergence of the professional disciplines (architecture and engineering) – Congress gave the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to seek assistance from professionals in preparing plans and specifications.  This began the separation.

In 1926, the Public Building Act required federal employees to prepare plans and specifications prior to construction, and again, authorized hiring professionals to assist in this process. 

In 1949, the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act allowed negotiated architectural and engineering services for non-military projects.  This Act included fee caps rather than requiring competitive bidding. 

Each of these statutes allowed for (but did not require) negotiated procurement of architectural and engineering service contracts. 

This ended in 1972.  That year, Congress passed The Brooks Act.  This statute requires that all contracts for architectural and engineering services be based on qualifications and not price.  This made it literally impossible to combine design services with construction services (which had to be awarded based on low bid price pursuant to competitive bidding laws). 

A version of the Brooks Act was adopted in virtually every state – making the separation of the professions complete. 

Design-build did not re-emerge until 1996 when Congress passed the Federal Acquisition Reform Act (a/k/a the “Clinger-Cohen Act“), authorizing design-build in limited circumstances.  This authority has been steadily expanded.  The states followed.  And now – nearly 15 years later – the map is completely green.  With the advent of Building Information Modeling, the consensus recognition of inefficiencies in the design-bid-build process, and the success of design-build projects, the map will only get darker and darker.  But the design-build movement is in conflict with 100 years of public policy and legislation, and the change won’t come overnight.