The future of how construction is implemented at Iowa universities will be determined by a vote of the Iowa Board of Regents in Iowa City on Tuesday.

One of the bills to be voted on Tuesday is a bill recently introduced in the Iowa Legislature on legalizing design-build in the public sector. The bill highlights a controversial issue relating to construction of projects under the control of the Iowa Board of Regents.

Design-build is defined as a contract that allows the design and construction of a specific project to be under control of a single, chosen contractor, rather than putting control open for competitive contractor bidding. Iowa is one of seven states that does not have design-build as a legal option for a public project.

There on two competing voices on the issue of design-build. Supporters say design-build reduces construction time, lowers project costs and places the planning, design and construction responsibilities under a single entity.

“Design-build would enable complex and costly projects to be completed in a timely manner, and each phase of the design and construction would be monitored by a single contractor at risk,” said Richard Johnson, former CEO of Story Construction.

Those in opposition to the idea say design-build would take away the competitive bidding market that allows owners to choose construction companies that place the lowest bids. They stress that subjectivity eliminates contractors that should be be considered in the process and is unfair.

Regent Bob Downer wants to keep an open, competitive marketplace.

“Right now, it is clear there is no favoritism involved in the process. Any qualified contractor can bid,” he said. “When you get into design-build relationships, deviating from competitive bidding, the possibility exists for subjective determination of who gets the contract.”

Construction projects generally involve architects, lumber companies, door plants, window providers, hardware retailers and other product providers. A design-build project is overseen by a construction manager who creates a single contract between a designer and builder, eliminating the need to coordinate multiple contracts and companies.

“The agency or owner deciding to build chooses a construction manager from the competitive design-build market. This construction manager is responsible for developing a budget and monitoring construction design and operation,” Johnson said. “The proposed bill to allow design-build as an option for public and university projects would place the construction manager at risk instead of the project owner.”

Harold Pike, president of Harold Pike Construction Company LLC, of Ames, has been fighting design-build since the ’90s.

“Design-build invites favoritism and subjectivity,” Pike said. “A company like mine relies on a competitive market, and design-build takes that option away.”

Pike says his concerns represent those of other smaller, family-owned businesses who thrive on a competitive marketplace.

“Design-build would reduce incentive for developing new techniques and products available to the builders,” Pike said. “The traditional way is to sit down with a designer and contractor, establish a budget and arrive at a fair time schedule. If there is a time constraint, put a penalty clause on the project, and the contractor pays for each day of overtime.

“That’s the way to do it. That’s the way to protect the market and, most importantly, the taxpayers. I’m trying to help the public.”

Harold Pike Construction helped in the completion of such ISU facilities as Catt Hall, Beardshear Hall, the Ames/ISU Ice Arena, as well as numerous fraternities and sororities.

Currently, design-build is practiced in the private sector, making the project owner responsible for the budget upon completion of the project.

“Design-build uses both subjectivity and objectivity,” Johnson said. “There is a competitive market of design-build contractors that are allowed to propose a bid for certain projects, and then certain criteria would be used to subjectively evaluate them on a fair basis.”

The Board of Regents asserts that the design-build method will be used for projects that cost more than $10 million. They would then enter into a design-build contract with a successful bidder who can complete the project in a timely and efficient manner.

The current proposed bill is modeled after the design-build law in Kansas. Supporters of design-build say that single entities working under a construction manager could better handle projects in excess of $10 million, something smaller companies would struggle with. The American Institute of Architects also supports design-build, emphasizing that the design-build method results in quality, cost-effective design and construction.

Despite the time savings and efficiency design-build can offer, small construction companies feel threatened and concerned by the idea.

“Since many other states have the design-build option in law, it’s easy for supporters to justify it,” Pike said. “However, it’s rarely used in those states, and still no facts explicitly prove it is the best method.

“I’m concerned for the future of the competitive marketplace and think it should be left alone. A competitive market is what this country was founded on.”

After the regents vote, the legislative debate over the proposed bill may take up to a year.

Chad Kleppe, public affairs director for Master Builders of Iowa, works closely with the Board of Regents and supports design-build.

“The regents follow the policy and mission of MBI, which wants to work in the best interests of the taxpayers, the owners and the building industry. Our mission now is to educate the public about design-build,” Kleppe said. “With the current legislative session ending April 22, that just can’t be accomplished due to the high complexity of the issue.”