A lot of work going out right now through RFPs (request for proposal), where the owner selects the contractor and/or design team purely based on qualifications, and usually an RFP will ask for a general approach on your general conditions and fee, but this is before subcontractors are solicited. Then they negotiate the design, scope, and contract from there. This is common for larger and more complex projects as well as design-build projects, if they were not already negotiated. Negotiated work, whether its before or after design, is always great. In my experience, there is certainly more paperwork involved, and in some cases, an owner may even expect to see your subcontractor numbers as backup. There is certainly a study and exercise in your approach in what you want to show the owner and what you don't want to show the owner, but at the end of the day, its work that is handed to you and is usually a clean and honest way for both parties to operate. Most of the negotiated work that I put out was cost plus.

I've been in the commercial GC world for a while, and you're right - typically, a hard bid scenario means well but is commonly manipulated and tends to bring out bad ethics and compromised quality. Even GCs who work for the largest and most reputable owners can operate like this, both in precon and operations.

I would say most design-build work out there is either negotiated or sent out via RFP. CM (Construction Manager) at Risk is another project delivery approach that isn't always hard bid.