 | ||||||
|
||||||
Have your cake and eat it too Are you about to embark on a new building project? Many building projects require deliberation for hours over design and construction methodologies. Should we hire an architect for design and then competitively invite quality building contractors for quotation? Do we select a single point design-build firm for both architectural design and actual construction? The pros and cons of either method mentioned above or some hybrid of one or the other seems confusing, at the least, to the average potential homeowner. If there could only be a way to have our cake and eat it too. First, let us consider the old-fashioned design and construction delivery method. The traditional approach involves the owner contracting design services from an architect who develops the designs per the owner's needs and direction. The architect prepares the contract documents (plans and specifications) for bidding and construction. The architect also assists the owner in meeting the authority requirements for planning permit, competitively bidding the project and in administration of the construction contract (shop drawing review, review of application for payments, job site observations and final project close-out services). The following are some of the advantages to this delivery method. The owner directly hires an architect, as the primary advocate, acts as a third-party arbitrator on any disputes and/or discussions between the owner and the general contractor. Who allows for an unbiased/unencumbered service to assist the owner and represent the owner's best interest from design through occupancy. The architect provides custom building and systems designs tailored to client's specific needs, site, planning requirements and budget. Wide-open general contractors competitive bidding of the entire construction contract provides the best price for the design requirements specified. The disadvantage to the owner with this method due to lack of early contractor participation, the architect may over-design systems, which may inflate construction cost. The general contractor’s bidding often do not include contingency costs in their bid, thus precipitating more change orders and an adversary relationship between architect and contractor, the architect may provide moderately accurate pre-bid cost estimates based on square foot area of similar recently constructed buildings. The owner does not have direct access to the general contractor's accounting. Any savings realized through the construction process will go to the general contractor. Now let us discuss the design-build method that continues to increase in popularity every year, this method involves the owner securing a single contract with a general contractor, who, in turn, contracts for architectural, engineering and construction services. The selected general contractor may have in-house architectural and engineering services, or the contractor may have to subcontract these services with individual architectural and engineering firms. Either way, the general contractor is responsible for those contracts under their contract and provides the single point contract to the owner. The advantages with this method are, the general contractor is involved early in the design stage to provide input in architectural design and engineering services, resulting in good pre-bid cost estimates, sometimes a guaranteed maximum price is provided at the early design phase. But the disadvantages however are the architect and other services are hired by the general contractor and controlled by the general contractor whose decisions are based on the general contractor's requirements vs the owner's requirements. No checks and balances for general contractor performance or other owner protection. Still confused? Still desire the best price possible while maintaining high-quality construction and owner watchdog checks and balances? Again, if there could only be a way to have our cake and eat it too. Articles
Editorial
|
|
|
||||
