Integrated Project Planning and Delivery Systems

Introduction and Context

Construction projects are temporary production systems in which design information, money, labour, materials, equipment, approvals, and organisational authority must be coordinated to create a facility. Project success therefore depends not only on technical design or construction skill, but also on the way the project is planned, contracted, governed, and delivered.

Integrated project planning connects project objectives with scope, schedule, cost, quality, risk, procurement, resources, safety, communication, and stakeholder requirements. It converts an idea into an executable management system. A delivery system, in contrast, defines how design and construction responsibilities are allocated among the owner, designers, contractors, specialist suppliers, and other participants. The two subjects are inseparable: a delivery system creates the contractual and organisational environment within which the integrated plan must operate.

For example, design–bid–build may provide a familiar competitive procurement route, but it normally separates design from construction and can make coordination more difficult. Design–build integrates responsibility for design and construction, but requires the owner to define performance requirements clearly. Engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) may provide single-point responsibility and price certainty, but often transfers substantial risk to the contractor and can reduce owner flexibility. Collaborative delivery seeks early involvement, shared decision-making, and alignment of project incentives.

An effective project manager must therefore do more than prepare a schedule. The manager must establish a coherent baseline, select a delivery system suited to the project, define interfaces, control change, and maintain reliable information flows throughout the project life cycle.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, the reader should be able to:

1. Explain the purpose and components of an integrated project management plan.
2. Develop scope, schedule, cost, quality, risk, procurement, communication, and safety planning interfaces.
3. Establish and control scope, schedule, and cost baselines.
4. Distinguish design–bid–build, design–build, construction management, EPC, and collaborative delivery systems.
5. Select a delivery system using project characteristics, risk allocation, market conditions, and client capability.
6. Analyse governance, ethical, contractual, and technological implications of integrated planning.
7. Apply these principles to a realistic construction project scenario.

1. The Logic of Integrated Project Planning

1.1 From project objectives to control systems

An integrated plan begins with the project charter or business case. The owner’s strategic objectives—such as capacity, serviceability, completion date, capital budget, sustainability, or return on investment—must be translated into measurable project requirements. These requirements are then decomposed into deliverables and work packages.

A useful planning hierarchy is:

• Business objectives: Why is the project being undertaken?
• Project outcomes: What operational or social benefits are expected?
• Performance requirements: What must the facility do?
• Scope and deliverables: What physical and informational outputs will be produced?
• Work packages: What manageable units of work will be planned and controlled?
• Activities and resources: How will the work be performed?
• Baselines and controls: How will performance and change be measured?

Integration means that each level is traceable to the others. A work package should support a deliverable; a deliverable should satisfy a requirement; and the requirement should support an approved objective.

1.2 The integrated project management plan

The integrated plan is the controlled reference for project execution. It is usually a collection of coordinated subsidiary plans rather than one short document. Its contents vary by project, but commonly include:

These plans must be mutually consistent. A revised foundation design, for example, may alter quantities, procurement packages, the schedule, excavation safety controls, inspection requirements, and cost forecasts. Treating the design revision as only a drawing issue is a failure of integration.

1.3 Interfaces and systems thinking

Construction projects contain technical, contractual, organisational, and geographic interfaces. Examples include the interface between structural steel and mechanical services, between the owner’s operations team and the commissioning team, and between a main contractor and a utility authority.

Interface management identifies responsibility at boundaries where work or information passes from one party to another. A practical interface register records:

• the two or more parties involved;
• the information or physical connection required;
• the required date and acceptance criteria;
• the person accountable for coordination;
• assumptions, constraints, and unresolved decisions; and
• the escalation route if the interface fails.

The RACI model can clarify governance: Responsible performs the task, Accountable owns the result, Consulted provides input, and Informed receives information. RACI is a communication and responsibility tool, not a substitute for contractual obligations.

2. Scope, Work Breakdown, and Requirements Control

Scope management establishes the project boundary. The scope statement should identify inclusions, exclusions, assumptions, constraints, acceptance criteria, and interfaces with existing assets. Ambiguous scope is a major source of claims because different parties may reasonably interpret the same requirement differently.

The work breakdown structure (WBS) decomposes the total approved scope into deliverables and work packages. A good WBS is deliverable-oriented, covers the entire project, avoids overlap, and is sufficiently detailed for estimating, scheduling, assigning responsibility, and measuring progress. It should not be confused with an organisational chart or a list of trade contractors.

Requirements traceability links each requirement to its source, design response, verification method, and acceptance record. Verification may involve inspection, testing, analysis, demonstration, or document review. In regulated projects, traceability supports compliance and future operation.

Scope control requires a defined change process. A change request should describe the proposed change, reason, technical effect, cost effect, schedule effect, risk effect, and approval authority. No baseline change should be made merely because work has informally evolved in the field. Conversely, legitimate changes should not be concealed as contractor inefficiency or unapproved variation.

3. Schedule Planning and the Time Baseline

The schedule converts scope into a time-based execution strategy. Planning normally proceeds through the following steps:

1. define activities from the WBS and work packages;
2. establish logical relationships and constraints;
3. estimate durations using available productivity and quantity information;
4. assign resources and calendars;
5. identify milestones and contractual dates;
6. analyse the critical path and near-critical paths;
7. review constructability, sequencing, access, and interfaces; and
8. approve a realistic schedule baseline.

The critical path is the longest logical path through a network under the stated assumptions. Activities on it generally have zero or limited total float at the time of analysis. Criticality can change when actual progress, logic, constraints, or remaining durations change. A critical path is therefore a management result, not a permanent label attached to particular activities.

A simple activity network may be represented by precedence relationships such as finish-to-start, start-to-start, finish-to-finish, and start-to-finish. Excessive use of date constraints can hide the real logic and weaken forecasting. The schedule should explain how work will occur, not merely display desired dates.

Schedule quality depends on realistic production rates, calendars, procurement lead times, design release dates, authority approvals, commissioning logic, and allowances for uncertainty. A schedule that ignores long-lead equipment may appear efficient while being operationally impossible.

4. Cost Planning and Baselines

Cost planning develops an estimate, converts the approved estimate into a time-phased budget, and establishes the cost baseline. The estimate should identify direct costs, indirect costs, allowances, design and management costs, permits, taxes where applicable, escalation assumptions, and risk or contingency treatment.

A useful distinction is:

• Estimate: a forecast of likely cost based on available information;
• Budget: authorised funding allocated to the project or control accounts;
• Cost baseline: the time-phased authorised budget used to measure performance; and
• Forecast at completion: the current estimate of final cost based on actual performance and remaining work.

Management reserve, if used, is generally controlled outside the performance measurement baseline for unforeseen but in-scope work. Contingency is an allowance for identified uncertainty or risk and must be defined by the organisation’s governance rules. These terms should not be used interchangeably.

A cost-loaded schedule permits analysis of planned expenditure over time. The resulting planned value curve is often called the S-curve because cumulative spending commonly rises slowly during mobilisation, accelerates during production, and levels off during completion. The shape is not a law; it depends on project type, payment structure, procurement timing, and cost distribution.

Earned value concepts

Earned value management compares planned work, completed work, and actual cost. The core variables are:

• PV (planned value): authorised budget for work scheduled by a specified date;
• EV (earned value): authorised budget for work actually completed by that date; and
• AC (actual cost): cost incurred for the completed work by that date.

The schedule variance and cost variance are:

SV and CV are expressed in monetary budget units. Positive SV indicates more budgeted work has been completed than planned; positive CV indicates that completed work has cost less than its authorised budget. These interpretations assume that EV is measured consistently and that the baseline is credible.

The performance indices are:

SPI and CPI are dimensionless. A value of 1.00 indicates planned or cost efficiency at the measurement date; values below 1.00 indicate less progress than planned or cost inefficiency, respectively. Earned value does not replace schedule analysis: an activity may earn value while a key contractual milestone remains threatened.

Worked example. At month six, a project has PV = $2.0 million, EV = $1.8 million, and AC = $2.1 million. Therefore:

• SV = $1.8m − $2.0m = −$0.2m;
• CV = $1.8m − $2.1m = −$0.3m;
• SPI = $1.8m ÷ $2.0m = 0.90; and
• CPI = $1.8m ÷ $2.1m ≈ 0.86.

The project has completed less budgeted work than planned and has spent more than the budget value of that work. The figures indicate a need for investigation; they do not, by themselves, prove the cause or predict the final outcome.

5. Selecting a Project Delivery System

A delivery system allocates design, construction, coordination, risk, control, and payment responsibilities. Selection should be made before procurement, using explicit criteria rather than organisational habit.

Important selection factors include:

• clarity and stability of the owner’s requirements;
• urgency and acceptable overlap between design and construction;
• project complexity and technical integration;
• desired price and schedule certainty;
• owner’s technical and contract-management capability;
• availability and maturity of the construction market;
• risk appetite and ability to manage transferred risks;
• need for innovation, flexibility, or early contractor input;
• financing and lender requirements;
• regulatory environment; and
• likelihood of stakeholder or end-user changes.

No system is universally superior. A delivery system should be judged by its fit with the project and the owner’s ability to administer it.

5.1 Design–bid–build

In design–bid–build (DBB), the owner separately appoints a designer and a construction contractor. Design is substantially completed before competitive construction tendering, although the degree of completion varies by jurisdiction and project.

Strengths include a familiar contractual structure, competitive tendering based on a common design, and relatively clear separation of design and construction roles. It can suit projects with stable requirements, adequate design time, and an owner capable of coordinating separate contracts.

Limitations include limited constructor input during design, potential design–construction disputes, longer overall duration when phases are sequential, and exposure to variations where drawings or specifications are incomplete. The owner commonly retains more design coordination risk.

5.2 Design–build

In design–build, the owner contracts with one entity for both design and construction. The owner’s requirements document becomes especially important because it defines performance, quality, functional, and acceptance requirements.

Design–build can reduce interfaces, support earlier construction involvement, and provide a single point of contractual responsibility. It may shorten duration through overlapping design and construction. However, comparing proposals can be difficult if performance requirements are vague. The owner may have less direct control over design development, and changes after award can be costly.

Successful design–build procurement requires a well-developed statement of requirements, an evaluation method that considers quality as well as price, design review procedures, and clear responsibility for professional design services.

5.3 Construction management

Construction management involves a professional construction manager providing planning, coordination, procurement, and management services. Forms differ significantly. Under construction management as agent, the manager may act on behalf of the owner while trade contracts remain with the owner. Under construction management at risk, the construction manager may undertake construction responsibility and provide a guaranteed maximum price or another cost commitment, subject to contract conditions.

Construction management can provide early constructability advice, flexible packaging, and fast-track opportunities. It requires a capable owner, disciplined package management, and clear authority boundaries. Multiple trade contracts increase interface and coordination demands. The exact allocation of cost, schedule, and performance risk depends on the contractual form and should never be inferred from the label alone.

5.4 Engineering, procurement and construction

An EPC contractor commonly undertakes detailed engineering, procurement of equipment and materials, and construction, often with commissioning obligations. EPC is frequently used for industrial, energy, infrastructure, and process facilities where performance requirements can be specified and integrated delivery is valuable.

Typical attractions are single-point responsibility, a defined completion obligation, and potential price and schedule certainty. EPC contracts may include performance tests, liquidated damages, warranties, and extensive reporting requirements.

The risks include higher tender prices for transferred uncertainty, reduced owner flexibility, disputes over scope boundaries, and the danger that the owner’s requirements are insufficiently defined. Risk transfer does not eliminate risk; it changes who prices, controls, and bears its consequences. A contractor cannot effectively control an unforeseeable change in law, an unknown site condition, or an owner-caused delay unless the contract addresses these matters appropriately.

5.5 Collaborative delivery

Collaborative delivery includes alliance contracting, partnering, integrated project delivery, and other arrangements designed to improve joint problem-solving and align incentives. Participants may share risks and rewards, use open-book cost information, establish joint governance, and commit to early involvement.

Collaboration is more than holding meetings or signing a partnering charter. It requires compatible commercial terms, transparent information, behavioural commitments, agreed decision rules, and mechanisms for resolving conflict without destroying trust. Collaborative models can be effective where the project is complex, uncertain, and dependent on early multidisciplinary integration. They may be less suitable where the market lacks capable participants or where the owner requires a simple price competition with limited interaction.

6. Comparing Delivery Systems

The table provides a starting comparison, not a procurement decision. Contract conditions, local law, market capacity, and project-specific risk can change the outcome.

7. Governance, Ethics, and Contract Administration

Governance defines who may decide, approve, spend, change, accept, and escalate. A project governance structure may include an owner’s steering committee, project board, project manager, design authority, commercial manager, site management team, and independent assurance functions.

Effective governance separates appropriate duties without creating unnecessary bureaucracy. Approval thresholds should be established for changes, commitments, claims, subcontract awards, and payments. Records should show the basis for significant decisions.

Ethical practice includes honest estimating, transparent tender evaluation, avoidance of conflicts of interest, fair treatment of suppliers, protection of confidential information, and accurate reporting of progress. A project manager must not manipulate earned value, hide defects, split procurements to avoid approval thresholds, or pressure personnel to bypass safety controls.

Contract administration requires timely notices, accurate records, proper certification, and adherence to the agreed change and payment procedures. Daily reports, photographs, inspection records, correspondence, programmes, delivery records, and meeting minutes may become critical evidence. Documentation should support learning and accountability, not merely litigation.

Regulatory obligations may include planning approval, building codes, environmental permits, labour requirements, occupational health and safety law, accessibility provisions, procurement rules, and professional registration. The applicable jurisdiction must always be checked; contractual language cannot lawfully replace statutory duties.

8. Digital Tools, BIM, and Artificial Intelligence

Building information modelling (BIM) can support integrated planning by connecting geometric information with specifications, quantities, sequencing, cost, operation, and asset data. Four-dimensional BIM links model elements to time; five-dimensional applications associate quantities or cost information. These labels describe capabilities, not guaranteed outcomes.

Digital common data environments improve document control when naming, revision, access, approval, and retention rules are defined. A model is not automatically a contract document. The parties must agree which information is authoritative, who may change it, how model reliance is permitted, and how discrepancies are resolved.

Artificial intelligence can assist with document classification, schedule-risk screening, quantity checking, image-based progress observations, and retrieval of project information. It should be treated as decision support. Outputs require human verification because training data may be incomplete, model results may be biased, and confidential project information may be exposed through poorly governed systems. AI should not independently approve design, certify payment, or determine safety compliance without competent professional review.

9. Illustrative Case: Riverside Clinical Facility

Background

A public health authority plans a 14,000 m² outpatient clinical facility. The project has a target opening date linked to the relocation of existing services, a constrained urban site, complex medical systems, and substantial stakeholder involvement. The authority has a small internal capital team but strong clinical requirements expertise.

Problem

The initial proposal recommends design–bid–build because it is familiar and appears to maximise tender competition. However, the clinical equipment layout is still developing, utility diversions are uncertain, and the opening date is politically and operationally important. The authority is concerned about both delay and loss of control over clinical functionality.

Analysis

A delivery-system workshop identifies the following conditions:

• functional requirements are known, but detailed room layouts will evolve;
• early contractor input is valuable because of the restricted site;
• specialist mechanical, electrical, and medical-gas coordination is critical;
• the owner needs strong design review and clinical sign-off;
• the market contains experienced design–build teams; and
• the owner cannot effectively manage a large number of trade contracts.

Pure DBB would preserve owner design control but create a significant risk of late design changes and a sequential programme. Construction management could provide flexibility but would demand more owner-side coordination than is available. A collaborative design–build arrangement with early contractor involvement is selected, subject to a carefully developed owner’s requirements document and independent design assurance.

Approach

The integrated plan establishes:

1. a requirements traceability matrix linking clinical needs to room data sheets and commissioning tests;
2. a design release schedule with approval gates for clinical, regulatory, and technical information;
3. a procurement register for long-lead air-handling units, generators, and medical equipment interfaces;
4. an interface register covering utilities, existing hospital operations, equipment vendors, and authorities;
5. a cost baseline separated into approved scope, identified risk allowances, and owner-controlled reserve;
6. a commissioning and operational-readiness plan beginning during design; and
7. a governance board with defined authority for clinical changes, commercial changes, and safety matters.

The contract uses performance requirements for clinical functionality but prescribes critical standards and review obligations. Design development is permitted within controlled boundaries. Changes are assessed for patient safety, infection control, cost, schedule, and operational impact.

Outcome

The project reaches early works while design packages are released progressively. Contractor input improves logistics planning and identifies a major access conflict before excavation. The owner retains approval of clinical functionality, while the design–build team coordinates technical integration. The project still experiences a delay in specialist equipment approval, but the interface register and early procurement review allow mitigation before the delay affects commissioning.

Learning points

The case illustrates that delivery selection should reflect uncertainty, owner capability, interface complexity, and time objectives. It also shows that a suitable contract cannot compensate for poor requirements. Integrated planning is effective only when decision rights, information quality, and change control are established at the beginning.

10. Challenges and Limitations

Integrated planning has several limitations. First, early information is incomplete, so a plan is a forecast rather than a guarantee. Second, excessive detail can create administrative effort without improving decisions. Third, baselines may become obsolete when assumptions change. Fourth, transferring risk to a party that cannot control it may increase price and conflict rather than improve performance. Fifth, collaboration can fail where commercial incentives reward individual optimisation instead of project outcomes.

Project managers should therefore distinguish uncertainty from poor planning. Not every variation is evidence of incompetence, and not every claim is opportunism. The relevant questions are whether assumptions were reasonable, risks were identified, responsibilities were clear, information was timely, and decisions followed the agreed governance process.

11. Best-Practice Principles

1. Start with measurable owner outcomes and acceptance criteria.
2. Build a traceable line from requirements to deliverables, work packages, and tests.
3. Select the delivery system after analysing risk, complexity, time, market, and owner capability.
4. Define interfaces explicitly and assign accountable owners.
5. Establish scope, schedule, and cost baselines only after meaningful review.
6. Integrate design release, procurement, construction, commissioning, and operations planning.
7. Use change control to protect the baseline while allowing justified changes.
8. Treat risk allocation as a control decision, not merely a contractual transfer.
9. Use digital tools under agreed information, security, and approval protocols.
10. Report performance honestly and escalate emerging problems early.
11. Align incentives with whole-project outcomes where collaboration is required.
12. Capture lessons during the project, not only at final completion.

Chapter Summary

Integrated project planning translates owner objectives into coordinated scope, schedule, cost, quality, risk, procurement, resource, safety, communication, stakeholder, and change-control systems. The work breakdown structure defines deliverables and work packages; the schedule establishes logic and time commitments; and the cost plan converts authorised scope into a time-phased baseline. Earned value compares planned value, earned value, and actual cost, but must be interpreted alongside milestone and technical information.

Delivery systems allocate design, construction, coordination, and risk responsibilities. Design–bid–build suits relatively stable scope and preserves strong owner design control, but can create separation and variation risk. Design–build integrates design and construction and may accelerate delivery, but depends on clear owner requirements. Construction management supports early involvement and flexible packaging but requires capable governance. EPC offers integrated responsibility and performance obligations, especially for process and infrastructure projects, but can be expensive and inflexible when requirements are uncertain. Collaborative delivery aligns participants through early involvement, shared governance, and incentive mechanisms, but requires trust, transparency, and commercial maturity.

The appropriate choice is not the system with the best general reputation. It is the system that best fits project uncertainty, technical complexity, market capacity, owner capability, desired certainty, and the distribution of controllable risk. Ethical governance, reliable records, disciplined change control, BIM-enabled information management, and carefully governed AI can strengthen—but cannot replace—professional judgement.

Key Terms

Integrated project plan: Coordinated set of plans and controls used to direct and manage a project.

Baseline: Approved reference used to measure performance and control change.

Scope statement: Document defining project inclusions, exclusions, assumptions, constraints, and acceptance criteria.

Work breakdown structure: Hierarchical decomposition of the total approved project scope.

Work package: Manageable component of a WBS used for planning, assignment, and control.

Interface: Boundary where information, work, responsibility, or physical systems connect.

Critical path: Longest logical path through a schedule network under stated conditions.

Planned value: Budget authorised for work scheduled by a specified date.

Earned value: Budget authorised for work actually completed by a specified date.

Actual cost: Cost incurred for completed work by a specified date.

Cost baseline: Time-phased authorised budget used for cost-performance measurement.

Design–bid–build: Delivery system in which design and construction are separately contracted, normally in sequence.

Design–build: Delivery system in which one entity is responsible for both design and construction.

Construction management: Delivery approach using a construction manager to plan, coordinate, and manage construction, with legal forms varying.

EPC: Engineering, procurement, and construction delivery with integrated responsibility, often including commissioning.

Collaborative delivery: Delivery approach using early involvement, shared governance, aligned incentives, and joint problem-solving.

Change control: Formal process for evaluating, approving, recording, and implementing changes.

Requirements traceability: Linkage between a requirement, its design response, verification method, and acceptance record.

Management reserve: Organisationally controlled allowance for unforeseen in-scope work, distinct from the performance baseline where applicable.

Common data environment: Governed digital environment for managing project information and revisions.

Review Questions

Short Answer Questions

1. What is the purpose of an integrated project management plan?
2. Distinguish an estimate, a budget, and a cost baseline.
3. Why is a work breakdown structure important for project control?
4. What do PV, EV, and AC represent in earned value management?
5. State two conditions under which design–build may be appropriate.

Long Answer Questions

1. Explain how scope, schedule, cost, procurement, and risk planning should be integrated on a major construction project.
2. Compare design–bid–build and design–build in terms of responsibility, risk, flexibility, and schedule.
3. Explain the principal characteristics, benefits, and limitations of construction management, EPC, and collaborative delivery.
4. Discuss how governance and ethical conduct influence baseline management and contract administration.
5. Develop a structured framework for selecting a delivery system for a complex public infrastructure project.

Analytical / Application Questions

1. A project has PV = $4.0 million, EV = $3.6 million, and AC = $3.9 million at the reporting date. Calculate SV, CV, SPI, and CPI, then interpret the results and identify limitations of the analysis.
2. An owner has incomplete design information, a fixed operational opening date, limited internal project staff, and a technically complex facility. Recommend a delivery system and justify the recommendation using at least five selection criteria.
3. During construction, a revised equipment layout affects foundations, procurement, electrical services, commissioning, and cost. Describe the integrated change-control process, including required assessments, approvals, baseline treatment, and communication.

Multiple Choice Questions with Answers

Question 1

Which document provides the hierarchical decomposition of total approved project scope?

A. Risk register

B. Work breakdown structure

C. Communication matrix

D. Payment certificate

Correct Answer: B. Work breakdown structure

Question 2

A project has PV = $2.0 million, EV = $1.8 million, and AC = $2.1 million. What is the CPI?

A. 0.86

B. 0.90

C. 1.11

D. 1.17

Correct Answer: A. 0.86

Question 3

Which delivery system normally places design and construction responsibility with one contracting entity?

A. Design–bid–build

B. Design–build

C. Construction management as agent

D. Separate prime contracting

Correct Answer: B. Design–build

Question 4

What does a positive cost variance in earned value analysis generally indicate?

A. Actual cost exceeds earned value

B. Earned value exceeds actual cost

C. Planned value exceeds earned value

D. The critical path has disappeared

Correct Answer: B. Earned value exceeds actual cost

Question 5

Which factor is most important when deciding whether risk should be transferred to a contractor?

A. Whether the contractor can control or price the risk reasonably

B. Whether the contract contains a long title

C. Whether the project has a short name

D. Whether all risks can be removed from the project

Correct Answer: A. Whether the contractor can control or price the risk reasonably

Question 6

Which delivery approach commonly uses a construction manager for planning, coordination, procurement, and management?

A. Construction management

B. Design–bid–build only

C. Traditional direct purchase

D. Unmanaged self-performance

Correct Answer: A. Construction management

Question 7

What is the principal purpose of an interface register?

A. To replace the project budget

B. To record connections, responsibilities, information needs, and unresolved boundary issues

C. To approve employee leave

D. To calculate tax automatically

Correct Answer: B. To record connections, responsibilities, information needs, and unresolved boundary issues

Question 8

Which statement best describes collaborative delivery?

A. It eliminates the need for contracts

B. It relies on early involvement, shared governance, and aligned incentives

C. It always guarantees the lowest tender price

D. It prevents all project changes

Correct Answer: B. It relies on early involvement, shared governance, and aligned incentives

Question 9

At a reporting date, SPI = 0.80. Subject to the validity of the measurements, what does this suggest?

A. The project has completed less budgeted work than planned

B. The project has spent exactly its budget

C. The project is 20% under budget

D. The project has no critical activities

Correct Answer: A. The project has completed less budgeted work than planned

Question 10

Why must an owner’s requirements document be carefully developed for design–build procurement?

A. Because it defines the performance and acceptance requirements against which the integrated entity will design and build

B. Because it removes the need for construction inspection

C. Because it guarantees that no design changes can occur

D. Because it transfers all statutory duties to the contractor

Correct Answer: A. Because it defines the performance and acceptance requirements against which the integrated entity will design and build