It's up to you to coordinate the trades since you chose to go that route. You're the decision maker, and have to initiate the meeting of the minds here so everyone is on the same page. Yes, it's more difficult than choosing a design/build firm, but you are getting the benefits not offered with a single point approach. I would NEVER have a builder involved in pure design decisions, nor a designer involved with decisions about methodology of creating the support for taking down a wall. However, one decision impacts the other, and they need to work together.

Amen to Sophie's comments. This should be a collaboration not a competition.

The contractor is a design/build firm (complete with designer and architecht if we need them). If we had found them in the beginning, we wouldn't have needed a designer.

However, I have arranged a meeting with both next week to go through everything and coordinate how we can all work cohesively. I'm sure it will be sorted out. Thank you

Sounds like the design/build firm has sold you on his services. Why do you want to retain the designer if, as you said, you feel he could serve you better?

I think you will find it difficult working with both. I would expect neither of them to be happy either, especially since the DB firm has already stepped on your designer's toes - and is squeezing them out.

Snookums2 your right. It's kind of tough working with both. When we first started working with the designer they drew up a quote or "retainer service agreement " which we signed, so I'm pretty sure we'd be obligated to pay the balance. Naturally we'd like to get our money's worth but I feel like we may end up having to walk away.

The dB firm is actually happy to work along with the designer but I can already tell it's going to be tough. Its more myself that can foresee the issues. We all meet this week to sort out the plan.

If I were this designer, there is no way I'd let a client know that I couldn't stand their DB firm. I'd smile, play nice, and suck it up.

If you've already paid for a design, I would see what they come up with. Then if you want to move on, take it from there. You will likely gain some good ideas and insight. And you have paid for that.

You never really know the temperaments of the individuals until you get down to work. Personality or professional/agenda conflicts are difficult and add a lot of stress and hindrance to a project. Keeping it simple with one cohesive and proven team is not a bad idea, imo.

Well, you set up the Celebrity Death Match, so it's kinda on your head to referee it.

How do you figure that? She hired a contractor to execute a design and he is succeeding at beating down the competition and selling her.

There is no end to blaming the customer on gw.

This is another reason to keep it simple and not get too many people involved. They will be pointing fingers at each other and you the entire time.

When you hire professionals that have duplicative functions, it's up to the person doing the hiring to set the parameters of the jobs in question. It's like hiring a personal chef because you want to eat healthier, then hiring a housekeeper who is a noted cook to keep house and do breakfasts. Eventually, there is going to be a clash, because they've been essentially hired for the same job.

Or he could have kept his nose out of things and just quoted the construction as he was asked.

The only clash I see is if you ask the chef to clean the bathroom. The chef prepares the menus, the cook/housekeeper prepares the breakfasts following the chefs guidelines for healthy meals.

I'm interested in knowing why the OP feels "he [the contractor] may be better suited to complete the layout and drawings." Personally, I would not be so inclined to toss all the work the designer put into project, not to mention the wasted money, simply because the contractor had some "great ideas and insights." And if his ideas and insights are that great, then why not have the designer ... the one that has already been hired and paid ... try to incorporate those ideas into the plans? Maybe the designer will have some insight of his/her own regarding the contractor's input and the greatness of his ideas.

A lot of good feedback here.

Jellytoast - I think you hit the nail on the head. I think if we can all collaborate our ideas, the designer should incorporate the changes and carry out the drawings.

The contractor/build design firm being "better suited for the design" was my opinion because - I feel like the layout set up by our designer isn't ideal and the issues we have addressed still haven't been resolved. The contractor isn't trying to push out the designer by any means.

If your designer isn't coming up with ideas that address your needs, why would you retain them? Depending how many changes you are talking about from this other group, I guarantee the designer will not be happy being demoted to drafter.

Hence, my dilemma. Guess I cant keep everyone happy.

Snookums, we signed a retainer agreement which was essentially a package of their work for drawings, finishes, etc. instead of paying the designer hourly. So we are obligated to pay for the whole package.

Sometimes you just have to count your losses and move on. If the designer truly isn't meeting your needs or addressing issues to resolve them, using someone else makes sense. Perhaps the designer will be willing to negotiate a lower price if you decide to back out of the contract. Just because you have signed a contract and are legally obligated to pay if you back out does not mean that the designer will make you hold fast to that. He/she may be quite willing to let you out of your agreement so I would definitely discuss that with them.

otherwise, if he won't negotiate an out let him draw in a coloring book until you get your moneys worth. Nothing says you have to use his drawings!

Well said Helsharmar. I appreciate your input.

Although, I do welcome all angles of feedback. I can handle a little tough-love ;)

I mentioned parting ways (from the designer) to the contractor and he said it's really up to me. I know he was trying t be professional as he doesn't want to push out the designer. But we all know it would be easiest just working with his team. We actually all meet tonight. I feel it is going to go one of two ways - the designer will be on board to make changes/accept new options for the floor plan. Or... we negotiate the end of the design agreement.

Do let us know how it works out. Best of luck tonight!

Well, I feel like we are no further ahead after this meeting. However, some things have definitely been clarified...

The contractor suggests we finish up our plans with the designer since we started with her. I think he just doesn't want to step on her toes.

Designer wants more money to revise drawings to new ideas. So we still have 2 choices:

1. Ask designer for everything we've done so far, call it a day and then hire contractors team to pretty much redesign and draw.

2. Pay designer more to add garage addition to house plan and revise floorplan. Then once drawings are complete, contractor has engineer review then we move onto next phase .

Pretty sure I'm going to go ahead with #1. It will be the easiest for all moving forward.

As a homeowner whose been there - option #1. Because it doesn't get better, no matter how much more money you throw at it.

Thanks all! We've told the designer we aren't going to continue on. Easier for everyone.

In reality, the designer and the contractor are supposed to work together to solve problems and it's just the designer who has you pick finishes and approve plans. I am building an addition and the contractor has an in house designer. We will use that for problems, but I want to design the whole thing myself. I know what I like, what I want. So the designer's job will be to 3D model it, tell me where I can get the items I want and coordinate those things I picked to make sure they will physically work in the space. I want a specific built in etc so they will custom design that too. But I plan to do my own picking of tiles, vanities, cabinets, counter material, door handles and knobs... I want what I want. Their job is to make it work! So should yours.

Its much more to your advantage to also consult the end installer (in my case tile) in advance to assure "this and that" will actually install well together, pros/cons ( I.E. Real world VS. Manual )

Rather than forcing the materials after you and a designer had made all the choices and went ahead and bought everything. Or make sure you have good return options. The end outcome will benefit if you have hired the right team.

And yes Just as there are tile and landscape experts there are Design PROS.


Snookums2, the floor is all yours, again.

Assuming the designer's skills were not sufficient you probably did the right thing. However, if the designer had been more capable I would have warned you that many homeowners regret not having an independent advisor working directly for them during the construction phase. It is often difficult if not impossible for a contractor to protect both his and your interests even with professional design staff working for him. But if you did not intend to keep the designer on board as an advisor during the construction process it doesn't matter anyway.

Renovator8 - Interesting angle to consider. Thanks

How many advisors does a person need. Independent designer or not, they are all protecting their own interests.

A general contractor is not a homeowner's "advisor" or "consultant" unless he/she is hired as such as a construction manager or under a design contract separate from or independent of an Owner-Contractor contract. The basic difference being whether the contractor takes on financial risk which would make it difficult or impossible to represent the interests of both parties.

A standard owner-contractor construction contract is an "arms-length" contract with no fiduciary responsibility. Combining a design and construction contract often occurs for single-family homes but not for larger projects. Owners of larger projects prefer the protection of a dedicated advisor whether it be a construction manager or architect but, of course, state law requires an architect for such projects anyway.

If you are going to build a house without an independent advisor you should be aware that you must take on that role yourself and not rely entirely on the contractor or a municipal building inspector to do it. I'm not saying there are not reliable competent honest home builders or that homeowners can't represent themselves; I'm saying that because construction is complicated and expensive, a homeowner needs to be knowledgable, diligent, and take nothing for granted or if that is not a practical possibility, a homeowner should assign that role to someone without a conflict of interest.

Legally speaking, yes, but I wouldn't have a customer that didn't trust the words that came out of my mouth.

No one should be surprised or offended that an owner might want more than the personal assurances of a general contractor for a whole house renovation or a new house. Over the past decade on the forum some of the biggest horror stories have been about contractors the owners knew well.

I trust the words that come out of a contractor's mouth and land on a signed contract.

It should also be pointed out that the discussion here is not about the contractors on the forum but the contractors the members hire to build or remodel their houses. We know nothing about these contractors and those who hire them know only a little more from recommendations and interviews. Seeking professional assistance for such expensive and difficult endeavors is cheap insurance.

The notion that homeowners need an independent "advisor" to protect them from contractors has served architects well for some time. Interestingly, architects advocate for a competitive bid process for choosing contractors while they themselves would never submit to such a selection process. They typically bill by the hour during the construction phase, so I'd question whether their objectives are truly more aligned with the owners' interests than the builder's.

We don't hear much about the architect-designed plans that never get built. Lots of design/bid/build projects become design/bid/bust projects because the lowest bid exceeds the clients' budget by a wide margin. The architect walks away with a hefty design fee and the client has nothing to show for it except a lot of sheets of detailed plans. It's all too commonplace, and it can be avoided.

One poster said that "Combining a design and construction contract often occurs for single-family homes but not for larger projects. Owners of larger projects prefer the protection of a dedicated advisor whether it be a construction manager or architect...." Well, according to the Design Build Institute of America (DBIA) design/build accounted for 80% of all military projects and more than 50% of projects valued at more than $10 million. Design/build is, in fact, becoming the project delivery method of choice for large projects.

As a residential design/build company with a licensed architect on staff, our experience suggests that the best projects are ones which are a team effort involving the client, architect/designer, and builder from the outset. It's long overdue that we ditch the architect as superior and builder as inferior stuff and work as a team. Kudos to the OP for wanting all parties at the table from the outset.

Charles Ross Homes, your comments are seriously inaccurate and self-serving. How many projects over $10 million have you designed and built with your on-staff architect under a single design-build contract? Where can an employee of a construction firm stamp such a large project? Who told you that architects do not bid their fees or that they have a duty to the contractor? And by what grounds do you clam that an architect working for an owner would prevent all parties from working together.

In 50 years I've never lost a project because of high bids. The idea that an architect is superior and a builder is inferior is ridiculous. Each has a job to do. My recommendation to owners is to not ask a builder to attempt to serve two masters at the same time and I stand by it.

It seems incredibly disingenuous to accuse architects of doing what you want to do.

How many $10 million dollar projects Charles Ross Homes has designed and built is irrelevant to his arguments. Ad hominem logical fallacy of relevance to be specific. renovator8, you must address his arguments, not his circumstances.

"The idea that an architect is superior and a builder is inferior is ridiculous."

That has not been my experience. There is a real attitude problem of superiority that many architects suffer. I've seen it time and again, and after bailing them out of the deep crap they've literally drawn themselves into, it gets tiring.

And now we have an anecdotal fallacy...I am sorry but you did kind of step in that one...

And since we are picking on logical fallacies, CRH tossed out a nice propositional fallacy (a false exclusionary fallacy) when he noted that the notion of independent adviser has served architects well. There was probably a converse error in there too. Not that he is a bad guy or did anything wrong. He holds a view, and expressed his reasons why, as did Renovator. The debate is healthy even if a tiny bit fallacious.

@rennovator8, as a principal in a residential design/build firm I advocate that project delivery method. Self serving? Maybe, but certainly no more than an architect promoting the idea that consumers need him or her as an "independent advisor" to protect them against builders.

Consumers are free to choose whatever service provider and project delivery method best suits their needs; they just need to know if they're choosing the traditional design/bid/build process to save time or money they're betting against the averages: A study at Penn State University found that, on average, design/build projects cost 6% less, construction time was 12% faster and overall delivery time (beginning of design to occupancy) was 33% faster than design/bid/build projects. Consumers also need to balance the value added by an architect as "independent advisor" against the cost, which, according to the American Institute of Architects averages 10% of project cost.

You claimed that "Combining a design and construction contract often occurs for single-family homes but not for larger projects." The figures I quoted from the Design Build Institute of America were for large (greater than $10 million) projects in 2009, the majority of which were executed as design/build (and, for full disclosure, none of them by our company.) DBIA reported that in 2009 design/build accounted for 40% of projects valued at $1 million or more--less than half, but that's still a long way from zero. What's interesting is that projects in both the public and private sectors are trending away from the traditional design/bid/build (e.g., independent advisor) approach and toward design/build.

I'm encouraged that the AIA now includes "Integrated Project Delivery" as a viable project delivery method. IPD involves the builder and trades beginning in the design process to provide better, lower-cost solutions for the project owner. After all, each entity should be focused on delivering the best value for the owner, which is how you get to stay in business for the long run.

You seem to be intentionally misinterpreting my statements to promote your approach to home building. I have no trouble with your approach; I simply believe a homeowner should be aware of what services and advantages are lost in a Design-Build contract for a home so they can make an intelligent choice.

You have taken particular offense to my statement that "Combining a design and construction contract often occurs for single-family homes but not for larger projects." It's not a very important point and I may not have stated it well but it is true.

The primary drawback of a Design-Build delivery method is the loss of the opportunity to bid the work. Therefore, owners of large projects often insist on splitting the contract as follows:

Contract One: The design-build team is contracted to complete the project design in sufficient enough detail to fix the price of the project.

Contract Two: The design-build team is contracted to complete the design documents and the construction work.

The Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA) offers Design-Build contract forms for the preliminary design phase and the final design and construction phase.

Since an architect is required by state law to design larger projects and must be in control and supervision of his/her work, the architect is often a consultant to the contractor, or the reverse, or there is a joint venture formed between the two parties. These standard project team contract arrangements are also described on the DBIA website.

The Penn state paper is 17 years old and tracked 351 projects, none of which were homes.

Architects design about 2% of homes in the US so why would you want to limit the choice of owners who want professional representation for a complicated and expensive process?

You have made some assumption about how architects work but they are not accurate for me or any residential architect I know. I avoid bidding projects because of the time required to prepare proper documents and I don't charge anywhere near 10% for my fee. Any part of it that might need to based on an hourly rate has an upset limit. My fee proposal is always modified to suit my client's preferences.

I always advise my clients to interview contractors and ask for fee proposals, then to hire one as a consultant until the design has reached a stage where they can sign a Cost of the Work with a Fee contact with a Budget or Guaranteed Maximum Price perhaps even with a Shared Savings. I learned this process from contractors like Tishman and Turner during times of rapid cost increases in the 70's and 80's. It works well enough that the homebuilding contractor who gave me the most trouble told me years later that he had used that process and the contract forms to get higher-end projects and that it had made him a wealthy man.

I'm only asking for a share of the 2%; you are welcome to the rest.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread...So make way for me.

So I know very little about the specifics of this subject but I have a blot of experience with the agency problem. I think the truth is that you guys are probably both right. Design build firms certainly will have a conflict of interest that doesn't exist in the design-bid-build model. Essentially, design build firms are nothing more than backward or forward vertical integration of the building process (depending whether contractor led or architect led.) The problem with backward or forward vertical integration is that by definition it is limiting. As a contractor you are tying yourself to a few architects or designers who have in turn tied themselves to you. Now all this sounds really bad, but in truth it is really good for a lot of consumers. Vertical integration produces synergy which cuts down on time and produces efficiencies which convert to dollar savings. You will get a house faster and cheaper, holding everything else equal.

The problem is that everything else is not always held equal. A design build firm will certainly build the same house cheaper but they do not necessarily build the same house. In fact, I would be very surprised if any design build firm didn't frequently supersede the owner's desires with their effeciencies. Again, that may be a good thing for a typical buyer, but atypical buyers would not be serviced as well by design build firms. It is impossible to achieve goal alignment for clients who want items that are inefficiencies for the builder. When goal alignment doesn't exist people will maximize their benefit to the detriment of others. In other words they will usually do what is better for the firm.

I think what Renovator was getting at was that for the typical client who cares about money and time, design build firms are good. However, for the atypical client (which he identified as clients spending more money, but I identify as clients who simply are not concerned about the relative cost) a traditional design-bid-build would be preferred.

Having said all that, using non residential construction is not really comparable to residential construction. First, because many multi-family and commercial projects will come with more specifics, and more importantly commercial really isn't design-build, it is closer to bid-design-build. Your competitive bidding and protection of consumers comes prior to the acceptance of the job.

Finally, because I haven't typed enough already, just because architects benefit from saying that clients need an agent doesn't make it not true. Clients will absolutely benefit from someone in their corner but may not benefit enough to make doing it reasonable. Which brings us to the second point, having already hired and paid the designer in this case there was no reason not to keep them. Letting them go can't help and keeping them might.