A stadium project with a five-year design and construction schedule: which delivery method should be recommended?

• A. Construction manager as constructor
• B. Design-bid-build
• C. Pure design-build
• D. Integrated project delivery

Answer: (A)

For a large, complex project with a long, five-year timeline, you want someone involved early who can shape the design with construction expertise, manage cost, and keep the schedule on track as the design evolves. Construction Manager as Constructor fits that need because the owner brings the construction manager on during the design phase to provide preconstruction services—cost estimation, scheduling, constructability reviews, risk assessment, and coordination with the design team and early-trade involvement. Then, as the project progresses, the same party assumes the role of general contractor and oversees the actual construction with subcontractors.

This approach makes fast-tracking feasible, which is crucial for a stadium with long lead items and many interdependent systems. The CM can begin procuring long-lead components and begin phased work while design continues, helping to align cost and schedule with the evolving design. It also enhances coordination among the numerous trades and reduces the likelihood of late design changes causing schedule disruptions, all while maintaining built-in owner oversight and cost control.

Other delivery methods tend to slow progress or reduce owner control in ways that aren’t ideal for a project of this scale and duration. Traditional design-bid-build is sequential and often slower, pure design-build compresses design and construction but offers less owner involvement and more risk around design decisions, and integrated project delivery requires a level of collaboration and contractual setup that can be complex to implement. The Construction Manager as Constructor approach provides early construction input, ongoing cost control, and schedule flexibility needed to manage a five-year stadium program effectively.