Beyond the Buzz: Implementing Progressive Design-Build in the Federal Market

In the latest episode of the Design-Build Delivers Podcast, host Erin Looney chats with David Triplett of the FBI and Laura Stagner of GSA to discuss what federal agencies should know before pursuing a progressive design-build project.

The episode also highlights DBIA's new Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) Deeper Dive for progressive design-build and an accompanying AI-powered tutorial designed to help agencies apply the guidance in real-world procurement and project delivery scenarios.

Access all our free design-build resources and learn more about Design-Build Done Right® at dbia.org.

DBIA members are shaping the future, one successful collaboration at a time. 

Transcript

Erin Looney  0:07  
I've been at DBIA now for just about three and a half years, and progressive design build remains one of the most talked about topics in project delivery. Agencies across the country are exploring it at the state and local level. Legislation seems to pop up daily. Look, I know it's not really daily, but sometimes it feels like it. Owners in different markets, different sectors, are all looking closely at how PDB can support collaboration, flexibility, and early alignment on increasingly complex projects, and the federal sector is no exception to this increased interest, but of course, increased interest in anything brings bigger questions, like how does progressive design build actually function inside federal procurement environments? Where are agencies still getting stuck? And how do federal teams determine whether PDB is truly the right fit for a project in the first place? I am Aaron Looney, and this is the two-time Stevie Award-winning Design Build Delivers podcast, brought to you by Arcons, an Autodesk Platinum partner. In this episode, I'm joined by Dave Triplett, Chief Contracting Officer of the Facilities Acquisition Unit Inside FBI's Finance and Facilities Division, and Laura Stagner of the US General Services Administration's Office of Project Delivery. We're going to get into this intriguing world, and I actually mean intriguing, of federal procurement pathways, design build done right best practices at the federal level, recurring misconceptions agencies still face around PDB, and DBIA's latest guidance on qualifications-based selection in PDB, including a new and interesting way to consume and activate DBIA resources. You know, I could probably do a podcast on progressive design build every week, and I'd still find something new to talk about, probably find a new audience. We have conference sessions, and they are full courses on PDB, really popular. Our PDB resources just keep expanding, so clearly people care about progressive design build, and we're also seeing this kind of on the ground. It's not just from this 30,000 foot look what DBIA is doing. We're seeing a lot more agencies explore PDB, state and local legislation is emerging, and then at the federal level, in December, military projects gained expanded authority to use PDB through the National Defense Authorization Act. So, obviously, it's a big deal, and it means more teams are gaining first-hand experience, more successful projects are out there, more unsuccessful projects. So, what do you think is driving this type of momentum for PDB at the federal level?

Speaker 1  2:47  
For Aaron, I think it's a combination of roughly four things: it's legislative clarity, market conditions, project complexity, and speed to award has really accelerated the growth of progressive design build, or I might refer to it as PDB. The legislative clarity piece of it is the National Defense Authorization Act that you talked about, particularly Section 2809 For the first time, explicitly authorized the military departments to use accelerated design build and progressive design build procedures for military construction projects, and this really removed that kind of longstanding uncertainty about whether collaborative qualifications-based delivery models were permissible under federal law, and it established a framework for PDB, really emphasizing that qualifications-based single phase selection and early collaboration between owners and industry partners, market conditions, the unpredictable swings in material costs continue to really plague the industry. Asking a contractor to lock in a lump sum price early based on preliminary designs often leads to either inflated bids or to cover the risk or costly change orders, and PDB really directly addresses both of those outcomes. The project complexity, the defense infrastructure backlog includes shipyards, industrial facilities, overseas projects, exactly the project types where scope and site risk cannot be responsibly defined at the proposal stage, and really the speed to award and get a qualified team working on the project is probably one of the most compelling and least discussed advantages, really, of progressive design build over design bid build and conventional design build is how quickly the government can get a qualified team under contract and working, and then design bid build, really the owner has to complete design before even soliciting construction, that means months or years of a design effort, architect, engineering, procurement, drawing, production, and specification writing, all before a single construction contractor is really engaged, and the procurement then runs its own course. By the time the construction contract is awarded, the project timeline has consumed, you know. Largely by this, these pre-award activities and conventional design build comparatively, the owner must develop either if they're, if they're going to develop bridging documents. We don't recommend bridging documents, but we'll have to develop detailed performance specifications sufficient for contractors to price it competitively, and that package takes time to develop, and the proposal period itself is really lengthy, because competing teams are producing those conceptual designs alongside their price proposals. So, I would think for those four reasons we've seen really this kind of rise in progressive design build to meet that demand signal.

Erin Looney  5:36  
So, thank you for justifying the constant PDB conversation. It's one thing for me to say it, and I am not obviously an owner or practitioner, anybody who's actually doing this, and I'm only looking at how people respond when we talk about it, but to hear it broken down from somebody who's working with it to say this is why it keeps growing and why people want to talk about it, and I mentioned previously legislation, state and local, particularly, we've talked about that a lot on the show, but we switched over to talking about federal here because of some new guidance from DBIA on qualifications-based selection in progressive design building. Talk to us about that guidance. What prompted developing that, and what challenges were we trying to help federal owners navigate

Speaker 1  6:23  
in this deeper dive document that DBIA is about to release, is it's really intended to address the clear path for defense and civilian agencies to engage in qualifications-based selection process. The documents timely because of the far overhaul reform that we've been a part of over the last year, and as mentioned, the National Defense Authorization authorities, so there's a lot of debate over how to properly engage in a qualifications-based selection procurement process at the federal level. This document provides a path, the path to QBS through the FAR overhaul reform really creating one clear federal acquisition strategy that's recommended by DBIA. Really, the intended audience is any government agency, particularly within the federal sector, being really the primary beneficiary. It's important to set expectations, though, regarding what the document is intended to be and what it's not. Federal regulations limit the ability to implement a purely qualifications-based selection process for construction contract. This document is not intended to change the Federal Acquisition Regulation, rather it's to provide a practical approach for applying qualifications-based selection principles within the current regulatory framework. DBI's long-term goal is to advocate for meaningful and important reforms to allow a primarily qualification space selection driven process for integrated design and construction contracts. However, changes to the far take time, and this document is consistent and aligns with DBIA best practices by emphasizing those qualifications focused implementation techniques that owners should use to structure their procurements.

Speaker 2  8:03  
The only other thing I would say, and this is not directly to progressive design build, but the revolutionary FAR overhaul rewrote FAR part 36 which is the part that authorizes design build, in that it reorganized it so it's easier to use, and the far companion, which came up soon after, is quite good in terms of defining how to do design build done right, which would apply in the context of progressive as well. So I would urge all federal listeners to take a look at the far companion. It recommends down selecting to three. It recommends quality qualifications based selection in that even in two phase qualifications are more important than price. It recommends that you allow for both a pre construction and a post construction conversation. Post construction would be very similar to validation, if not exactly the same, so even the official tools that are available to the agencies are quite good these days.

Erin Looney  9:07  
Now you're talking about a deeper dive, and for DBIA, this type of guidance is not unusual, but what is new here is what's being released alongside this QBS paper. You also developed an AI tutorial, that's right, we're talking about AI again, and this is designed to help agencies put some of the concepts into practice and understand what's happening in this potentially dense document. I mean, they're made to be accessible, but there's a lot of information, a lot of material in there. So, talk to me about this tutorial. What does it actually help agencies do? How does you know? How does it work? And most importantly, did anyone name the AI design bill? Because if you didn't, you missed a branding opportunity,

Speaker 1  9:55  
totally, totally on the on the branding piece of it, but the resource. Be released soon. The intent is to help federal agencies with implementation of progressive design. Build the federal construction community has no shortage of policy documents, best practice guides, and procurement frameworks. What we consistently lack is the bridge between knowing what the guidance says and knowing how to apply it to a specific project in a specific agency context, and the gap really between the policy on paper and execution and practice is where most procurement reform stalls, and this tutorial help tie directly to the qualifications-based selection guidance that's outlined in the deeper dive, and is designed to really help close that gap. I think largely it makes the complex simple, as federal procurement is governed by layers of regulation, policy, and guidance, and that can make even experienced practitioners hesitant when navigating this unfamiliar territory, and the far that National Defense Authorization Agency-specific supplements, DBIA best practices, and Brooks Act requirements don't always speak to each other in plain language, so for the contracting officer executing a progressive design build project for the first time, really reconciling all these authorities into one coherent procurement strategy is difficult. So the intent of this tutorial has really helped cut through that complexity and allow those far nuances to be explained in plain language, and why a particular provision applies in the progressive design build context, and present that regulatory framework holistically, rather than a collection of disconnected requirements.

Erin Looney  11:34  
Tell me a little more about the word isn't personalization, it's the customizability of this tutorial, because what I'm thinking is when I'm reading this stuff again as sort of the person who just needs to put a bow on what you all do. My question a lot of times is, give me an example, show me what this is going to look like. So, does this tutorial provide an opportunity to I don't want to say plug in your information and see how it's going to work, but to change a scenario to look at a particular section in light of specific project constraints or circumstances.

Speaker 1  12:12  
I think as the goal, the aim, and the focus of the tutorial, obviously people learn in a variety of ways, and some learn better with examples through reading and some through consuming content, and I think the goal, the aim for this particular tutorial is it's a different way of being able to learn and experience these new techniques that are certainly outlined in that deeper dive, and it would offer an opportunity for the audience to be able to hear examples and plain language and delivered in a different way and hopefully through that experience that they'll be able to kind of learn better in that environment and hopefully we'll be able to offer examples that meet the listener where they're at and it will certainly be better received that way than it could be in other contexts.

Erin Looney  13:04  
I think it sounds fascinating, and I think we should do it for every one of our resources. But let's stay on topic. All things perfect, all things equal. The moment an owner chooses design build, whether it's progressive design build or not, that's the moment you would love for everything to magically drop into place, right? But nothing is perfect. So, some agencies, though, seem to - they seem to adapt to the PDB process pretty easily. It's not necessarily magic, but it goes a little more smoothly sometimes. Even experienced teams might struggle, and it's not - it's not a knock, it's just an unusual thing for some agencies to do. From what you have seen what tends to influence whether an agency is successful in the PDB environment.

Speaker 1  13:46  
Well, Aaron, I think owners that succeed in progressive design build really goes to that mantra of an owner of choice. Those are owners who are known in the market as fair, predictable, and reasonable partners. Contractors talk, and the design build teams that actively seek owners they want to work with and avoid those with reputations for first slow decisions, scope games, or adversarial administration. So, I think a struggling agency may not realize its market reputation is undermining the quality of the teams willing to pursue its work. Agencies that succeed in a progressive design build environment invest heavily in defining what they need before the procurement even begins, and then hold the line with that discipline. They distinguish clearly between wants and needs, and really resist that organizational pressure to keep adding scope once the project is underway. You know, whereas maybe a struggling agency treats the progressive nature of PDB as an opportunity to keep refining requirements indefinitely, which is one of the fastest ways to destroy schedule and budget performance, and an agency that succeeds in PDB understands that the model works because risk is allocated to the party best positioned to manage it and that. Sometimes means that the owner carries the risks that the design builder would have pushed to the contractor, and they price that into their program planning, and they don't try to push every uncertainty onto the contractor through contract language, whereas a struggling agency might attempt to get the collaboration benefits of PDB while structuring contracts that look like adversarial design bid build vehicles, and the market notices those things.

Erin Looney  15:28  
Federal procurement comes with a specific mix of contracting authorities. You've hit on some of this stuff already, procurement pathways, acquisition strategies, a bunch of things that make.. I don't wanna say more complicated, but differently complicated, perhaps than other sectors, regardless of the mechanism itself. DBIA always goes back to design, build, done right best practices, that is the foundation of a successful project. So, how do these principles translate across different federal contracting approaches, and all of these different pieces, whether it's far based, whether it's OTA, or something else entirely.

Speaker 1  16:04  
The design build done right principles apply to both two phase design build with trade off selection processes and and progressive design build. The key distinguishing factors between the two are how the team is selected, how design concepts are developed, and how the price is established. The principles travel with a delivery method, not necessarily the contract vehicle, while far based and design build progressive design build, or an OTA, other transaction authority. The consistent best practice is the same: select based on demonstrated competence first, that's how we're making the selection for our team, and then negotiate price second. These low bid selection processes really undermine the method, regardless of what procurement authority is being used. Other transaction authorities, I'll just hit on that too, they really promote innovation, flexibility, tailored terms, broader industry engagement, streamline contractor selection, and in some cases, and really that early collaboration between contractors and the government to help refine project specifications and those requirements, and every one of those attributes is design build done right principle, and then really an OTA doesn't create those values per se, it really removes the regulatory friction that sometimes prevents them from being fully expressed, and you know, however, though an OTA really lacks the procedural protections that the Federal Acquisition Regulation provide, and that makes design, build, done right principles more important in an OTA environment, where, where they are, what prevent really the flexibility from becoming a shortcut in early engagement from becoming early capture. So, you know, I think the design build done right principles certainly align nicely to either an other transactional authority or OTA or this progressive design build done right model.

Speaker 2  18:01  
A lot of the emphasis, particularly with the services now, is with other transactional authority. In fact, the memo from the Pentagon speaks very directly to other transactional authority. This is not an authority that's available to all agencies. Most civilian agencies don't have that as authority. What I'd like to say is that OTA is not incompatible with design build done right or progressive design build done right. What it means to use design build is to have a collaborative mindset to practice transparency and communication and pricing. It is to communicate in real time about project challenges. It is to trust your service provider, because you picked a partner. Those things are true, no matter what. I want to just say that for those who are grappling with what it means to have the authority to use other transactional authority, and how that fits into design build, and how to do all of that right. DBIA is available, has training that can help you sort that out, has training that can be tailored to your needs and your agency to work through some of those issues.

Erin Looney  19:14  
And I will link some of that information in the show notes, so people can go right from hearing you say it to signing up for it. The Design Build Delivers podcast is brought to you by Arcons, your technology optimization partner, helping design build teams streamline workflows with Autodesk solutions, expert support, and real world training. Ready to work smarter and faster, get tools, insights, and schedule your AI readiness check at our cons.us/dbia so there's been a little undertone in what we've been talking about here so far, of when things are done well with a nice little hint here and there to not everything goes well, so let's spend a little time now a little. At what happens when something is missing, when agencies pursue PDB, and they don't have the right collaborative structure or the right organizational readiness in place. What do you think would you see tends to break down first for those

Speaker 1  20:14  
Aaron? Before a solicitation is even issued, agencies without the right structure produce RFPs, requests for proposals that are vague, where they should be clear, prescriptive, where they should be flexible. You know, the budget is unrealistic, requirements are undefined, and the market either inflates contingencies to cover those ambiguities or doesn't propose at all. And so, PDB cannot be executed by an owner who is not prepared to actively participate, really, without the right structure. Agencies default to what they know. This is submittals, markups, and comment responses, and those design bid-build behaviors inside of a PDB contract really result in a, you know, a slow adversarial and defensive posture, and it really means the owner's mission knowledge never truly informs the design. The design builder really stops innovating and starts designing to survive reviews. And another piece is this whole concept and notion of open book estimating in progressive design build really kind of helps build that cost certainty progressively. When collaboration breaks down between the owner and the design builder, there's no incentive to share unfavorable cost data with an owner behaving like an adversary, and costs accumulate silently. And by the time that the guaranteed maximum price negotiations arrive, these kind of months of misalignment really surface all at once, and there's examples of a number of projects who, where they've elected to possibly off ramp rather than come together to try to negotiate acceptable terms, and I would say when the owner and the design builder arrive at the guaranteed maximum price negotiating table without that kind of shared design development or mutual cost visibility, they're effectively strangers negotiating a major construction contract, and what happens is we see positions harden, lawyers may be getting involved, and the project either stalls or a guaranteed maximum price gets signed that neither party really believes in, and you know this could set up disputes that play out through the construction, and there's this notion of an off ramp and progressive design build, and that exists when a fair price genuinely cannot be reached, and in PDB, if this is executed without the right collaborative structure, it may get used because the relationship never worked, not necessarily because the market wouldn't support a fair price, but the method gets blamed, and really the delivery method is ultimately the one that sells hostage, but the real problem is that it was never truly collaborative, and that really goes unaddressed,

Erin Looney  23:00  
moving to kind of something that you hit on, Dave, that we want to come back to here at DBIA. We emphasize that choosing the right project delivery method sometimes means not choosing design build, that's the reality. It's about selecting the right approach for the right project, and you know, not forcing a method onto every situation with interest in PDB growing like it does. I think that nuance can sometimes get lost, you know, owners, teams, agencies, they want to be up on the buzz, everybody wants to be doing what everyone else is doing, but if PDB is the buzz, you know, they might want to leap into that based on the pressure they're seeing from from other parts of the industry. Now, when agencies are evaluating their delivery options, what factors do you say they should consider to determine whether PDB is actually right and not that they're just following what they're reading about?

Speaker 1  23:57  
Well, I think you nailed it in the sense that progressive design build is not the right fit for every larger complex project. It's the right fit for projects where the scope, the site conditions, system requirements, or market conditions make it possible to define a fair and complete price at the proposal stage. The threshold question is not how big is this project, it's how much do we actually know right now is what we know sufficient to ask the market to price it responsibly. If the answer is no, progressive design build really deserves serious consideration. If the answer is yes, then maybe a two-phase design build following best practices may serve the project better and faster. Progressive design build really is only going to work if the market's going to support it, and you know that must mean that there's qualified design build teams willing to invest in a qualifications only proposal and commit to that collaborative phase one process for a fee that fairly compensates their effort without locking in a construction price in thin market. It's where highly specialized project types or in geographic areas with limited design build capacity really kind of the field of those qualified proposers, it may be too small to make qualification space competition meaningful, and agencies really should need to conduct thorough and thoughtful market research and industry engagement before committing to progressive design build.

Speaker 2  25:23  
I agree with everything that Dave just said. I think owners should carefully look at their workforce and the stakeholders that they will have to manage during the design and construction process. If you have a workforce that is really only familiar with design bid build, and processes that are kind of baked into how you do things that are really about design bid build, like I'm going to take 30 days to review something you give me, and then you have 30 days to give me comments back. That does not work in a design build or progressive design build context. Similarly, your stakeholders have to be able to aware of bought into real time decision making. There is not a space for my main stakeholder is going to take a week to weigh the benefits, and then maybe come back to me with some questions and challenges. It is a real time at the table today. We are making this kind of decision environment, and if the owner cannot honestly say that they're ready to do that, then certainly progressive is probably not the right choice. But even design build, you want to look at, do I need an owner advisor, do I need some training? It is a different mindset to be in design build, and you have to be able to get there.

Erin Looney  26:46  
Both of you have spent years inside federal project delivery and procurement environments, where you know we're talking about you seeing changes across the years, and we're not really here just talking about progressive design build in theory. With that in mind, we're talking about actually implementing it inside major agencies. Laura, for instance, you helped build tools and processes at GSA for project risk and delivery selection, and Dave, you've worked on these large-scale FBI construction, procurement, and projects from the contracting side. So let's have both of you talk about from your respective vantage points. What are the biggest misconceptions? What are the biggest sticking points agencies still run into when dealing with progressive design build?

Speaker 1  27:34  
You know, one is progressive design build means we don't need to do our homework up front as an agency, and I would think that this is one of the more damaging misconceptions in the federal market is that I think agencies hear progressive and assume it means the project definition could be figured out later and really the here that PDB is a shortcut around kind of the hard pre solicitation work and it's really the opposite progressive design build requires more owner preparation before the solicitation is let, not less, and the program requirements, the site information package, a realistic budget, performance criteria - all of it really must be developed before the RFP is issued. You know what PDB defers is really the design solution and the construction price. It does not defer the owner's obligation to define really what success looks like, so I think that's a big misconception.

Speaker 2  28:28  
The other misconception that I've run into personally is the owner's belief that they can avoid risk by providing incomplete information, for example, in this fastest report, this is all I've got. The rest is on you. The owner is responsible for knowing the asbestos conditions. Otherwise, the design builder, whether it's design build straight up or progressive, the design builder is going to price the risk of what they don't know. You can never get around that. So the owner does themselves no favors by pushing that kind of documentation risk onto the design builder. It doesn't speed the process, and it doesn't really transfer the risk.

Speaker 1  29:10  
One more, Aaron, is that to build on that, is that you hear this misconception that the off ramp is failure, and the off ramp is an opportunity to kind of part ways, but when agencies learn that progressive design build contracts include this provision to part ways with the design builder at the end of phase one, the pre-construction services, that is, the instinctive reaction is that exercising the off ramp represents a failed project, and that the procurement didn't work, a relationship broke down, a schedule is now badly damaged, but the off-ramp really is none of those things when it functions as it's designed, and that's it. Is the owner's most powerful cost control mechanism, I would say, the credible alternative that keeps really the guaranteed maximum price negotiations honest. And it protects the government from being locked into a price that isn't fair,

Speaker 2  30:04  
not in progressive, but in CM at risk. GSA has exercised an off-ramp, and I'm not going to say it was easy. We did it a couple of different times, wasn't easy, but at the end of the day, we did learn from the process. The market learned from the process, and we delivered a project that met the mission needs of the customer, so it's not a failure, it's not easy, but it actually was for the good of both projects.

Erin Looney  30:30  
It's actually really good to hear that with some high-profile projects out there right now dealing with that exact thing. So a lot of times we end the Design Build Delivers podcast with wild speculation, but for our purposes, maybe practicality is the way today, not wild speculation. So, how about this? Let's, let's do this. If there's one message each of you hope federal owners take away from this conversation, especially agencies just now exploring PDB more seriously, what would that message be?

Speaker 1  31:00  
I would offer that progressive design build is it's not necessarily a procurement method, it's a commitment, and every other federal delivery method asks the owner to make one fundamental decision, what to build, and then ask the market to price it. In progressive design build, it asks the owner to make a different and tougher decision, and that's to commit to a team before a price exists, and to commit to a process before an outcome is certain, and to commit to a level of transparency and collaboration that has really no parallel and traditional federal acquisition. That commitment is not a weakness in the method, it's really the kind of the source of strength and the cost certainty, the schedule compression, the risk reduction, the innovation, you know, none of those outcomes are delivered by the contract, they're delivered by the relationship, and the contract really creates the conditions, the commitment really makes them real, and agencies will succeed with progressive design build, those that will are not the ones that treat it as a new contract type to be administered. They're the ones that treat it as a fundamentally different way of working, one that demands more of the owner than probably in any previous delivery method they've been a part of, and returns more to the mission likely than previous delivery methods have been able to deliver.

Speaker 2  32:23  
Just to build on that, there's a critical part of progressive design build and design build that progressive - it happens much earlier - known as validation, which is where you match the offer with the ask, so you're looking to make scope and price trade-offs as you hone in on the design, and you're prioritizing those scope items that you can afford in government. For other owners, it might be, I want these scope items, I'll go find more money. Generally, in government, that's not true. You have to prioritize the scope, that validation process is critical. It has to be transparent, it has to be open, and it has to be a clear-eyed assessment of risk. So, there should also be an assessment of the risk register, and as you retire risk, you can buy more scope, and very successful projects do that with absolute transparency, weekly reconciliation. That's the clearest path to success. Is that kind of dialog?

Erin Looney  33:31  
I lied. Final, final question for real. The 2026 federal design bills symposium is August 11 and 12th in Reston, Virginia, just outside Washington, where I am right now. I'm going to have you guys sell it for us. What is your pitch to owners and practitioners to get them to attend, especially keeping in mind early bird registration is still open till june 30? So, I'm going to start with you, Laura.

Speaker 2  33:56  
Well, so early bird registration is open and owners can attend for free. All owners, public or private, are free. The symposium will start with a general session with the heads of acquisition from the Corps of Engineers, NAVAC, and the Coast Guard, and there will be an open discussion about what it means to be living in the new world of progressive design build authority and what challenges those agencies are facing as they grapple with educating their workforce and getting the work done. There has been a memo issued from the Pentagon that puts quite a bit of emphasis on not only progressive design build but speed, speed to market, and there's a lot of pressure on these agencies to perform, so it should be a fascinating discussion, and a great way to kick off the whole symposium.

Erin Looney  34:49  
Dave, you better follow that.

Speaker 1  34:51  
I think Laura nailed it. The practical applications, projects that have gone well, these examples of projects that have gone exceptionally well, learning from the. Agencies getting the networking opportunities to be able to connect with others that may be in a similar boat that the agency is in, and having to go and go quickly to spend appropriated dollars in a fiscally responsible way, and to execute these delivery models like progressive design, build qualifications based selection, and I think all are things that can be learned and gained through attendance at events like this.

Speaker 2  35:27  
The second day of the symposium has two general sessions, but also some breakout tracks. One of the breakout tracks is design build straight up with case studies of successful design build projects. The other breakout section is specifically on progressive. There's a session on what owners need to know to pick progressive. There's a session on what validation means and how to do it, and there's a session on what an off ramp is and how to use one if you need to. So we think we have focused on some of the high level issues that people are facing today, and we hope that people will find it useful.

Erin Looney  36:01  
It always sounds so much better coming from somebody other than me or the communications team here at DBIA, who we know are paid to make everything sound great, but you all, you're on the ground, you know what would make you come to the event. So it's better to hear that from you. Thanks again to Dave Triplett and Laura Stagner for joining us on the Design Build Delivers podcast, and sharing their perspectives, and a little bit of marketing there at the end on PDB in the federal market. If you'd like to learn more about DBIA qualifications-based selection guidance for progressive design build, which will be out any day now, including that accompanying AI tutorial discussed in the episode, you'll find links and additional resources in the episode show notes, and and if you're ready to register to join us august 11 and 12th at the Federal Design Build Symposium, dbia.org is your place for all that information. And as always, thank you for listening to the Design Build Delivers podcast, brought to you by Archons and Autodesk Platinum partner. Learn more at archons.us/dbia do.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai