When a project has unique technical requirements that must be demonstrated by bidders, a two-phase procurement is used. In Phase I, the owner prequalifies teams to ensure they have the qualifications, experience, and capabilities to pursue the project. In Phase II, the shortlisted teams submit project-specific technical submittals that detail how they would meet the distinct technical performance requirements, often with price proposals evaluated afterward or in a separate step. This structure lets the owner assess technical capability and approach before considering cost, reducing risk of selecting a team that cannot meet the technical needs. Choosing a single, open, or purely price-focused process would not provide the same opportunity to verify how bidders intend to achieve the project’s technical goals, and a more complex three-phase approach is generally reserved for especially large or highly iterative programs.

Design-Build stands out because it combines design and construction under one contract, giving the owner flexibility to tailor how the project is priced and how risk is shared. With this delivery method, you can choose from a range of contract forms—lump-sum, cost-plus with a target or GMP, incentive-based arrangements, or other pricing structures—while still having a single point of responsibility for both design and construction. That flexibility lets the project adapt to budget, schedule, and risk preferences without changing delivery method. In contrast, design-bid-build follows a traditional sequence with separate contracts for design and construction and a more fixed pricing path after competitive bidding. Construction Manager at Risk focuses on a specific role for the CM with a GMP, which is just one way to structure preconstruction and cost risk. Integrated Project Delivery emphasizes collaboration among multiple parties under a distinct contractual framework, but it’s a different delivery approach rather than a broad set of contracting forms under one umbrella. So the ability to accommodate many contracting approaches within a single delivery method is a hallmark of design-build.

Best Practices describe high-level principles that guide how design-build projects are organized and delivered. They aren’t a rigid set of procedures; instead, they lay out overarching ideas you apply across the project lifecycle. The most fitting description groups these principles into three broad topic areas—Procurement, Contracting, and Execution—covering how you select the team and strategy, how you structure agreements and allocate risk, and how you manage design and construction toward integrated, value-driven outcomes. This framing reflects that Best Practices provide guiding principles across major phases rather than a single universal standard, and they aren’t merely optional or without impact—following them helps improve collaboration, risk management, and overall project outcomes.

In DBIA practice, requirements are described in terms of what the project must do. Functional requirements specify the functions or services the building must provide for its users, focusing on the intended use and operations rather than prescribing exact solutions. This makes them a primary type of owner requirement because they set the what, not the how. The other terms describe different ideas: external considerations are factors outside the project’s design, performance requirements set measurable outcomes the project must meet, and prescriptive requirements specify particular materials or construction methods. Among these options, the SAMPLEone that directly names a category of requirement used to capture user and operational needs is the functional type.