How does a design-build agreement differ from traditional contracts?

A design-build agreement significantly differs from traditional contracts in that it combines the design and construction roles within a single contract, which fosters improved collaboration between the design team and the construction team. This integrated approach streamlines communication and decision-making, as both functions are managed under one entity, reducing potential conflicts between designers and builders that can arise when these roles are separated.

By having one party responsible for both design and construction, it simplifies the project management process. This setup often leads to a more cohesive vision for the project, as the design can be tailored more effectively to the construction capabilities and schedules. Additionally, it typically results in time and cost savings, as it can reduce the phase overlap and facilitate faster project delivery.

The other options do not accurately reflect the nature of a design-build agreement. The separation of roles into two contracts pertains to traditional project delivery methods, where design and construction are distinctly managed. Allowing clients to directly dictate project changes may not effectively work in a design-build situation, as the streamlined structure is designed to minimize disruption. Lastly, requiring multiple contractors for each phase contradicts the concept of a design-build agreement, which relies on a single contract encompassing all aspects of the project.