Don’t Marry the First Firm: Why Transit Owners Often Split Design and Implementation RFPs

In major transit projects, a single mistake in procurement structure can cost hundreds of millions and years of delays. The most common and avoidable mistake? Bundling the design-phase Request for Proposal (RFP) with construction, program management, or even full Design-Build delivery before the owner truly knows what they need out of the project. On large, complex programs, more transit owners are treating early design as a standalone competition before going back to the market for implementation. The results speak louder than tradition.

When design and implementation live in the same contract from day one, owners effectively marry the first firm that walks through the door. Once a firm is responsible for both phases, early concepts and fee structures can become harder to challenge, and value-engineering efforts may face practical constraints. Independent reviews and fresh perspectives from other teams are less likely to emerge, reducing competitive tension at the stage when uncertainty — and influence over outcomes — is highest. For transit megaprojects, this early loss of competitive leverage is rarely easy to reverse.

Separating design and implementation

Separating the design and implementation phases flips the power dynamic between owners and contractors. A dedicated design-phase RFP attracts the sharpest architects and engineers, who specialize in early-stage problem solving and live for alternatives analysis, ridership forecasting and stakeholder alignment – without having to defend constructability later. The owner pays for ideas, not commitments. At the end of this phase (typically concept through to 30–60% design), the agency owns the drawings, models, cost estimates and risk register. Only then does the owner or agency craft a precise implementation RFP.  Whether it’s delivered via Progressive Design-Build (PDB), Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC), or traditional Design-Bid-Build (DBB), the RFP is armed with data that no bundled procurement could ever provide.

This does not mean early contractor involvement or progressive models are wrong. It means their success depends on entering those relationships with  clear objectives: a defined problem, a tested alignment and a risk register that reflects reality, not guesswork. Separating the design competition from the implementation phase competition simply ensures owners get the best concepts, before selecting the best building team to deliver the solution they choose.

The benefits of this approach are immediate and compounding, as separation:

• Creates competition at the right moment. Separating design and delivery means the implementation shortlist bids on a defined scope instead of guessing to determine factors like size, scale, risk and complexity. Bid spreads tend to narrow by roughly 15–25%, and rogue “low” bids that typically hide massive change orders, largely disappear.
• Offers true best-value selection. Owners can score implementation teams on real schedules, staffing plans and risk mitigation instead of glossy renderings and unproven partnerships.
• Promotes innovation without captivity. During design, owners can explore multiple alternatives without the selected design firm fearing loss of the construction-phase fee. Owners often discover more affordable alignments, simpler stations, or lower life-cycle costs that could have been buried under a bundled contract.
• Provides cleaner accountability: When challenges arise in construction, accountability is clearly established rather than attributed to a single design consultant. Defined roles and documented interfaces significantly reduce disputes and claims.

Turning procurement sequencing into cost savings

Large transit owners who have adopted this split-phase approach report capital cost  savings of 10–20% on average, faster schedules and dramatically fewer disputes across North America. The extra procurement effort upfront is real, but it is precisely where the leverage lies. One more procurement cycle is a fraction of the time and money typically lost to mis-scoped, mispriced megaprojects.

The old habit of “one RFP to rule them all” made sense when projects were simpler and trust was higher. On small, routine projects, it may still be the most efficient path. But today’s megaprojects demand a more disciplined sequence: think hard, compete fairly, then build smart.

Separate the thinker from the builder. On the projects that matter most, your budget, your riders and your legacy will thank you.