Design-Bid-Build

A.R.S. 34-101 puts it plainly for public work: under design-bid-build "there is a sequential award of two separate contracts. The first contract is for design services. The second contract is for construction." Custom-home buyers follow the same order. Hire a designer, wait for a permit-ready plan set, shop it to builders, then award the job.

The bidding step is the reason owners pick it. Three builders pricing identical drawings hand you three numbers you can lay side by side, and the spread says something real about scope, allowances, and who wants the work. You also choose your architect on design alone. Nothing obligates you to take the low bid.

You pay for that pricing power in coordination. Two contracts mean two schedules, two invoicing cycles, and two parties who report to you rather than to each other. No one has to reconcile the architect's roof detail with the builder's truss layout unless you pay for it. Owners also underestimate the calendar: drawings, engineering, and plan review can run months before a builder is selected.

The sharper exposure sits in the seam between the two contracts. For example, the drawings call out a beam that is undersized for its span. The builder writes a change order for the correction, and the architect answers that the builder should have caught it while bidding. You stand between them holding both invoices. Change orders out of that seam are why the winning bid is a starting number, not a final one.

Whoever wins still has to be licensed. A.R.S. 32-1151 makes it unlawful to act as a contractor in Arizona without a license in good standing, so verify the low bidder before you countersign, not after the permit is pulled. Design-bid-build earns its place when your plans are finished and you want the market to price them. Design-build trades that competitive check for one accountable party and an earlier start.