Two heads are better than one: Pitfalls of the design build process

Design-Build has often been touted as the most efficient way to get something built: Construction one-stop shopping for which the homeowner has to make only one relationship. The client gets guaranteed cooperation from the design professional and contractor who is typically same person.

But as we examine the roles and relationships of the construction and design professionals further, the client often looses an opportunity for best architecture with the Design Build system. Truly, in construction, the final product is greater than the sum of its parts.

1. Fewer drawings, less planning = More decision land mines during construction:
With one designer/builder, there can be a tendency to provide fewer drawings. With fewer drawings provided prior to construction, less of the project is resolved and there will be more “waiting and seeing” what issues appear during the construction process. Once a problem or unresolved issue appears, you must resolve it on the fly, which will probably require drawings anyway. But there’s an alternative: By hiring a competent architect, you can make more decisions during the preparation of drawings and avoid the pitfalls of unresolved issues showing up during the construction.

2. Fewer drawings, less planning = Less accurate bidding
Since the drawings provide a “builder’s road map” for the contractor, they are also the basis for cost of construction. If fewer drawings are provided, the pricing will be less accurate which translates in to more uncertainty for the homeowner. When the designer and the builder are one and the same, there is more potential for the “blackmail” hour when some unknown condition is discovered late and whose costs are assembled on the fly, probably without drawings. This more disorganized process can lead less trust of the design/build professional.

3. Honest Value Engineering
When both the design professional and builder work under the same roof, the process of value engineering can become collusion. In addition, the client/homeowner looses the ability to weigh the merits of a material or building component against the pricing feedback of a separate business entity. You may never really know the cost/performance trade offs you make when the design professional benefits financially from substitution or use of an inferior product until it’s too late. With a separate Architect and Contractor, there’s a pricing transparency that can only be achieved with 2 sets of eyes.

Design Collaborate Bid Build: the best process
The final built project benefits when there are checks and balances to the building process that only a separate designer and builder can bring to the table. We shouldn’t view this checks and balances as a negative but as the best system for ensuring that the project is what the owner wants and can afford. With the traditional separation of the design professional and contractor, the owner has the benefit of 2 sets of eyes watching the work and in his or her corner. Each has the owner’s best interests at heart.

The best design solutions come with when the builder and architect collaborate on the owner’s behalf, each not compromising their principles, but working together. Their tangential interactions is something the design build process could never have with each professional assuring the quality of his/her counterpart.

Service, Quality and Price:
You can’t the 2 former and maintain the latter. It’s always a balancing act and better to have (2) heads to help you with this.

Design-Build has often been touted as the most efficient way to get something built: Construction one-stop shopping for which the homeowner has to make only one relationship. The client gets guaranteed cooperation from the design professional and contractor who is typically same person.

But as we examine the roles and relationships of the construction and design professionals further, the client often looses an opportunity for best architecture with the Design Build system. Truly, in construction, the final product is greater than the sum of its parts.

1. Fewer drawings, less planning = More decision land mines during construction:
With one designer/builder, there can be a tendency to provide fewer drawings. With fewer drawings provided prior to construction, less of the project is resolved and there will be more “waiting and seeing” what issues appear during the construction process. Once a problem or unresolved issue appears, you must resolve it on the fly, which will probably require drawings anyway. But there’s an alternative: By hiring a competent architect, you can make more decisions during the preparation of drawings and avoid the pitfalls of unresolved issues showing up during the construction.

2. Fewer drawings, less planning = Less accurate bidding
Since the drawings provide a “builder’s road map” for the contractor, they are also the basis for cost of construction. If fewer drawings are provided, the pricing will be less accurate which translates in to more uncertainty for the homeowner. When the designer and the builder are one and the same, there is more potential for the “blackmail” hour when some unknown condition is discovered late and whose costs are assembled on the fly, probably without drawings. This more disorganized process can lead less trust of the design/build professional.

3. Honest Value Engineering
When both the design professional and builder work under the same roof, the process of value engineering can become collusion. In addition, the client/homeowner looses the ability to weigh the merits of a material or building component against the pricing feedback of a separate business entity. You may never really know the cost/performance trade offs you make when the design professional benefits financially from substitution or use of an inferior product until it’s too late. With a separate Architect and Contractor, there’s a pricing transparency that can only be achieved with 2 sets of eyes.

Design Collaborate Bid Build: the best process
The final built project benefits when there are checks and balances to the building process that only a separate designer and builder can bring to the table. We shouldn’t view this checks and balances as a negative but as the best system for ensuring that the project is what the owner wants and can afford. With the traditional separation of the design professional and contractor, the owner has the benefit of 2 sets of eyes watching the work and in his or her corner. Each has the owner’s best interests at heart.

The best design solutions come with when the builder and architect collaborate on the owner’s behalf, each not compromising their principles, but working together. Their tangential interactions is something the design build process could never have with each professional assuring the quality of his/her counterpart.

Service, Quality and Price:
You can’t the 2 former and maintain the latter. It’s always a balancing act and better to have (2) heads to help you with this.

This thought generated from a conversation with a great contractor, Paul Steiner at Otis Construction. View his work at http://www.otisconstruction.com/index1.htm

Before

Dave and Nancy contacted Celeste in July of 2008 about building an addition to their 100 year-old home in John’s Landing. Celeste came to the house and spoke about the options for a 200-300 square foot guest suite/office addition. Although Dave and Nancy loved the concepts, they realized they just didn’t have the funds for a full blown addition.

What would normally be the end of the architect–client relationship grew into a problem-solving project that left Dave and Nancy with more space and a new outlook for their home. Instead of walking away, Celeste evaluated their needs and suggested solutions that wouldn’t increase the footprint of the home, but make it more useful.

Dave says, “Celeste did not just do what we said, she looked beyond to what we were specifically after. She had an idea of the values we had, helped us understand our requirements and found potential for the project we hadn’t even considered. We knew we wanted more storage, but she pushed us further, ‘storage for what?’. She made the most effective use of the budget we had.”

After

Some immediate solutions that Celeste and the couple collaborated on included:

• The installation of a tankless water heater

• The use of benches with a built-in storage area

• Reconfiguring the laundry room to provide more functional space and custom cabinets designed specifically to meet their storage needs. »

• A series of energy-efficient upgrades

Dave says, “We have been in the home for many years. From day one we knew we wanted to make changes, but we just did not know where to begin…Celeste helped us get over the hump and see how. It shows that her primary goal was giving us something useful, not just undertaking a huge project. We’re very happy with how much value we got from our consultations with her.”

Not only did Dave and Nancy solve a handful of immediate problems, but they got the tools they needed to solve other spatial issues in their home.