Aecon Group

Corey Hall

Owners across Canada are increasingly turning to Progressive Design-Build, Alliance, Integrated Project Delivery and other collaborative contracting approaches to manage complexity and uncertainty before final commercial commitments are made. Unlike traditional fixed-price approaches, progressive models formalize a development period during which design, cost, schedule and risk can be collaboratively refined and validated by the owner, designer and builder.

Contrary to a common assumption, these progressive methods do not inherently create a low-exposure environment for major project delivery. Instead, they change when risks emerge, how they should be managed and who is responsible for resolving them. If these shifts are understood clearly and tackled effectively, major project proposal and development phases should function as structured risk assessment, valuation and allocation processes to generate mutual confidence in the project’s technical, operational and commercial foundation for execution.

At Aecon, we have had significant success by deploying the following methods to manage design-related risk during the proposal and into the development phase of major projects, including the ongoing Package 1 (Civil & Utilities) of the Hamilton Light Rail Transit project, the Arctic Over the Horizon Radar project and the Contrecouer Port Terminal Expansion project, among others.

Effective management of design-related uncertainty begins with treating the project procurement and development phases as part of the full project lifecycle rather than as discrete, design-focused preconstruction activities. Design decisions influence quantities, procurement strategies, construction sequencing, schedule logic, permitting requirements and ultimately the project's target price.

This requires multidisciplinary integration with technical, estimating, scheduling, commercial and operational perspectives and functions from the earliest stages. Risk increases uncontrollably when design development occurs in isolation from the people ultimately responsible for estimating costs, defining timeframes, procuring materials, equipment and labor and ultimately executing the project.

Design management—the proactive coordination of designers, estimators, schedulers, commercial personnel and construction teams—is therefore a critical function and potential failure point for general contractors and the success of a major project’s delivery. Experienced technical or design managers who can translate among design and construction teams, identify gaps and critical risks and give concrete direction to multidisciplinary personnel to reduce misalignment, uncertainty and omissions are invaluable. I regard them as essential to major project delivery.

A complementary method for reducing design-related exposure is the use of structured multidisciplinary task forces. Regular working sessions focused on specific disciplines or scope areas allow teams to quickly close gaps, resolve technical questions and align design outputs with project requirements. These forums also surface risks early while ensuring that estimating, scheduling and construction considerations are incorporated into the process before decisions become difficult or expensive to change.

Rather than relying solely on review of periodic design submissions, ongoing task forces maintain continuous engagement with technical issues, enabling timely decision-making and proactive issue resolution facilitated by a technical/design manager from the construction team.

Participation of experienced operational construction personnel is also essential. Superintendents, construction managers, project managers and other field leaders can identify concerns related to access, sequencing, temporary works, productivity, logistics and means and methods that may not be apparent to other disciplines. Their involvement helps ensure the design remains practical and constructible, supports efficient project execution and reflects realistic construction costs.

“The most successful projects are not those with the fewest risks but those that identify, understand, allocate and manage risk early enough for informed decisions to be made.”

Another critical design management principle is moving beyond traditional design completion metrics. Many projects continue to rely on engineering percentage-completion benchmarks that provide little insight into whether sufficient information exists to support commercial decisions. Design percentages often provide a misleading indication of readiness because different disciplines, consultants and projects define completion differently.

It is more effective to use clearly defined content-based checkpoints tied to specific decisions, deliverables and levels of confidence. At early checkpoints, teams establish major concepts and project scope. Intermediate checkpoints confirm major equipment selections, key design parameters and controlling geometry. Final checkpoints focus on advancing calculations, refining quantities and durations and detailed coordination.

The objective is not simply to measure design progress but to verify whether sufficient information exists to support confident estimating, scheduling, procurement and commercial decisions.

Particular attention should be paid to geometry control during development. Significant cost and schedule exposure arises when major dimensions, elevations, layouts or interfaces continue to change after quantities and construction plans have been developed.

Establishing a formal geometry-lock or design freeze milestone helps prevent downstream disruption by identifying the point at which the majority of controlling physical elements must remain stable. Beyond this stage, any proposed changes should be evaluated through structured review and approval processes that involve the owner, the designer and the contractor and assess impacts to cost, schedule, procurement and constructability.

Design integration with the schedule also plays a central role in controlling design-related risk. Progressive projects benefit when design activities are integrated directly into the project's master schedule rather than through separately managed schedules. A single integrated schedule creates visibility between design development, permits, approvals, procurement activities, construction sequencing and critical project milestones.

It also enables teams to identify unrealistic assumptions, missing activities and interfaces or external constraints before they affect project outcomes. Risks associated with environmental approvals, regulatory requirements, utility coordination and owner decisions often emerge through schedule analysis long before they become apparent in design documents.

Design agreements represent another area where significant project exposure can originate. Successful progressive projects establish clear expectations regarding scope, deliverables, responsibilities, schedules, staffing, review cycles, changes and services during construction.

The greatest risks often arise not from headline contract clauses but from poorly defined technical appendices and working assumptions. Effective governance requires technical, commercial and legal stakeholders to participate jointly in agreement development to ensure that contractual provisions align with operational realities and that the allocation of responsibilities is clear. Early investment in agreement quality invariably prevents substantial disputes and misunderstandings later in the project lifecycle.

The most successful projects are not those with the fewest risks but those that identify, understand, allocate and manage risk early enough for informed decisions to be made. When supported by disciplined design management, progressive delivery becomes more than a procurement model. It becomes a framework for building confidence in project delivery.

Progressive contracts offer valuable opportunities to validate assumptions and reduce uncertainty, but those benefits are only realized when owners and project teams collaboratively apply disciplined governance, integrated teams consisting of appropriate experts with the right skill sets, structured and clearly defined checkpoints, integrated planning and coordination and evidence-based decision-making.