Cambridge-based Marc Truant & Assoc. won a Build Massachusetts Honor Award and a National Design-Build Institute of America Award for its work on the Swiss House for Advanced Research and Education in Cambridge (pictured above). A recent study by Natick-based ZweigWhite says that design-build projects like the Swiss House will become increasingly popular over the next five years.

Design-build projects will continue gaining popularity despite a split within the ranks of builders and architects over the cost-effectiveness and quality of the practice, according to a study by Natick-based ZweigWhite, a management consultant company for the design and construction industry.

The study asked 146 leaders in the building trades from across the country if they designed and built projects with one central team or if they stuck with the more traditional method of hiring an architect and then bidding out the project to different contractors. It also asked for their thoughts about the future of the design-build industry.

According to the report’s findings, 80 percent of architecture, engineering, construction and integrated design-build firm leaders report that they’re expecting an increase in the use of design-build over the next five years.

Firm leaders surveyed cited lower costs and a single point of responsibility as the single biggest advantage of the design-build method. However, not all feedback was positive – a higher level of risk was listed as one of the major drawbacks to the method.

Is the risk in design-build worth the reward? ZweigWhite associate Laura Rothman, managing editor of the firm’s series of benchmarking reports, says it depends on whom you ask.

“Design-build’s biggest proponents, the leaders of design-build firms, say the reward is at least equal to the risk, if not greater,” she said. “Construction firm leaders tend to agree, while design-consulting firm leaders are more likely to say the risk is too great and not worth the reward.”

Rothman said that, despite the increased risk associated with design-build projects, no firm leader surveyed expected a decrease in the use of design-build over the next five years.

ZweigWhite published the survey in partnership with the Design-Build Institute of America and its Foundation for Integrated Services, a nonprofit organization that supports research and education on the design-build process.

Traditionally, at least in the last century, buildings, highways and most other projects have been built in a three-step process – an architect completes a design, the blueprints are put out to bid and then a conglomeration of general contractors and subcontractors bring the plans to fruition. Design-build, on the other hand, creates a single team comprised of designers and contractors for a uniform approach to each phase of the design-build process, working together from the initial stages of the project.

It’s hard to pinpoint the origin of design-build. Some say the great pyramids of Egypt are one of the first examples, Rothman said. While the practice remains popular in Japan, France and portions of Western Europe. In the United States, at least in terms of public development projects, acceptance of the design-build method has been less enthusiastic. Individual states have officially sanctioned design-build with restrictions or banned the process outright in the public sector.

Forty-three states place restrictions on public design-build projects – Massachusetts included – while seven states prohibit design-build for any public projects. In addition to state sanctions, there’s another major barrier to widespread acceptance of the design-build method – people’s comfort level with the building models they have used in the past, according to Richard Belle, editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Design-Build Institute of America’s “Design-Build Dateline.”

“It’s really a cultural change for all the players involved” in a design-build project, he said.

Advocates of the design-build process say the system promotes cost-effectiveness and efficiency, and reduces legal disputes because of its holistic one-team approach.

Worcester-based Cutler Assoc. began using the design-build model when the firm first opened 32 years ago. As a start-up company with no capital, it was crucial that each new project ended with a favorable outcome, and the only way to accomplish that was design-build, President Fred Mulligan said. Cutler, an integrated planning, design and construction company, now has offices in New England, the mid-Atlantic and Southeast.

Mulligan says design-build creates a speedy process, fosters greater integration and teamwork and results in a reduction in legal claims. Public construction, taking a lead from the military, has for years been moving in the direction of design-build. Mulligan calls the increasing popularity an owner-driven phenomenon.

“What owners are saying is that they’re not happy with the results they’re getting” from more traditional methods, he said.

No Perfect Solution

According to the Design-Build Institute, about 33 percent of non-residential construction projects in the U.S., both public and private, use the design-build model. The percentage of design-build projects was mired in the single digits throughout the 1970s and 1980s. The association projects that within 10 years, about 40 percent of public and private projects will be design-building.

But Mulligan and other industry professionals caution that design-build is not a panacea for every project.

“One of the fears is that it somehow gets promoted as a universal solution to every problem,” he said. “It’s not, although it is a good tool.”

Design-build naturally lends itself for projects such as a prison, college dorm on a tight deadline or a public works building, according to Marc Truant, but he agrees that design-build isn’t for every project. Truant of Marc Truant & Assoc., a construction management and architecture company based in Cambridge, also serves as the chairman of the Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts.

“The project can be delivered quickly but the issue is that it can be expensive,” Truant said. “If you’re on a tight deadline, design suffers. In design-build, you guarantee a price very early on in the process, but as you go along, you may need comprises on finishes or HVAC systems, things that may affect your comfort level with the project.”

In Massachusetts, state law requires that the design and construction of public projects remain separated by a bidding process. Specific design-build projects are given the green light only with special approval from the Legislature. The Route 3 North project – which included the addition of a travel lane, replacement of 47 bridges and construction of a park-and-ride facility – is one example of this “enabling legislation.”

A special state commission on construction continues studying alternative project methods, including design-build. The commission is expected to issue its findings within the next few weeks, according to Ron Marlow, chief of staff for Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, D-Suffolk, who co-chairs the commission.

“Design-build, while popular in some circles, is seen as a very complex system to operate,” he said.

In the meantime, the Design-Build Institute continues advocating for wider use of the method.

“We’re not saying that it has to be done on every project; we’re saying let’s create a level playing field,” Belle said. “Given that, we’ll do just fine, thank you.”