{"id":18994,"date":"2023-01-25T19:15:03","date_gmt":"2023-01-25T19:15:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.crossland.com\/?p=18994"},"modified":"2023-06-02T12:43:22","modified_gmt":"2023-06-02T12:43:22","slug":"traditional-hard-bid-vs-design-build-delivery-methods","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.crossland.com\/news\/traditional-hard-bid-vs-design-build-delivery-methods\/","title":{"rendered":"Traditional Hard Bid vs. Progressive Design-Build Delivery Methods"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
A Tale of Two Projects:<\/em> Two nearly identical projects with two different delivery methods demonstrate the benefits of using a Collaborative Delivery Method<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Our team had the rare opportunity to compare the effects of two different delivery methods on an identical treatment structure. We recently completed renovations at a single plant twice – once using the traditional hard bid method and then several years later using a collaborative progressive design-build method – providing us with valuable insights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In October 2016, Rogers Water Utilities (RWU) in Rogers, Arkansas, hired Olsson to design a rehabilitation project for their first Bardenpho treatment train. The scope included dewatering and sediment removal of the aeration basin, concrete reinforcement and repair, equipment replacement, electrical work, waterproofing, epoxy coatings, and guardrail and handrail replacement. They procured this project using traditional Design-Bid-Build (Hard Bid) methods and awarded it to the lowest bidder, Crossland Heavy<\/a> Contractors (CHC), in 2017. The total cost for this project, including engineering fees, was $2.04 Million.<\/p>\n\n\n