I wouldn't because in 99% of the cases the architect will be working for the builder. Meaning he/she will make the design so it's easier and cheaper for the builder to build. Ask me how I know.

Are you saying you wouldn’t recommend the designer-build approach?

The primary advantage of design/build is the ability to determine the total budget prior to the commitment of tens of thousands of dollars towards design. Many builders can walk a client through an existing build and quote a guaranteed price for a project with similar finishes.

Architectural design from a blank piece of paper has its place also. That client usually needs more robust resources and the ability to understand the relationship between design and cost. Unfortunately too many clients arrive with misinformation.

My advice is to get an understanding of all the costs outside of actual construction.... permits, impacts, grading, financing, design, etc. Then set a target for either the builder or architect.... What can you do for $xxx,xxx or $x,xxx,xxx?

The more common mistakes most make is to determine a square footage based on a 1-2 year old cost per foot budget, then tweak every selection a little higher " because I want quality" and find themselves with an unviable project.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Find your own architect.

Several Architects in the area are true design build firms. They build so that they can realize the correct level of detail. They can often give very exacting bids at the end of the design process, and since it's their name on the entire project, it behooves them to do it right.

I'd avoid builders who have designers on staff - that's more semi-custom build.

I think the real answer here is "how custom" do you want? and what level of detail are you looking at? I find that folks that want that house with "something special" or something extra from the normal homes in the area are better suited to the Architect experience. If you are a fan of a local builder and like what he has in neighborhoods, etc - then you may be pleased with working with his/her designer - but that design quality experience will be far different.

However, for design-build, where you are looking for a company that does both the design and build, how do you go about getting proposals? It seems like it would be difficult to try and get semi accurate bids since there are no plans/design to go off of.

Proposals for what? Accurate bids for what?

Design-Build is a single source solution where one company handles both the design and the construction of a project.

There are various ways to design, bid and build a new home:

--Architect, bid, award construction contract, build;

--Architect, general contractor, negotiated construction contract, build;

--Design/build;

--Builder turn key;

--Other

Each approach has its own advantages and disadvantages. Thus, one needs to understand their own motivations and expectations for a new custom home.

ARG is right--trust and due diligence are necessary ingredients in which ever approach is chosen.

ARG nailed it.

Also, in case it isn’t clear... design/build firms are designing it to be built by themselves. There is no taking that out for a bid from other folks

For design-build process, it's often the case that an owner may not use the design if a decision is made to not proceed after a construction cost is presented.

It's very important to understand and agree to all the terms and conditions before inking a deal.

I have worked with at least a dozen different builders on custom homes over the years. My experience is that the clients who award the job to the lowest bid eventually end up paying as much as the other bids, and the overall quality of the materials and workmanship is poor compared to the other higher-priced builders (I have worked with enough to be able to see the difference). In other words, if bidding a job, your focus should be less about the final price and more about the quality of the process and service.

Most of the new construction jobs I work on start with the client finding the builder they want to work with first because of their good reputation and quality of construction, and then the builder works with them and their architect to design a home that fits the overall budget the client wants to spend. I think this is the better way to approach a custom home build. Some of the quality builders in my area will not bid on a finished set of plans because they know the client is only looking for the lowest bid and they won't be it.

The “lowest bid” mental model rewards shortcuts, incompetencies, and inadequate allowances numbers. If you’re worried about the cost difference in a 900K house vs a 950K house, building a custom house isn’t for you. Go buy one already built.

Since it's a holiday and I'm taking the day off from projects, I have time for one more piece of advice on evaluating bids.

It's a quote by John Ruskin, an economist and a bunch of other stuff 100 years ago. He called it "The Common Law of Business Balance"....

"There is hardly anything in the world that someone cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price alone are that persons lawful prey.

It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money, that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do.

The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot, it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.".

"Where are the Ruskins in our world?"

They've all moved to modern farmhouses and can no longer be reached...

As She Who Cannot Be Named said many times: Good - Fast - Cheap. Pick two.

corollary to Ruskin:

Most builders who quote low costs per foot earn the highest margins per job.

There is a lot of assumption that competitive bidding equals a search for the lowest bidder. This is simply not true. Cost plus models of building originated in World War 2 as a means of offsetting risk and improving quality. It was later popularized during the space race to separate builder profit from quality.

The basis of the cost plus model is competitive building. So the idea that a competitive bid is always linked to lower price is simply not correct. Competitive bidding can and does enhance quality and is a very effective method for goal alignment.

Additionally, competitive bidding typically yields lower cost for the same quality. Goal alignment is a very well researched area and you can look into it on your own, however, it also just makes common sense. Tell someone that they have the contract at any price versus tell someone they have the contract so long as they are competitive. Which one do you think will yield the lower price more often?

Design build firms are just vertical integration (backward or forward). They typically create some value for consumers, but just like all created value there is some sacrifice.

Theoretically, a design-build firm should create designs they are more efficient at building. In other words, they will design to their strengths, that is the nature of their existence. That efficiency will typically create value for consumers, we imagine that being from improved communication, fewer reworks, etc. However, that comes at a cost, and that cost is creativity (again this is theoretical), if a design-build firm designs to its build strengths, then it will avoid designing to its build weaknesses. Since an independent architect doesn't have to worry about working in those parameters then they should be more open to more creative designs.

However, theory and reality are not the same thing. Just because a design-build firm will generally create some additional value, that doesn't mean that it will necessarily create additional value for your particular build. Just because an architect should be more open to creative designs, doesn't mean your particular architect will be able to achieve your vision.

The best choice for any individual is going to be somewhat unique to that individual. Sometimes a design-build firm might be better for your particular situation than an independent architect and vice versa.

Good luck