Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) and Design-Build (DB) are among the most used construction delivery approaches today.

So, which one is the best fit for your needs? The answer might be either – or possibly neither – depending on several key considerations.

Gaining a clear understanding of the nuanced differences between CMAR and DB is an essential first step in determining which method suits your project – or whether another alternative might be more appropriate.

Defining CMAR and DB

CMAR is a delivery method where the owner hires a construction manager (CM) during the design phase.

The CM provides input on constructability – the degree to which a building’s design facilitates efficient and effective construction – cost estimating and scheduling. They then assume the role of general contractor during construction.

The CM guarantees the project’s cost through a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP), assuming financial risk if costs exceed that threshold.

DB consolidates design and construction responsibilities under a single entity – the design-builder. Communication and accountability are streamlined, because the owner contracts with one party overseeing both design and project execution.

Contracts & Communication

One of the key distinctions between CMAR and DB lies in how their contracts are organized.

CMAR includes three main parties: the owner, the designer (usually an architect or engineer), and the construction manager. In this setup, the owner signs separate agreements with both the designer and the CM, creating a collaborative yet distinct relationship. This separation enables the designer to serve as the owner’s advocate, helping to uphold design quality and provide oversight throughout the build.

In contrast, DB combines design and construction under a single contract between the owner and the design-builder.

This integrated model can help minimize conflict and speed up decision-making. However, it also means the designer no longer operates independently on the owner’s behalf, which can raise concerns about accountability—especially in complex or tightly regulated projects.

Allocating Risk & Controlling Cost

Risk management is a defining feature of both models, but in different ways.

In CMAR, the construction manager assumes risk for cost overruns beyond the GMP. This incentivizes accurate cost estimation and efficient construction practices. The owner benefits from early cost visibility and can make informed decisions during the design phase.

DB shifts more risk to the design-builder, who must deliver the project on time and on budget. There are fewer surprises, but more pressure is on the design-builder to effectively manage both design and construction risks.

Owners must be diligent in defining project requirements upfront, as changes later in the process can be harder to implement.

Schedule & Delivery Speed

Both CMAR and DB offer scheduling benefits compared to the traditional Design-Bid-Build approach.

In CMAR, the construction manager is brought in early, allowing for phased construction and overlapping design and build phases. This can accelerate the overall timeline and lead to faster project completion.

DB is generally quicker than CMAR, thanks to its integrated team structure. Construction can begin before the design is finalized, and the absence of a bidding phase helps streamline coordination. These efficiencies make DB a strong option for projects with aggressive deadlines.

Collaboration & Innovation

With CMAR, the owner, designer, and CM work together during preconstruction. This model encourages transparency and shared decision-making, which benefits projects requiring high levels of customization or technical complexity.

DB can drive innovation through close coordination between design and construction teams. Fewer contractual barriers allow for more creativity and quicker problem solving.

The owner’s influence over design decisions may be more limited. This puts more pressure on the design-builder’s ability to balance aesthetics, functionality, and cost.

Quality & Accountability

Quality assurance is another area where CMAR and DB take different approaches.

With CMAR, the designer remains a separate entity and can oversee construction quality on the owner’s behalf. This independent role helps ensure the project aligns with the original design and meets regulatory requirements.

In DB, the design-builder is responsible for both design and construction quality. While this can improve efficiency and reduce conflict, it also means the owner must depend on the design-builder’s internal quality processes. That’s why selecting a skilled and trustworthy design-builder is essential to maintaining high standards.

Suitability and Project Types

Choosing between CMAR and DB often depends on project characteristics and owner priorities.

CMAR is well-suited for complex projects where the owner desires a high degree of control over design and values the independent oversight of a separate designer. It is commonly used in public sector projects, healthcare facilities, and higher education buildings.

DB excels in projects where speed, cost certainty, and streamlined communication are paramount. It is frequently employed in infrastructure, industrial, and commercial developments, especially when the scope is well-defined and the owner is comfortable delegating design responsibility.

Let GPRS Keep You In Control of Your Projects

Both Construction Manager at Risk and Design-Build offer advantages over traditional delivery methods. But they cater to different project needs and organizational preferences.

Successful project delivery ultimately hinges not just on the delivery method you choose, but on the quality of the team, the clarity of the project vision, and the strength of communication throughout the process.

The best way to ensure strong, clear lines of communication throughout your project’s lifecycle is by ensuring that the data you’re planning, designing, and building off is accurate and actionable.

GPRS provides you with 99.8%+ accurate utility locates and concrete imaging, pinpoint-accurate leak detection, NASSCO-certified video pipe inspections, and construction-grade reality capture services that help you plan, manage, and build better.

All this accurate, actionable data is always at your fingertips thanks to SiteMap® (patent pending), our infrastructure mapping, and construction and facilities project management software application that provides you with 24/7, secure access to the information you and your team needs to stay on time, on budget, and safe.

Click below to schedule a live, personal & free SiteMap demo today!