Alternate Forms of Project Delivery

Placeholder page for the supporting reference Alternate Forms of Project Delivery, part of the Examitect reading list for the ExAC.

On this page

AFPD at a glance

Full titleAlternate Forms of Project Delivery
PublisherJoint Board of Practice of the Alberta Association of Architects (AAA) and the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA, now APEGA)
Publication dateFebruary 2005
LengthSixteen pages, single document, no chapter splits
OriginWorkshop held in Edmonton in March 2003 with 53 industry participants from architecture, engineering, contracting, government, health authorities, insurance, and legal practice
LanguagesEnglish
Primary audienceArchitects, engineers, contractors, and owners working on Alberta projects, plus younger professionals selecting a delivery method for the first time
ExAC relevanceSupplementary resource on Examitect's ExAC study plan for Section 4, category 9.1 (Compare the different types of construction project delivery)
Where to accessAAA practice resources, occasionally circulated through firm document libraries

Why AFPD matters for the ExAC

AFPD is the cleanest summary of project delivery categories on Examitect's ExAC study plan. For Section 4, category 9.1 (Compare the different types of construction project delivery), the primary resources are CHOP Chapter 2.1 and Chapter 6.5; AFPD sits beside them as a supplementary reference. CHOP gives you the national, RAIC-aligned view. AFPD gives you a second voice and tight bullet lists of advantages and disadvantages for each method, which is exactly the format ExAC scenario questions reward.

The ExAC tests whether you can match a delivery method to an owner's constraints (fixed budget, fast schedule, single point of responsibility, public tender requirement). Reading AFPD before the exam helps you recognize those cues quickly because the document explicitly lists which conditions favour each method.

ExAC sections

See the ExAC sections table below for study-plan coverage.

What Alternate Forms of Project Delivery is

Alternate Forms of Project Delivery (AFPD) is a short practice document published in February 2005 by the Joint Board of Practice of the AAA and APEGGA. Its purpose, stated in the introduction, is to give clients and younger professionals clarity on which project delivery method to choose, because the Alberta construction industry showed a lack of consistency on the advantages, disadvantages, and selection criteria for each method.

The document grew out of a two-day workshop in Edmonton in March 2003 attended by 53 participants representing AAA, APEGGA, the Consulting Engineers of Alberta, contractor associations, public sector owners, health authorities, an insurance firm, and a Calgary law firm. The California Council of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) granted permission to use its "Handbook on Project Delivery" as a workshop reference, so the structure tracks AIA-style categorisation while the commentary is grounded in Alberta practice.

Inside AFPD: the four delivery categories

AFPD classifies every project delivery method into one of four primary categories. The body of the document then breaks the first three into sub-models. Public Private Partnership (P3) is listed as the fourth category but is not covered in detail in the 2005 edition; for P3 substance, refer to CHOP Chapter 6.5.

SectionCoverage
1. IntroductionBackground on why the AAA and APEGGA produced the document, plus a summary of the March 2003 Edmonton workshop and its participants.
2. Traditional Method (Design-Bid-Build)The three-party, three-stage approach. Lowest risk profile, longest schedule. Typically uses RAIC Document 6 between owner and prime consultant and a stipulated sum contract with the contractor.
3. Construction ManagementFour sub-models. The Alberta Approach (two-stage CM converting to General Contractor), CM as Advisor, CM as Agent, and CM as Constructor (also called Construction Manager at Risk).
4. Design-BuildThree variations. Standard Design-Build, Design-Build with a Bridging Consultant, and Design-Build by Developer (turn-key).
5. DefinitionsDistinguishes Project Management from Construction Management. Useful for the exam since these terms are commonly confused.
6. The AIA DocumentCredits the California Council of the AIA's Handbook on Project Delivery as the reference document used during the workshop.
7. Suggested Directions for Professional PracticeTeam building, communications, and the recommendation to prepare a project charter signed by all parties at the start, regardless of delivery method.

Key project delivery terms every ExAC candidate should know

TermMeaning
Design-Bid-BuildThe traditional three-stage method. Owner contracts separately with the prime consultant for design and with a competitively tendered contractor for construction.
Construction ManagementA delivery family where a CM joins the team early to advise on cost, schedule, constructability, and procurement. The CM may act as advisor, agent, or constructor.
Alberta ApproachTwo-stage CM contract. CM is engaged during design, then the agreement converts into a stipulated sum General Contractor contract once subcontract prices are largely fixed. AFPD identifies this as the most common form of CM in Alberta.
CM as AdvisorThe CM advises the owner during design and construction; the owner contracts separately with the consultant and the contractor.
CM as AgentThe owner engages the CM, who then contracts on the owner's behalf with both consultant and contractor. Construction risk flows through to the owner.
CM as ConstructorConstruction Manager at Risk. The CM is hired before construction documents are complete, assumes the liability of the general contractor, and usually carries a guaranteed maximum price.
Design-BuildSingle design-build entity contracts with the owner for both design and construction. The contractor most often leads the team. Single point of responsibility.
Bridging ConsultantA consultant engaged by the owner up front to prepare a preliminary design and performance specifications before the design-build team is selected.
Design-Build by DeveloperTurn-key model. The design-build entity also acquires the land, secures permits, and arranges financing. Common for warehouses and small office buildings.
Public Private Partnership (P3)Long-term concession model where a private consortium designs, builds, finances, and often operates a public asset. Listed by AFPD but covered substantively in CHOP Chapter 6.5.
Project CharterDocument signed at project start by Owner, Consultant Team, and Contractor or CM, recording lines of communication, roles, responsibilities, and shared expectations.

How AFPD compares to other ExAC references

AFPD is a focused supplementary reference. It is short, opinionated, and tightly scoped to project delivery selection. It does not replace any primary reference; it sharpens them.

ReferenceRelationship to AFPD
CHOPPrimary resource for Section 4 category 9.1. CHOP Chapters 2.1 and 6.5 cover project delivery across Canada from the RAIC's perspective. AFPD reinforces the same terrain with Alberta-specific commentary and tighter bullet lists.
CCDC 2The stipulated price contract used most often in Design-Bid-Build and in the second stage of the Alberta Approach. AFPD names it by function; CCDC 2 supplies the actual contract language.
RAIC Document 6AFPD points to RAIC Document 6 as the typical owner-consultant agreement for traditional projects, making the two documents natural reading partners.
RAIC Document 9The architect-consultant agreement that sits beneath Document 6 on most delivery models. Read together with AFPD when scenarios involve sub-consultant scope.
CHINGDifferent domain. CHING covers building construction technology, not delivery methods, but both inform Section 4 questions about constructability.
RSMeans and YardsticksCost references that complement AFPD: AFPD describes how a delivery method affects cost certainty; RSMeans and Yardsticks help you estimate the actual numbers.

How to study AFPD for the ExAC

  1. Read it in one sitting. The document is sixteen pages. A single read covers the full delivery landscape and is faster than skimming CHOP for the same material.
  2. Build a comparison table. One table with rows for Traditional, Construction Management, Design-Build, and P3; columns for typical contracts, who carries cost risk, when construction can start, and the headline advantage and disadvantage.
  3. Map every sub-model. List the four CM sub-models (Alberta Approach, CM as Advisor, CM as Agent, CM as Constructor) and the three Design-Build variations (standard DB, DB with Bridging Consultant, DB by Developer). One phrase each.
  4. Cross-reference CHOP and the CCDC contracts. Read AFPD alongside CHOP Chapters 2.1 and 6.5 and the CCDC families: CCDC 2 for stipulated price, CCDC 5A and CCDC 5B for Construction Management, CCDC 14 for Design-Build, and CCDC 30 for Integrated Project Delivery if it appears on your reading.
  5. Drill scenario questions. ExAC questions usually present an owner with constraints (fixed budget, accelerated schedule, single point of responsibility, public sector tender). Practice matching constraints to delivery methods until the recognition is automatic.

ExAC sections AFPD supports

ExAC sectionHow AFPD shows up on Examitect's study plan
Section 1: Design and analysisNot listed. Delivery method choice intersects with cost management and design development but Section 1 references rely on CHOP and CHING.
Section 2: CodesNot listed. Code questions are NBC 2020 and NECB territory.
Section 3: Sustainability and final projectNot listed. Section 3 covers materials, building science, assemblies, construction documents, and sustainability literacy.
Section 4: Construction and practiceSupplementary resource for category 9.1, Compare the different types of construction project delivery. The primary resources for that category are CHOP Chapter 2.1 and Chapter 6.5.

Tips for Intern Architects reading AFPD

Tip 1, treat AFPD as Alberta voice over CHOP framework. CHOP gives you the national vocabulary. AFPD gives you which methods are common in Alberta, which are rare, and what tends to go wrong. The ExAC is a national exam, so anchor your answers to CHOP and use AFPD for the colour.

Tip 2, memorize the four CM sub-models in one sentence each. Alberta Approach: two-stage, converts to GC. CM as Advisor: CM coaches the owner. CM as Agent: CM signs contracts for the owner. CM as Constructor: CM carries the risk under a GMP. Most CM-related questions resolve once you can name the variant.

Tip 3, know where the risk sits. AFPD repeatedly frames each method by who holds the cost and schedule risk. Owner-held risk (Traditional, CM as Agent) versus contractor-held risk (Design-Build, CM as Constructor) is one of the most testable lenses on the ExAC.

Tip 4, watch your contract pairings. AFPD names the contracts indirectly. Drill the pairings: Design-Bid-Build with CCDC 2, Construction Management with CCDC 5A or CCDC 5B, Design-Build with CCDC 14, and Integrated Project Delivery with CCDC 30 when that appears.

Tip 5, hedge on P3. The 2005 document lists P3 as the fourth category but does not develop it. If a question hinges on P3 detail, your answer should come from CHOP Chapter 6.5, not AFPD.

Tip 6, remember the project charter recommendation. AFPD's section 7.3 advises a signed charter at project start, regardless of delivery method, to clarify lines of communication and eliminate assumptions. This is a quotable point on practice and ethics questions.

Tip 7, recognize the Alberta-licence constraint on Design-Build. AFPD notes that the Architects Act in Alberta makes it difficult for an Architect to be a contractor, so an Architect typically cannot lead the design-build team. If a scenario asks who can lead the DB entity, this is the kind of nuance the exam rewards.

Common ExAC scenarios where AFPD is the answer

  • An owner with a fixed budget and no schedule pressure wants the lowest-risk delivery method. Recognize the cues that point to Design-Bid-Build and the use of a stipulated sum contract.
  • An owner needs early cost certainty but wants the contractor's input during design. The Alberta Approach (two-stage CM converting to GC) fits the scenario.
  • A sophisticated owner wants a single point of responsibility and is willing to give up direct control of design decisions. The cue points to Design-Build, often with a Bridging Consultant to keep the scope tight.
  • An owner wants the CM to act as a check on the consultant team without taking on construction risk. The CM as Advisor sub-model is the fit.
  • A project must be delivered turn-key with the design-build entity acquiring the land and arranging financing. Recognize Design-Build by Developer.
  • A new team is forming on a complex project. AFPD recommends preparing a charter signed by Owner, Consultant Team, and Contractor or CM to define roles, responsibilities, and lines of communication.
  • A question contrasts Project Management with Construction Management. AFPD's Definitions section is the cleanest source for distinguishing the two terms.

How Examitect reinforces AFPD

Examitect's Section 4 question bank includes scenario-based items on every project delivery method AFPD names. Practice questions in Bidding and Contract Negotiations ask you to choose a delivery method, identify who carries risk, and pair the right contract family with the chosen method. Each answer explanation cites the relevant CHOP chapter and points back to AFPD when a candidate wants a second perspective.

If you want to test where you stand before reading AFPD, try a free ExAC practice question. If you are ready to drill the full Section 4 catalogue, see plans for full access.

Alternate Forms of Project Delivery and ExAC FAQ

AFPD is a short reference document published in February 2005 by the Joint Board of Practice of the AAA and APEGGA (now APEGA). It summarizes the four primary project delivery categories used in Canadian construction: Traditional (Design-Bid-Build), Construction Management, Design-Build, and Public Private Partnership.

Supplementary. Examitect's ExAC study plan lists AFPD as a supplementary resource for Section 4, category 9.1 (Compare the different types of construction project delivery). The primary resources for that category are CHOP Chapter 2.1 and Chapter 6.5.

Section 4, Bidding and Contract Negotiations. AFPD reinforces the project delivery comparisons in CHOP and gives candidates a second perspective on the advantages, disadvantages, and risk distribution of each delivery model.

Traditional (Design-Bid-Build), Construction Management, Design-Build, and Public Private Partnership. AFPD splits Construction Management into four sub-models (Alberta Approach, CM as Advisor, CM as Agent, CM as Constructor) and Design-Build into three (standard DB, DB with Bridging Consultant, DB by Developer).

AFPD lists P3 as the fourth project delivery category but the body of the 2005 document focuses on Traditional, Construction Management, and Design-Build. For P3 detail, rely on CHOP Chapter 6.5 and any current AAA, APEGA, or RAIC practice bulletins.

A two-stage Construction Management contract. The CM is engaged during design for cost, schedule, phasing, and constructability advice, then the agreement converts into a stipulated sum General Contractor contract once the majority of subcontract prices are in. AFPD identifies this as the most common form of CM in Alberta.

CHOP Chapters 2.1 and 6.5 give the national, RAIC-aligned view written for architects across Canada. AFPD is shorter, regionally focused on Alberta practice, and lists advantages and disadvantages in tight bullet form. Read them together: CHOP for the framework, AFPD for the second voice.

Read AFPD in one sitting, then build a single comparison table of the four delivery categories with their advantages, disadvantages, and typical contracts. Cross-reference with CHOP Chapter 6.5 and the CCDC contract families, then test recall with scenario-based practice questions.

Other ExAC reference books

The six primary references on Examitect's ExAC study plan. AFPD sits beside them as a supplementary reference for project delivery questions.

CHOP

The Canadian Handbook of Practice. The primary resource for Section 4 project delivery questions; Chapters 2.1 and 6.5 sit alongside AFPD.

CHING

Building Construction Illustrated. Primary resource for building construction technology across Sections 1, 3, and 4.

NBC 2020

National Building Code of Canada. Primary resource for ExAC Section 2 code questions.

NECB

National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings. Primary resource for energy code questions in Section 2.

RSMeans

Construction cost data. Primary resource for Section 1 cost management questions, with assembly and unit pricing.

Yardsticks

Yardsticks for Costing. Primary cost reference for elemental estimating and order-of-magnitude pricing on Section 1 questions.

All supporting references

Browse every supporting resource on Examitect's ExAC reading list, organized by section.