Maritime Executive: Collaborative Delivery Models Reshape Port Infrastructure Development

The traditional design-bid-build model that dominated port infrastructure development for decades is giving way to collaborative delivery approaches better suited for today’s complex projects. As ports navigate unprecedented competitive pressures, environmental and regulatory permitting challenges and infrastructure demands, fixed-price design-build and progressive design-build models are becoming the norm rather than the exception.

Beyond traditional P3s

While public-private partnerships (P3s) receive significant attention in infrastructure discussions, most port capital projects don’t follow the traditional P3 model with long-term financing arrangements. The P3 approach typically appears on the operations side through long-term contracts with terminal operators like DP World, which is separate from the capital infrastructure work.

Instead, ports are gravitating toward fixed price design-build and progressive design-build delivery models for rehabilitation and expansion projects. These approaches address the reality that many port authorities are more comfortable with commercial operations than managing large-scale capital project delivery. Collaborative delivery models offer critical advantages: schedule compression by overlapping design and construction phases, cost certainty through early pricing commitments and improve risk allocation between owners and contractors.

Competition drives infrastructure decisions

Ports compete for cargo based on speed, capacity and connectivity. How fast can you move containers? Is there adequate space when shipments arrive? What are the fees compared to competing ports? How accessible is the facility? These questions drive infrastructure investment decisions in ways that traditional procurement models struggle to accommodate.

The competitive landscape creates pressure for ports to make infrastructure decisions quickly while maintaining flexibility as market conditions shift. Fixed-price design-build models allow ports to compress project timelines by overlapping design and construction phases, getting critical improvements operational faster than traditional methods.

Progressive design-build takes this further by bringing design to a near-complete state before construction begins on early project elements, allowing contractors to lock in pricing while design continues on later phases. This approach proves particularly valuable for large, complex projects where waiting for complete design would delay critical infrastructure improvements.

The data visibility challenge

Ports often lack clear visibility into where containers go after leaving their facilities, making it difficult to prioritize infrastructure investments. They understand cargo is moving through their terminals but struggle to see the complete picture of inland connectivity patterns and final destinations.

This visibility gap complicates long-term planning. Should a port invest in expanded rail capacity or highway connections? How much warehousing and distribution space is optimal? Strategic port planning and data analytics tools like Compass IoT help address this uncertainty, while collaborative delivery approaches allow flexibility into project delivery, allowing adjustments as market intelligence improves.

Clarity drives competitive bidding

One often-overlooked benefit of collaborative delivery models is how clarity in procurement attracts competitive bids. When ports clearly define their delivery model expectations and procurement approach, qualified contractors and design teams can evaluate opportunities more effectively.

Progressive design-build particularly benefits from this clarity. Contractors understand they’ll be collaborating with designers throughout the project rather than simply building to completed plans. This attracts teams with program management capabilities rather than just construction expertise. Collaborative delivery also more effectively manages risks by properly assigning and pricing them among project stakeholders. Some contractors have stopped bidding fixed price design-build, so progressive design-build or construction manager at-risk approaches are more conducive to their risk tolerance.

The procurement clarity also helps ports balance aging infrastructure replacement with strategic investments for future competitiveness. By clearly defining project phases and delivery expectations, ports can sequence work to maintain operations while upgrading critical systems.

Ports operating more commercially

Many port authorities are evolving from traditional government agencies toward more business-like operations. Some have hired leadership teams from private sector backgrounds specifically to bring commercial operating models to public port authorities.

This operational evolution aligns naturally with collaborative delivery models. Fixed price design-build and progressive design-build mirror private sector project approaches more closely than design-bid-build. Ports comfortable operating commercially find these delivery models fit their organizational capabilities and decision-making processes.

The shift toward commercial operations also influences how ports evaluate infrastructure investments. Rather than solely focusing on public benefit criteria, ports increasingly assess projects through business lenses—return on investment, competitive positioning and market responsiveness.

Building flexible approaches

Success with collaborative delivery requires ports to build flexibility into their project approaches. Market conditions shift, cargo patterns evolve and competitive landscapes change. Rigid infrastructure plans developed years in advance often miss emerging opportunities or fail to address new challenges.

Fixed-price design-build and progressive design-build models accommodate this need for flexibility. Ports can adjust project scopes, modify timelines and incorporate new requirements more readily than traditional delivery approaches allow. This adaptability proves increasingly valuable as ports navigate energy transitions, automation discussions and changing trade patterns.

The ports that thrive will be those that embrace delivery models matching their organizational capabilities while maintaining focus on fundamental infrastructure quality and operational needs.

Craig Lewis is Principal at GHD and Maritime & Coastal Project Delivery Lead for North America; Michael Jolliffe is GHD’s Strategic and Major Projects Development Leader in North America; and Greg Watanabe is Principal at GHD and Collaborative Delivery Leader.

This article is sponsored by GHD, which combines strategic planning advisory services with infrastructure engineering to help ports navigate complex challenges from delivery model selection to project execution. Discover how we’re shaping the future of maritime infrastructure here.

The opinions expressed herein are the author’s and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.