Supporting Reference

Alternate Forms of Project Delivery for the ExAC

A sixteen-page Alberta reference that maps the four main project delivery categories used in Canadian construction. Examitect treats it as supporting reading for Section 4, category 9.1 (Compare the different types of construction project delivery); the official objectives attach no references of their own.

Try a free ExAC practice question See plans

Alternate Forms of Project Delivery overview

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)
DateFebruary 2005 (the date shown on the document; it carries no formal imprint or ISBN)
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; also useful for younger professionals choosing a delivery method for the first time
ExAC relevanceSupporting reading in Examitect's study plan for Section 4, category 9.1 (Compare the different types of construction project delivery)
Where to accessAAA practice resources; occasionally in firm document libraries

Why AFPD matters for the ExAC

Alternate Forms of Project Delivery (AFPD) is a short practice document dated February 2005, issued by the Joint Board of Practice of the AAA and APEGGA. It grew out of a two-day Edmonton workshop in March 2003 attended by 53 participants from architecture, engineering, contracting, health authorities, and legal practice. Its stated purpose: give clients and younger professionals a clear framework for choosing a delivery method, because Alberta's construction industry showed a lack of consistency on the advantages, disadvantages, and selection criteria for each method.

Examitect treats AFPD as supporting reading for Section 4, category 9.1. Examitect pairs that category with CHOP Chapters 2.1, 4.1, and 6.5, which give the national RAIC-aligned view; the 2026 ExAC Preparation Guide names CHOP itself as a primary reference document but does not publish a chapter-by-chapter mapping. AFPD provides a second voice and tight bullet lists of advantages and disadvantages for the methods it develops (P3 is listed but not expanded, and Design-Build by Developer simply points back to the Design-Build lists); that comparative format is exactly what 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. AFPD explicitly lists which conditions favour each method, so reading it before the exam sharpens that recognition.

How to study AFPD for the ExAC

  • Read it in one sitting. The document is sixteen pages. One pass covers the full delivery landscape faster than skimming CHOP for the same material.
  • Build a comparison table. Rows: Traditional, Construction Management, Design-Build, P3. Columns: typical contracts, who carries cost risk, when construction starts, key advantage.
  • Map every sub-model. Four CM variants (Alberta Approach, CM as Advisor, CM as Agent, CM as Constructor) and three Design-Build variations (standard DB, DB with Bridging Consultant, DB by Developer).
  • Cross-reference CHOP and the CCDC families. CHOP Chapters 2.1, 4.1, and 6.5 plus CCDC 2, CCDC 5A/5B, and CCDC 14. AFPD itself never cites CCDC documents, so build these pairings from CHOP.
  • Drill Section 4 scenario questions until delivery-method matching is automatic.

ExAC sections AFPD supports

  1. Section 4: Construction and Practice

    Examitect's supporting reading for category 9.1, Compare the different types of construction project delivery. Examitect pairs that category with CHOP Chapters 2.1, 4.1, and 6.5. AFPD reinforces those chapters with Alberta-specific commentary and tighter advantage/disadvantage comparisons.

  2. Sections 1, 2, and 3

    Examitect does not use AFPD for Sections 1, 2, or 3. Delivery method selection intersects with cost management in Section 1, but those categories rely on CHOP and the cost references.

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 4.1, Types of Design-Construction Program Delivery.

SectionCoverage
1. Introduction Background 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 Management Four 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-Build Three variations: standard Design-Build, Design-Build with a Bridging Consultant, and Design-Build by Developer (turn-key).
5. Definitions Distinguishes Project Management from Construction Management. Useful for the exam since these terms are commonly confused.
6. The AIA Document Credits the California Council of the AIA's Handbook on Project Delivery as the reference used during the workshop. AFPD's structure tracks that document while the commentary is grounded in Alberta practice.
7. Suggested Directions for Professional Practice Team building, communications, and the recommendation to prepare a project charter signed by all parties at project start, regardless of delivery method.

Key project delivery terms every ExAC candidate should know

TermMeaning
Design-Bid-Build The traditional three-stage method. The owner contracts separately with the prime consultant for design and with a competitively tendered contractor for construction.
Construction Management A 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 Approach Two-stage CM contract. The 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 Advisor The CM advises the owner during design and construction; the owner contracts separately with the consultant and the contractor.
CM as Agent The 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 Constructor Construction Manager at Risk. The CM is selected by bid or negotiation at about the 30 percent stage of construction documents, assumes the liability of the general contractor, and often carries a guaranteed maximum price.
Design-Build Single design-build entity contracts with the owner for both design and construction. The contractor most often leads the team. Single point of responsibility.
Bridging Consultant A 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 Developer Turn-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 4.1, Types of Design-Construction Program Delivery, which sets out the advantages, disadvantages, and risk profile of the model.
Project Charter Document signed at project start by owner, consultant team, and contractor or CM, recording lines of communication, roles, responsibilities, and shared expectations.

Tips for Intern Architects reading AFPD

Tip 1, treat AFPD as the Alberta voice over the CHOP framework. CHOP gives you the national vocabulary. AFPD tells 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 additional perspective.

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 scenario questions resolve once you can name the variant.

Tip 3, know where the risk sits. AFPD frames each method by who holds 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 only one contract form, RAIC Document 6 for the traditional method; it never cites CCDC documents. Drill the pairings from CHOP instead: Design-Bid-Build with CCDC 2, Construction Management with CCDC 5A or CCDC 5B, and Design-Build with CCDC 14.

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 4.1, 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 act as contractor, so an architect typically cannot lead the design-build entity. If a scenario asks who can lead the DB team, 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 on the ExAC.

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
Alternate Forms of Project Delivery (AFPD) Examitect's supporting reading for Section 4 category 9.1, Compare the different types of construction project delivery. A short Alberta Association of Architects publication that walks through construction management, design-build, and P3 as alternatives to the traditional design-bid-build model.
CHOP Primary reference document named by the 2026 ExAC Preparation Guide, and Examitect's core reading for Section 4 category 9.1. CHOP Chapter 4.1 (Types of Design-Construction Program Delivery) is the delivery-methods chapter proper, with Chapters 2.1 and 6.5 supplying the industry and procurement context from the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada's (RAIC) perspective. AFPD reinforces the same terrain with Alberta-specific commentary and tighter bullet lists.
CCDC 2 The stipulated price contract used most often in Design-Bid-Build and in the second stage of the Alberta Approach. AFPD describes stipulated sum contracting without citing any CCDC document; CCDC 2 supplies the actual contract language.
RAIC Document 6 AFPD points to RAIC Document 6 as the typical owner-consultant agreement for traditional projects, making the two documents natural reading partners.
RAIC Document 9 The architect-consultant agreement that sits beneath Document 6 on most delivery models. Read together with AFPD when scenarios involve sub-consultant scope.
CHING Different domain. CHING covers building construction technology, not delivery methods, but both inform Section 4 questions about constructability review during design.
RSMeans and Yardsticks Cost references that complement AFPD: AFPD describes how a delivery method affects cost certainty; RSMeans and Yardsticks help you estimate the actual numbers.

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.

FAQ

Alternate Forms of Project Delivery FAQ

AFPD is a short reference document dated February 2005, issued 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, and that is Examitect's designation rather than the exam body's: the Preparation Guide names four primary reference documents and publishes no supplementary list. AFPD sits beside Section 4, category 9.1 (Compare the different types of construction project delivery) as a second voice. Examitect's core reading for that category is CHOP Chapters 2.1, 4.1, and 6.5; the 2026 ExAC Preparation Guide names CHOP as a primary reference document but does not publish a per-objective chapter list.

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 4.1 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, 4.1, 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 Chapters 4.1 and 6.5 and the CCDC contract families, then test recall with scenario-based practice questions.

Other ExAC reference books

The 2026 ExAC Preparation Guide names four primary reference documents: CHOP, the Internship in Architecture Program, NBC 2020, and NECB 2020. The books below are the core of Examitect's reading list, with AFPD beside them as a supplementary reference for project delivery questions.

CHOP

The Canadian Handbook of Practice. The primary reference for Section 4 project delivery questions; Chapters 2.1, 4.1, and 6.5 sit alongside AFPD.

CHING

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

NBC 2020

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

NECB

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

RSMeans

Construction cost data. Primary reference 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 reference on Examitect's ExAC reading list, organized by section.