Your feeling this adversarial about your contractor at this stage of the game is not a good sign. Your vetting of his references will tell you much more than any lawyer ever will.

I work for an attorney and this kind of thing is not at all uncommon, and is smart for the homeowners' protection. You need to look for a real estate or construction attorney in your area -- Avvo, phone book, and your local bar association are good starting points.

Joseph, we've had conversations before, right? I don't know, sometimes I think you project your own personal experiences onto others. I am not feeling adversarial about my contractor at all. I'm following a time honored practice of never signing anything without having an attorney review it.

I have read the contract and feel it is a fair contract to both he and I, but as a safeguard, I feel it is the responsible thing to do, to have it reviewed. And definitely will have the construction contract reviewed as well.

I've done my due diligence and spoken to five previous clients of this contractor and gone to see some of his work and I'm satisfied he is a good contractor to work with. And I highly doubt that he would take offense at our intention to have the contract reviewed.

Thank you Violet - What is Avvo? Yes the local bar association sounds right too.

I just spoke with a real estate agent in the area and she also gave me the name of an attorney.

It might be worth your while, but make sure you discuss what to do if (when) the contractor violates the terms of the contract. Mine has, and he doesn't seem to care. I would have to go to arbitration over this, and all I want is for my less-than-3-month project to be done, now going on month 6.

Having a lawyer review a contract is no more adversarial than the contractor using a lawyer to write one up in the first place. That's a ridiculous notion. The best time to consult with a lawyer is before anything bad has happened, to make sure that your contract protects your interests. And if there are any items of concern in the contract, it's best to hash them out before any work starts. You'll be on a much better level of understanding with each other at that point.

Feddup - That is a good point. I guess I would assume holding money back until the job is done, is one way to safeguard about getting the job done and done right. The contractor we have been talking to, goes back to clients every year for a scheduled 'warranty check' for three years after completion. I thought that was a good indicator. And his old clients I talked to have had more work done by him. I hope you can get your job finished soon.

Thanks Weedyacres, that's right, the contractor, I'm sure used an attorney to draw up the agreement. Actually, I sort of thought it didn't sound like the usual 'legaleeze' that I usually recognize in a contract.

Thanks Violet - I was not aware of either of those sites.

The best-written contract in the world is worthless without the genuine commitment of all parties to actually do what they are committing to in writing. That's why due diligence is so important. Sounds like prairiemoon2 has done the due diligence part. Consulting an attorney regarding the proposed agreement seems reasonable to me.

A design contract represent the agreement of two parties. If the contractor is a good one he has reviewed his standard contract with an attorney so why shouldn't you?

What is often missing from such agreement forms are clauses regarding scope of work, termination, time constraints and the responsibilities of each party. For instance, the contract should establish responsibility for recording existing conditions, removal of hazardous materials, survey work, perspective drawings, structural design, HVAC design, etc.

The difficulty is finding a lawyer who has experience with design and construction contracts. I wouldn't recommend relying on an online service.

There aren't a lot of lawyers out there who specialize in construction law, but they can be found. It's never a bad idea to have a contract reviewed by one. It can protect the contractor/designer as well as the customer. Often times, a small business person hasn't taken the time to have their own contract developed and has just pulled together something from several different sources. The result can be well meaning, but muddled, and may leave open questions about the scope of work and responsibilties that should be clear in the contract. If the contract is a good one, and is fair to all parties, the extra $400 spent on an attorney to tell you that it's fair is STILL worth it. You now have peace of mind that the written words match the intents of both parties and you now have a clear meeting of the minds.

Use your money to protect the contractor/designer. That's funny.

I see nothing wrong with having them reviewed by a construction lawyer, especially if that gives you peace of mind that all ground is covered, by someone independent with broad experience and your best interest in mind.

I like the sound of this company. Anyone who takes the initiative to follow up on their past work for 3 years is a standout, dedicated performer and client oriented business. That's in the best interest of all.

I may be wrong, but I think many design and construction contracts are at least based on forms drafted by trade groups like the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and Associated General Contractors (AGC). Since the trades wrote them, they're favorable to the trades, and as a layperson who may do one major construction or remodel in a lifetime, I have no idea what other options may be out there for things like change orders, schedule delays, acceptance or rejection of the work, and a host of other things. I wish we had an American Institute of Associated General Homeowners to provide some alternatives!

While I agree that any trade organization has an inherent interest is drawing up a favorable contract, they are also in the best position to understand the industry standards, and know what items have been tested in courts. They also have some protection for consumers,as the contract must be fair enough that it doesn't scare off customers, but their biggest selling point is price protections. The more favorable your contract is, the more you are going to have to pay. Really the contract portion of building a house is not that different than any other business transaction. The more risk the homeowner is willing to absorb, the lower the price, and vice versa. The American Bar Association has modified construction contracts before and they really never caught on for homes.

There is nothing wrong with a contract no matter who pays for it protecting both sides of a transaction. Good contracts can keep a business relationship from going bad, and the best business deals happen with both parties walk away happy with the deal. Not to mention the fact that we expect a builder contract to offer us some protection, it only seems fair that our contract (though favorable to us) may offer him some protection too.

AvatarWalt - you make a good point and we should start an organization for Homeowners…lol. Good idea.

bry911 - I wonder could you expand on this idea of ‘price protections’ built into the contract? Could you give an example of a risk in a contract that would keep the cost lower?

I agree that the contract has to protect both people, and that is why I think both sides of the contract need to look at it from their own perspective and negotiate terms that do that.

As an update, I’ve already found an attorney, had him review the Design Contract and we’ve signed that, Contractor is happy and we have our first Design meeting on the calendar.

And thank you Violetwest, we did use AVVO and Martindale, as well as an article my husband found of the Best Lawyers in our local area.

I completely support the creation of a homeowner's support group as well as the creation of an exchange of contractor client names and reasons for contractors to avoid them.

What I meant by price protections built into the contract is that standardized contracts are really a formalization of industry standards. The architecture industry and the construction industry have a goal to maximize profit for members, but they realize that profit is usually maximized by giving consumers what they want. Now, the problem enters when your wants are not standard, for example, current market conditions have signaled to contractors that price is the most important thing to consumers. Contracts today generally push a lot of risk on to consumers to keep prices low.

The problem occurs any time you want to move away from standard. If, for example, finishing on time is very important to you, then adding a liquidated damages clause to the contract may ensure that the project is finished on time. But contractors may either not accept a contract with liquidated damages or may charge more as now there is an agreed upon cost of time overages. Even though many contracts don't have a liquidated damages clause the AIA provides one that you can use, because they are not that rare. In fact, most any clause that is commonly used will be an option from the AIA. You should absolutely get an attorney to look at any contract you sign, or barring that do some research on your own. Just realize that the more your contract protects you, the less it protects the builder, and the less that a contract protects the builder the more you have to pay. There is a good middle ground, and you can certainly get there with a modified AIA contract.

Thanks bry911 good explanation. I agree there has to be a middle ground. In your example, we won't have a significant need for a 'finishing time', so that is good. I find this contractor easy to work with so far and he has a history of working things out well with his clients. He's never been in court, which is reassuring.

I had a mentor in Toledo, Ohio, who did high end remodels in a fancy neighborhood for 50 years or so with a sterling reputation. He'd never sign a contract with a penalty clause. For residential, I'm inclined to follow his lead again.

If you want a liquidated damages clause to be enforcible you need a lawyer because many such clauses are invalidated by state laws if they are punitive instead of based on realistic anticipated owner losses. You would need a lawyer to add such a clause to an AIA small project contract and I doubt many contractors would accept it nor should they. A better option is a bonus for finishing on time or a decreasing bonus after that date.

AIA contracts are good but not perfect and they assume, of course, that an architect will be involved for the entire project. That means they would normally need to be heavily modified. The construction industry forms leave out so many owner protections they would need to be virtually rewritten by an owner's lawyer. Welcome to the most backward industry in America.

You can certainly spend lots of time and money drafting the "perfect" construction contract, but there will still be plenty of scenarios where you can get burned. While I agree you should consult an attorney with construction experience to review/amend a builder's standard contract, there is no better way to produce a successful outcome than properly vetting your builder. If they have good systems in place for managing to a project schedule and a good track record of on-time deliveries you'll sleep much better during the construction than knowing you have a great penalty clause for late delivery in your contract.

Spend more time investigating the reputation and past behavior of any pro that you want to do business with than on the contract. I know plenty of guys that a handshake will cover the deal. Or, there's plenty of slick salesman that no amount of legalese can keep from being slippery. The person is more important than anything else.

The OP is asking about a design-build contract where the design phase contract will be separate from the construction phase contract.

The most difficult part of such a contract is who will own the design drawings if the owner chooses to not enter into a construction contract when the design is done and what amount is owed to the designer/contractor if the work does not proceed.

As an architect I've dealt with many kinds of contract but for obvious reasons not this kind. I would be very careful about the terms of a design contract even if the reputation of the design-build firm is good. There have been too many posts on this forum from owners who have found themselves, for one reason or another, in a quandary due to this kind of contract. Perhaps it would be wise to search for such threads.

Our Contract terms are that we own the design drawings if we choose not to go forward with working with the contractor. And if we decide not to go forward, we pay for work done to that point.

@prairiemoon2 that seems pretty reasonable to me.

I think it's pretty unusual to let the homeowner own the drawings, at least in my experience.

@feddup, most design/build firms offer design services at a fraction of the cost architects charge for the same level of service--and unlike architect plans, the plans produced by the design/build firm may be guaranteed free of errors and omissions. If so, it's not unreasonable that the design/build company retains ownership of the plans.

According to the AIA, the average cost for an architect-produced set of home construction plans is 10% of construction cost. Our company is a residential design/build firm with a licensed architect on staff. Our design fees average less than 2% of construction cost. If the OP paid our company architect market rates for plans I'd be glad to give them full ownership of the plans.

I don't know what the cost of an architect has to do with this thread but the AIA stopped making statements abut architect fees after they were sued by the Justice Dept in 1972. Here is the AIA's current response to questions about architect compensation: "The AIA does not publish any guidelines regarding architects' compensation and makes no recommendations about how architects or architectural firms are compensated."

What the OP needs to be careful to avoid is paying for a house renovation design and then, if the price from the design-builder is too high, not being able to bid the documents with other contractors.

The point about what the OP pays for the plans is relevant to the ownership of the plans.

If you pay full architect freight (the AIA published the 10% of residential construction cost figure on their website as recently as a few years ago) you should have the ability to do whatever you want. If a similar scope of design work is contracted to a design/build firm at a much reduced cost, it is usually with the understanding that they'll build the project unless otherwise negotiated. So you need to have a clear understanding about who owns the plans upfront.

If Houzz is any reference, expect architect fees to range between 8% and 15% of project cost. Here's a link:[https://www.houzz.com/magazine/how-to-hire-the-right-architect-comparing-fees-stsetivw-vs~26527927[(https://www.houzz.com/magazine/how-to-hire-the-right-architect-comparing-fees-stsetivw-vs~26527927)