Georgia Construction Project Delivery Methods

Project delivery methods define the contractual and organizational structure through which an owner, designer, and contractor collaborate to complete a construction project. In Georgia, the selection of a delivery method directly affects risk allocation, scheduling, cost certainty, and compliance with procurement statutes that govern public work. This page covers the primary delivery frameworks used on Georgia projects, how each operates procedurally, the conditions that drive selection, and the boundaries separating one method from another.

Definition and scope

A project delivery method is the system that establishes who holds contracts with whom, when design and construction activities overlap, and how financial and legal risk is distributed among parties. The three dominant frameworks in U.S. and Georgia construction practice are Design-Bid-Build (DBB), Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR), and Design-Build (DB). A fourth model, Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), exists but remains less common on Georgia public work.

The Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission (GSFIC) oversees capital project delivery for state-funded facilities and publishes standard contract forms tied to specific delivery types. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) administers its own alternative delivery rules for highway and infrastructure work, including design-build and public-private partnership (P3) agreements, as described in GDOT's construction procurement framework. Local government entities follow applicable provisions of the Georgia Local Government Public Works Construction Law (O.C.G.A. § 36-91), which governs competitive bidding requirements for most projects exceeding amounts that vary by jurisdiction.

Scope and limitations: This page addresses project delivery structures as they apply to construction projects undertaken in the state of Georgia, under Georgia statutes and applicable state agency rules. It does not address federal procurement methods governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), nor does it provide legal interpretation of any statute. Projects involving federal funding may impose additional delivery constraints outside Georgia's jurisdiction.

How it works

Each delivery method creates a distinct contractual chain and a different sequence of design and construction activities.

Design-Bid-Build (DBB) is the traditional sequential model. The owner retains a designer to complete rates that vary by region construction documents, then solicits competitive bids from general contractors. The lowest responsive, responsible bidder typically wins the contract for public work under O.C.G.A. § 36-91-20. Design and construction are fully separated, placing coordination risk on the owner. The permitting process under this model requires a complete set of construction documents before a building permit can be issued by the local authority having jurisdiction (AHJ).

Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) introduces the contractor during the design phase. The owner holds separate contracts with the designer and the CM. The CM provides preconstruction services — estimating, constructability review, scheduling — then assumes a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) at an agreed design completion milestone, typically 50–rates that vary by region design development. The CM self-performs or subcontracts the work and bears cost risk above the GMP. Georgia public construction procurement rules permit CMAR for state agency projects with GSFIC approval, allowing selection on qualifications rather than low bid alone.

Design-Build (DB) combines design and construction under a single contract with a design-build entity (DBE). The owner issues performance criteria; the DBE delivers both design and construction. This model compresses schedule because design and construction phases overlap. Georgia's design-build regulatory framework governs licensure requirements for DBEs operating in the state, including the professional licensing obligations that attach to the designer of record.

The numbered steps below illustrate a generalized CMAR process, which is the most procedurally complex of the three:

1. Owner issues a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and selects CM based on experience, team, and fee.
2. CM provides preconstruction services alongside the design team.
3. Design reaches the agreed milestone; CM submits GMP proposal with open-book cost documentation.
4. Owner accepts GMP; a GMP Amendment is executed.
5. CM bids subcontract packages competitively (required on public work).
6. Construction proceeds; the CM self-performs allowable scopes.
7. Owner and CM reconcile final costs; savings below GMP may be shared per contract terms.

Common scenarios

Public school construction in Georgia frequently uses CMAR because local boards of education can qualify the contractor early, lock in a GMP before full design, and manage budget risk tied to construction cost escalation. The Georgia Department of Education does not mandate a delivery method, so individual districts select frameworks consistent with local procurement policy.

GDOT highway projects use Design-Build on major corridor expansions where schedule compression is a priority. GDOT's DB program, operated under state and federal authorization, requires the DBE to hold applicable Georgia general contractor licensure and to comply with all applicable safety regulations, including OSHA 29 CFR Part 1926 standards for construction.

Private commercial development in markets such as the Atlanta metro area frequently uses negotiated Design-Build or CMAR because private owners are not bound by competitive bidding statutes and can optimize for schedule, design collaboration, and cost certainty.

Historic preservation projects may face delivery method constraints tied to funding sources. Projects receiving federal Historic Tax Credits must comply with National Park Service guidance, which can restrict design substitutions common in fast-track DB procurement. Georgia's own historic preservation construction rules interact with these federal overlays.

Decision boundaries

Selecting among DBB, CMAR, and DB depends on four primary factors: owner sophistication, schedule priority, design complexity, and statutory constraints.

Georgia construction contract law governs the enforceability of GMP provisions, risk-transfer clauses, and indemnity language regardless of delivery method. Retainage rules under Georgia statute apply to subcontract relationships in all three models — typically rates that vary by region retainage on progress payments until substantial completion, with reduction provisions available by agreement (O.C.G.A. § 13-11-2).

Bonding requirements differ by delivery type. On public projects above amounts that vary by jurisdiction O.C.G.A. § 36-91-70 mandates performance and payment bonds from the contractor of record — which in a DB project is the design-build entity, not the designer. In a CMAR arrangement, bonds run from the CM to the owner and from subcontractors to the CM.

Safety plan requirements do not change by delivery method. All Georgia construction projects must comply with OSHA standards under 29 CFR Part 1926, and the Georgia Department of Labor enforces state-plan elements applicable to public employees. The design-build model does not relieve the DBE of any safety obligation simply because design and construction are unified under one contract.

References

• Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission (GSFIC)
• Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) — Construction
• O.C.G.A. § 36-91 — Georgia Local Government Public Works Construction Law (Justia)
• O.C.G.A. § 13-11-2 — Georgia Retainage Statute (Justia)
• OSHA 29 CFR Part 1926 — Safety and Health Regulations for Construction
• Georgia Department of Labor
• National Park Service — Historic Tax Credit Program
• Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA) — Project Delivery Resources