Objective 9.1 is a small objective with a clear answer key. Design-bid-build fixes the price before construction, construction management buys speed with an early adviser, and design-build gives the owner one contract for design and construction. Each moves the architect to a different seat. In our experience, these Section 4 questions reward candidates who can draw the contract lines. This guide from Examitect, an independent ExAC prep platform unaffiliated with the CACB, covers every method in CHOP 4.1 and how to pick one in an exam scenario.
| Exam section | Section 4, about 130 multiple-choice questions in three hours |
|---|---|
| Objective | 9.1 Compare the different types of construction project delivery |
| Specific objective | 9.1.1 Differentiate between the types of project delivery |
| Core reading | CHOP 4.1, Types of Design-Construction Program Delivery |
| Second source | Alternate Forms of Project Delivery, AAA and APEGGA, 2005 |
Appendix 1 of the 2026 Preparation Guide (p.20) opens theme 9, Bidding and Contract Negotiations, with objective 9.1, "Compare the different types of construction project delivery", and one specific objective under it: 9.1.1, "Differentiate between the types of project delivery." The ExAC Framework Document (p.5) places theme 9 in Section 4 alongside the office and field functions of the construction phase and Project Management, about 130 multiple-choice questions in all.
"Differentiate" is the verb to notice. Expect to be asked which method has a given advantage, who holds which contract, or which method suits an owner's problem.
The guide's own sample question for 9.1.1 (p.28) shows the pattern. It asks for the advantages of traditional design-bid-build, and the keyed answer is competitive tendering, the lowest risk factor and the most complete design resolution. That wording closely tracks Alternate Forms of Project Delivery, a 2005 guide by the Joint Board of Practice of the Alberta Association of Architects and APEGGA, which Appendix 3 lists under Other References (p.30). The distractors are just as instructive:
The real test is keeping four advantage lists apart. Two ideas from CHOP 4.1 help. The architect manages the design project and the constructor manages the construction project, and methods differ in how the two overlap. And there is no "best" system: in every method the architect protects the public interest, so an option claiming otherwise is wrong.
Design-bid-build is the method most of you will have worked under. CHOP 4.1 describes it in four moves: the owner engages an architect to prepare the design, drawings and specifications; engineers are engaged by the architect or separately by the owner; once the documents are complete, the owner hires a contractor by competitive bidding under a stipulated price contract, usually CCDC 2; and the architect administers the contract, provides general review and certifies payment.
There are two independent contracts, owner to architect and owner to contractor. The Alberta guide adds that the owner-consultant agreement is usually RAIC Document 6 or a similar form.
The architect is the owner's consultant with a direct relationship to the client, and that is the position the rest of Section 4 assumes. CCDC 2 (2020) builds it in. GC 1.1.6 says nothing in the Contract Documents creates a contractual relationship between the Consultant and the Contractor. GC 2.2.5 says the Consultant is not responsible for construction means, methods, sequences or safety, and GC 9.4 puts health and safety on the Contractor. Our shop drawings, RFIs and site instructions post covers the GC 2.2 duties.
CHOP 4.1 lists five advantages: widespread familiarity, thorough resolution of the program and design before construction, a direct relationship between client and architect, clear roles, and a construction price known before work starts. The Alberta guide adds that competitive tendering is generally seen as the fairest way to award work on public projects and that completion dates can be predicted fairly accurately.
The disadvantages mirror them. The contractor is unknown while the documents are drawn, so cost and constructability advice arrives late, and public contracts go to a low bidder who may not be well qualified. The Alberta guide adds that it usually takes longer, since construction waits for a complete, tendered design. CHOP says a stipulated price suits projects with predictable costs and full documentation. If a scenario has both, design-bid-build is the safe answer.
CHOP 4.1 defines construction management broadly: the design team is joined early by a construction manager (CM) who advises on and oversees schedule, cost, construction methods or building technology. Because the owner pays an extra fee, CHOP says it is used most when projects are large and complex, time is of the essence, change is expected, or contractors will not take on a stipulated price.
CHOP names the two CCDC forms and draws the line between them clearly:
| Form | What the CM provides | Price risk |
|---|---|---|
| CCDC 5A, Construction Management Contract for Services | Services only, paid by fixed fee, percentage of construction cost or hourly rate. The owner contracts directly with each trade contractor. | The CM is not at risk if actual cost exceeds the budget. Open-book accounting. |
| CCDC 5B, Construction Management Contract for Services and Construction | CM services plus the construction work, a hybrid of CCDC 5A and CCDC 2. | The CM gives a budget and a guaranteed maximum price (GMP), and usually takes on financial liability once enough bid packages are in. |
One detail to keep in your head: CHOP calls the "at risk" label for CCDC 5B inaccurate, while the Alberta guide uses "Construction Manager at Risk" for its CM-as-constructor model, hired at about the 30% construction documents stage. Read "CM at risk" as the CCDC 5B arrangement. The Alberta guide also describes CM as advisor and CM as agent, which acts with the owner's powers and is often called a project manager.
CM's headline advantage is sequential bidding, which CHOP calls "fast track": construction starts before the documents are finished, and cost and constructability advice reaches the design team during design. The price of that speed is that construction usually starts before total costs are known. CHOP also lists a third party in the owner-architect relationship and less control over final cost in an unstable market. One disadvantage is a likely exam item: the owner, as "constructor", carries construction safety unless it is transferred to a CM for services and work.
The architect still works for the owner but now issues documents in packages and administers several contracts. RAIC Document 6 (2022 edition) treats this as scope to price: Schedule A lists "Multiple Construction Contracts", covering bid packages and fast-track delivery, and "Coordination of Multiple Constructors" as separate line items. Architects who act as CM, CHOP adds, often decline the construction part for lack of expertise and insurance.
In design-build, CHOP says, the owner contracts with a single entity for both design and construction, and the design team is retained by the design-builder rather than the owner. The prime contract is CCDC 14, Design-Build Stipulated Price Contract. The architect's contract is a second one, CCDC 15, Design Services Contract Between Design-Builder and Consultant. The design-builder can be a contractor, an architect, a broker or a joint venture, and CHOP tells architects to check with their provincial or territorial association before taking that role.
CHOP describes two variations:
CHOP's advantages include early commitment to the owner's requirements, early cost-benefit analysis and quick contractor feedback. The Alberta guide adds a single point of responsibility and usually faster delivery.
In CHOP's words, the builder mediates the owner-architect relationship, and the architect serves the design-builder's need for speed and cost efficiency as well as the owner's requirements. Most of CHOP's disadvantages are about that seat:
Liability moves too. CHOP 4.1 warns that the architect carries more pursuit cost risk than the rest of the team and should insist on being paid, since unpaid services may breach regulations in some jurisdictions. CHOP 3.8, Risk Management and Professional Liability, names design-build and P3 among the methods that can increase risk, including risk transferred to the architect beyond what the law requires and possibly beyond the professional liability policy. Its advice is to review the contract with legal counsel and the insurer.
IPD replaces separate contracts with one multi-party contract in which the owner, architect, engineers, constructor and major trades share in the rewards of a successful project. The Canadian standard form CHOP cites is CCDC 30, Integrated Project Delivery Contract. CHOP gives four phases, which make good ordering items:
The architect signs the same contract as the constructor. CHOP lists transparent communication and less rework as gains, and more meeting time and an owner who must stay fully engaged as costs.
A P3 engages a private consortium to deliver a whole capital program, which may include financing and operations. Ontario calls it alternate financing and procurement (AFP). CHOP lists single point responsibility, private financing and faster delivery than traditional public methods. Against that: costly pursuits, risk passed from the government to the proponent and on to the architect, and insurers who may restrict coverage. The advocate architect role also appears often in P3s.
CHOP closes with methods that appear mainly as distractors:
| Method | The one fact to know |
|---|---|
| Project management | A firm replaces the owner's representative, as "agent" (adviser) or "primary" (hires the consultants). Not permitted in several jurisdictions where the owner must engage the architect directly. |
| Cost-plus | Actual cost plus a fixed or percentage fee, usually under CCDC 3, with a guaranteed maximum price option. No incentive to avoid overruns. |
| Unit rates | Paid by measured quantity under CCDC 4, used mostly for civil work. |
| Turnkey and lease-back | Turnkey adds real estate functions such as site acquisition and financing. In a lease-back, the builder owns the building and leases it to the owner. |
CHOP compares the methods against time, cost and quality. Its comparison tables are images, so the summary below is ours, built from the text of CHOP 4.1, CHOP 3.8 and the Alberta guide.
| Method | Owner's contracts | Start before design is done? | When the price is certain | Architect's seat |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Design-bid-build | Architect, then one contractor (CCDC 2) | No | Before construction, at bid | Owner's consultant; administers and certifies |
| CM for services (CCDC 5A) | Architect, CM and each trade | Yes, by sequential packages | Only as packages are let; CM not at risk | Owner's consultant; more packages and contracts |
| CM for services and construction (CCDC 5B) | Architect and CM | Yes | At the GMP, once enough packages are priced | Owner's consultant beside the CM |
| Design-build (CCDC 14) | One design-builder | Usually faster than design-bid-build | Stipulated maximum price, set before design is complete | Design-builder's consultant (CCDC 15), or advocate architect for the owner |
| IPD (CCDC 30) | One multi-party contract | Life cycle close to design-bid-build | Target cost and risk pool set in design | Party sharing risk and reward |
| P3 | One private consortium | Faster than traditional public methods | Cost spread over the operating life | Consortium's consultant, or advocate for the public owner |
Moving down the table, the owner gains speed or a single point of responsibility and gives up early price certainty, direct control of the design, or both. The architect moves from the owner's side into someone else's contract, and liability exposure grows with that move.
To pick a method for an exam scenario, work through it in this order:
Underline the constraint the scenario stresses: a fixed budget, an urgent opening date, one point of responsibility, or a complex program likely to change.
Full documents and predictable costs point to design-bid-build. Work that must start before the documents are done points to construction management.
A price known at bid means stipulated price. A guaranteed maximum price means CCDC 5B or cost-plus with a GMP. No price until the end means cost-plus or CM for services.
Sketch who signs with the owner. One contract for design and construction is design-build, one multi-party contract is IPD, and the owner signing with each trade is CM for services.
Decide whose consultant the architect is, who certifies payment and who carries site safety. Remember the public-interest duty never moves.
Eliminate options that pair a method with another method's benefits, as the official sample does with cost-plus and design-build traits.
Two examples of our own: a school board with a fixed budget, a public bidding policy and a finished design should use design-bid-build. A hospital that must open before its documents can be finished points to construction management, with CCDC 5B if the board needs a guaranteed maximum price. For schedules and change orders, see our Section 4 project management guide.
Objective 9.1 asks you to compare the different types of construction project delivery, with one specific objective, 9.1.1, to differentiate between them. It sits under theme 9, Bidding and Contract Negotiations, in Section 4, and appears on p.20 of the 2026 Preparation Guide.
The official sample answer is competitive tendering, the lowest risk factor and the most complete design resolution. CHOP 4.1 adds familiarity, clear roles and a price known before work starts.
CCDC 5A is a construction management contract for services only: the CM is paid a fee, is not at risk if costs exceed the budget, and the owner contracts with each trade. CCDC 5B adds the construction work, so the CM provides a guaranteed maximum price and usually takes on financial risk once enough bid packages are priced.
The design-builder does. The owner signs one contract with the design-builder, CCDC 14, and the design-builder signs a second contract with the architect, CCDC 15. The owner can also hire its own advocate architect, sometimes called a bridging consultant, to write the requirements and give independent advice.
Design-bid-build under a stipulated price contract, because the price is known before construction begins, and CHOP says it is adjusted only through change orders. CHOP adds that clients should still carry a construction contingency rather than expect to finish at the tendered price.
Integrated project delivery is a multi-party contract in which the owner, architect, engineers, constructor and major trades share the rewards of the project. CHOP 4.1 cites CCDC 30 and describes four phases: validation, design, implementation and warranty, with a risk pool distributed at the end.
No. CHOP 4.1 says that in every delivery type, whether the architect is retained by the owner or by a design-builder, the architect holds responsibility for protecting the public interest. What changes is the client, the contract and the liability exposure.