In design-build, the owner signs a single contract with the design-builder who provides both design and construction services. The document that formalizes this relationship is the Design-Build Agreement between the Owner and the Design-Builder. It sets the scope, responsibilities, compensation, and risk under one integrated agreement, reflecting the single accountability and collaborative flow of a design-build project. The Owner-Contractor agreement is used for traditional design-bid-build where design and construction are separate; the General Conditions establish the baseline terms for the project and can accompany various contracts; and the Data Exchange document governs information-sharing processes rather than establishing the contract itself.

The key idea is that the architect coordinates how codes affect the design and keeps the project team aligned. Codes drive safety, accessibility, fire and structural performance, energy, and other requirements, and it’s the architect’s job to identify which codes apply and to flag any design decisions that could impact code compliance. That information is then shared with the consultants (civil, structural, MEP, fire protection, accessibility experts, etc.) so they can integrate the code requirements into their analyses and drawings. This collaborative stance helps ensure the design stays within code constraints as it evolves. This is why informing consultants about applicable code requirements and the potential code implications of design decisions is the best description of the architect’s responsibility. The other options misstate the role: enforcing code compliance rests with the owner and the authorities having jurisdiction, not the architect alone; procuring contractors is a separate function; and approving all construction changes is not a blanket duty of the architect and overlooks the broader contract administration process and owner involvement.

Design-build is a project delivery approach where the owner signs a single contract with one entity that provides both design and construction services. That entity may subcontract portions of the work to specialists, but the responsibility for design and construction lies with that single point of accountability. This arrangement enables integrated teamwork, faster decision-making, and potential overlapping of design and construction activities, which can shorten the schedule and improve cost control. The other statements describe different concepts. An unlimited-liability business structure isn’t about the delivery method. A project where a construction manager oversees the work is characteristic of CM/AR or CM approach, not design-build. A setup where design and construction are performed by separate entities with competitive bids describes design-bid-build, which has distinct bids for design and then for construction.

AIA A132 is the standard form that documents the agreement between the owner and a Construction Manager acting as Adviser. This delivery method uses the CMA to provide advisory services—such as preconstruction planning, budgeting, scheduling, and coordination—while the actual construction is carried out under a separate contract with a builder. That focus on the owner–construction manager advisory relationship is what sets this form apart from agreements that bind the owner to an architect, an architect to a contractor, or an owner to a consultant. The other options describe those different pairing relationships, not the owner–construction manager as adviser arrangement.