How you select a contractor depends entirely on how you've structured the project. Each delivery method has its own procurement logic, its own documents, and its own set of roles for the architect.

In design-bid-build, you compete on price. The design is complete, all bids are apples-to-apples, and the lowest responsible bidder wins. The architect assembled the bid package, will tabulate the bids, and recommends award.

In CM-at-risk, price competition happens early (for the CM's fee and general conditions) but the defining event is GMP negotiation, not bid opening. The CM was likely selected on qualifications and fee proposal, not on construction cost. The GMP gets finalized after design advances enough to define scope.

In design-build, the owner issues an RFP to teams competing on both design quality and price. There's no complete design before selection. The architect (if part of the design-build team) is responding to the RFP, not advising the owner on it.

In IPD, there's no traditional 'bid' at all. The owner, architect, and contractor-equivalent are selected collaboratively based on alignment, trust, and capability. The financial structure is a shared target cost, not a competitive price.

Each approach has tradeoffs. Knowing which procedure applies to which delivery method, and what the architect's specific role is in each, is directly tested on the CE exam.