Integrated Project Delivery (IPD): Shared Risk, Shared Reward, and Why IPD Contracts Look Nothing Like CM/GC Contracts
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is a construction delivery model built on a single multiparty contract executed among the owner, design professional, and constructor (plus sometimes key trade partners). Rather than the traditional owner-designer contract separately from the owner-contractor contract, IPD unifies all the primary parties under one agreement with shared risk and shared financial upside. The model was developed to address the fragmentation and adversarial dynamics that characterize traditional design-bid-build delivery.
IPD remains a minority of US construction, but it's grown in specific sectors — healthcare, higher education, some commercial work — where the economic case for collaboration is strong. Contractors encountering IPD projects need to understand how these contracts differ from typical CM/GC or design-build structures, and whether the shared-risk compensation model fits their risk tolerance and capabilities.
The defining feature of IPD is the multiparty agreement. Instead of separate owner-architect and owner-contractor contracts (with the architect and contractor having no direct contract between them), IPD unifies these relationships:
IPD contract structure
- One integrated contract signed by owner, architect, and contractor (and sometimes key trade partners)
- Shared responsibilities — the team collectively owns project outcomes
- Joint decision-making on key issues — schedule, budget, design decisions
- Shared risk and reward pool tied to project performance
- Limited ability to sue each other — most disputes resolved within the project management team
The mutual waiver of rights to sue is a significant departure from traditional practice. IPD parties typically agree to resolve disputes through project-level governance structures and can't sue each other for most issues except in cases of willful misconduct or fraud. This forces problems to be resolved collaboratively rather than escalated to litigation.
IPD typically uses target value design (TVD) as the core project economic framework. Instead of the traditional approach where the design team develops the design and then sees what it costs, TVD works backward from a target cost:
Target Value Design process
- Owner establishes a target cost for the project based on business value
- The integrated team designs to that target cost from the start
- Design decisions are evaluated against cost continuously
- Value engineering happens throughout design rather than as a late-stage reaction to over-budget drawings
- Trade partners (contractor, subs) participate in design decisions to ensure buildability and cost alignment
TVD changes the design dynamic. In traditional delivery, designers design to their vision and the contractor prices it; reconciling cost with design often requires expensive redesign cycles. In TVD, cost is an input to design from day one, and design decisions must pass a cost test.
IPD contracts use a shared risk-reward compensation model. Rather than each party getting paid per their individual contract, the team members' profits are pooled and depend on project performance:
IPD compensation structure
- Direct costs — each party recovers actual costs of work performed (reimbursable)
- Profit pool — each party's profit is contributed to a shared pool
- Project performance drives the pool — hitting targets releases the pool; missing targets reduces it
- Upside sharing — if the project beats targets, the team shares the savings per an agreed formula (often 50-50 with the owner)
- Downside sharing — if costs overrun, the profit pool absorbs losses before the owner is charged more
The mechanics vary but the concept is consistent: each party's financial upside depends on the project succeeding, not just on their own work. This aligns incentives — the architect has financial interest in the project being buildable affordably; the contractor has financial interest in the design being good.
The profit pool structure is the heart of IPD's incentive alignment. In traditional delivery, a contractor can profit on change orders that result from design problems — so the contractor has no incentive to help prevent design problems. In IPD, the contractor's profit is shared with the designer, so both benefit from preventing the problems in the first place.
Two major template families support IPD:
Standard IPD contract templates
- ConsensusDocs 300 series — multiparty integrated collaborative agreement
- AIA C191 / C195 — Standard Form Multi-Party Agreement for IPD
- Custom forms — some owners develop bespoke IPD contracts, often based on the standard templates with owner-specific modifications
The ConsensusDocs 300 is generally considered more contractor-friendly; AIA C191 is more design-perspective. Both establish the multiparty framework, target value design, profit pool, and governance structures. The specific choice often depends on owner preference and the contracts the parties are familiar with.
IPD requires governance structures that don't exist in traditional delivery:
IPD governance structures
- Project Management Team (PMT) — senior representatives from each party making major decisions
- Senior Management Team (SMT) — executive-level escalation for issues the PMT can't resolve
- Target Value Design teams — small groups focused on specific design areas with cost authority
- Co-located project office — physical space where the team works together daily
- Regular team meetings with defined agendas and decision records
Co-location is a common practice though not universal. Having the team in the same physical space accelerates communication and builds the collaborative culture IPD depends on. Virtual-only teams can work but require more structure to achieve the same collaboration intensity.
Some IPD projects bring key trade partners — mechanical, electrical, structural steel, specialty systems — into the multiparty contract. This extends the collaboration further:
Trade partner involvement in IPD
- Key trades signed into the multiparty agreement or into a mirroring structure
- Trade input on design during development (improving buildability and cost)
- Trade participation in profit pool
- Early trade commitment rather than late-stage bidding
- Prefabrication and modular opportunities identified early
Trade partner IPD involvement has been most successful in healthcare projects where complex MEP systems make early specialty trade input especially valuable. The tradeoff is less competitive pricing (because trades are selected early rather than competitively bid) — IPD projects rely on open-book cost transparency instead of competitive pricing pressure.
Get AP insights in your inbox
A short monthly roundup of construction AP + accounting posts. No spam, ever.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
IPD typically uses open-book accounting — each party shares actual cost data with the team. The reimbursable cost structure means the contractor and designer recover actual costs, and the project team needs visibility into those costs to manage the target value.
For contractors, open-book accounting means:
Open-book accounting in IPD
- Actual labor costs visible, not marked-up rates
- Subcontractor prices visible
- Material costs visible
- Indirect costs categorized and visible
- Project financial performance transparent in real time
- Profit is separate from costs — it's the profit pool, not embedded markup
Contractors uncomfortable with open-book transparency often aren't good IPD fits. The model requires trust and shared information flow that doesn't work when one party is trying to protect confidential margin data.
IPD isn't right for every project. The model works best in specific circumstances:
Project conditions favorable to IPD
- Complex projects where integration benefits are substantial — healthcare, labs, complex MEP
- Owners sophisticated enough to engage in collaborative decision-making
- Experienced IPD-capable designers and contractors available in the market
- Projects where early trade partner input adds real value
- Sufficient project value to support the overhead of IPD governance structures
- Owners willing to invest in the collaborative culture
IPD typically doesn't work well on:
Project conditions unfavorable to IPD
- Simple, standardized projects where integration doesn't add value
- Public procurement contexts where low-bid requirements preclude collaborative selection
- Projects with unsophisticated owners unwilling to engage in team decisions
- Situations where the market lacks IPD-capable parties
- Very small projects where IPD governance overhead exceeds benefits
IPD creates insurance complications that traditional delivery doesn't. The limited ability to sue each other restricts the ability to subrogate among the team. Some IPD projects use specific insurance structures:
IPD insurance approaches
- Project-specific wrap-up policies (OCIP/CCIP) covering all team members
- Professional liability covering the integrated team rather than individual designers
- Project builder's risk with integrated team as insureds
- Gap coverage for specific design-construction integration risks
Insurance brokers experienced with IPD can structure programs that maintain coverage despite the atypical contractual structure. Standard commercial insurance sometimes has gaps in IPD contexts that need to be addressed through specific endorsements or project-level programs.
Studies of IPD projects generally show improved outcomes on specific metrics — schedule certainty, cost predictability, and fewer disputes. The results aren't universal (IPD projects still sometimes go over budget or miss deadlines), but the pattern of outcomes is favorable relative to comparable traditional delivery.
The gains typically come from:
Sources of IPD performance gains
- Fewer design-coordination problems due to early trade input
- Earlier identification and resolution of issues
- Less time in RFI and change-order cycles
- More productive team dynamics due to aligned incentives
- Better communication due to co-location and shared governance
- Reduced time in disputes because of limited rights to sue
Integrated Project Delivery is a multiparty contract structure that unifies owner, designer, and contractor (and often key trades) with shared risk and shared reward tied to project performance. Target value design, open-book accounting, joint governance, and limited rights to sue among team members characterize the model. Standard contract templates (ConsensusDocs 300, AIA C191) provide starting frameworks. IPD works well on complex projects with sophisticated owners and experienced teams but isn't suitable for every project. Contractors considering IPD engagements need to assess their own capability for open-book transparency, collaborative decision-making, and the relationship skills IPD requires. Done well, IPD produces better outcomes for all parties; done poorly (by any party), it can turn into an expensive experiment. For contractors whose business model is built around margin-hidden traditional delivery, IPD requires significant cultural and capability shifts before it can be profitable.
Written by
Marcus Reyes
Construction Industry Lead
Spent twelve years running AP at a $120M general contractor before joining Covinly. Lives in the world of AIA G702/G703, retainage schedules, and lien waiver deadlines. Writes about the construction-specific workflows that generic AP tools get wrong.
View all posts