Agree with doc5md 100%. You aren't getting a custom home with a value engineered plan and design build firm. You are getting a stock plan with some modifications in which the builder is the driver of the design and not you, the client.

I'm sure the experts will chime in but man those prices seem crazy low, especially for a metro area. From my info gathering when we were searching, architects that do all of those services mentioned (wall materials, light, cabinet drawings, site inspections, 3D modeling)...they charge anywhere from 8-15% of the total project cost. This was in the DFW area. Sounds like the fees you are quoted are something like 1-2%. Thats, rather unusual.

Thank you for your perspective. Just to clarify architect 2 has a fixed rate, but the rate does not include site inspection or management of the builder (this part is billed hourly, and is included in the design-build fee in option number 1)

Which of those options have shown you work that is similar to your inspiration photo? And have you been able to talk with those owners as to their experience with working with that architect?

I would not like option 1 at all. However I come from the idea that to me design build generally means you select from their plans and make modifications off existing plans and depending on what your lot looks like it may or may not take the most advantage of it and hide the things that would be better to hide etc. from the house as most lots are not equal and existing plans are generic. They also seem to have a design choices and set suppliers so you may or may not be able to choose from a wider range of options or there may be less flexibility. Also the designer may or may not be one that has your style or is willing to go outside their comfort zone if it isn't your style. Now builders generally have preferred suppliers too that saves you money.

For the second architect I think it is reasonable and maybe you can negotiate for some specific oversight visits in a fixed price and then hourly after that. Ours is setup that way and those came from the architect (although our choices were more limited - we elected to not use the design-build of another company due to limitations). Also ask the second and third architects for builder references. They likely have some they prefer to work with. Ours does, which was a builder that was already on our list.

For the third one did you ask if they were willing to do the work if needed to oversee your project or did they say they don't do that? Also as to the 3D model - there are several other ways to get that accomplished with a 3rd party so I wouldn't consider that as a needed service from the architect and I would think having a 3rd party could be useful too as they may catch something the architect and you didn't that could work better. I know in my work I value having input from others as I can't catch everything myself and others have different ways of looking at things. Collaboration is a good thing IMO. The same thing could go for having a separate interior designer. They could bring a lot of value to the project as well and having a team that doesn't have any allegiances except to you could be very beneficial for you.

My choices would be between the 2nd and 3rd, unless the design build has you working directly with the architect and it is a from scratch design and the designer has your style down to be a perfect match.

Also make sure they are all licensed as architects and that you won't be working with just the draftsman for example for the design-build or the no oversight person. Although I'm guessing there are architects that may not do the oversight part too.

Generally, option 1 will not provide a true custom home designed around you and your families needs, and often they don't really take into consideration site related issues, i.e. orientation, views, noise potentials, etc. They tend to be very profit motivated (decoded "value engineered with the builder in mind"). In my experience, very few architects are adept at specific interior finishes. Good architects might specify for instance, exposed finish wood in this area, or polished stone in this area, but leave the specifics of what wood and finish, or what color and type of stone to the owner or the owner's interior designer. Your best bet is picking the architect that shares your vision of how the house will function and how the house will look. How many of your 3 options have been to the site, walked it, viewed it from multiple angles, spent time to come back and see it at different times of the day?

Usually that type of architect will also have a relationship with various builders in the area and can recommend several for you to select from. Then, a meeting with all parties at the start of the design process during, and at the end of the design process before plans are submitted for approval to insure that budgets align with the vision. This is probably more work than picking 1 , 2, or 3. But I suggest that your asking on this forum indicates you haven't found a solution you are happy or confident with so far. Best wishes on your project.

I appreciate y'alls input. Just to clarify: The Design-Build option is from scratch/ completely custom so my main issue there is with the cost difference (48,000 vs 18,000 or 6,000). I actually would prefer them mainly because it eliminates the chance that you end up with architectural drawings and finishes that are too costly to implement. 30,000 is a big chunk of money that could be put into the house. Architect 1 (option 2) is less experienced but does seem to adhere to modern/ contemporary style. That archict has fewer projects I can see. Architect 2 (option 3) has designed a house I really like and works with a builder who has the right aesthetics, but I can't determine how comprehensive his services would be (he offers no 3D modelling, no help with finishes, it seems, so we would have to add that on independently)

@Rune Moelbak, just a couple of questions for you to find out to help with your decision:

Who owns the plans when they are completed by the design build firm or the architect?

Who has input on the design - the builder? You? Others?

Do you sign a contract with the design build firm and do you have a separate contract for the architectural services from that firm?

Can the design build firm retain the plan and build it somewhere else for someone else after you have your home built?

There are other questions, but this should get the conversation with each of your choices started. so you have the info you need to make an informed decision.

Denita, I appreciate these considerations. I haven't asked them each these questions. With the design-build firm the first contract is only for the architecture/ design phase

Choose the architect that you feel will come up with the best design for you.

(Every time I read one of these architect fee threads I feel I have to raise my rates)

I see that the design-build firm breaks it into two contracts with the first the architecture/design phase per your last post. This would be the time, before you sign anything, to find out all those nitty gritty details about plan ownership etc. What happens if you come to an impasse regarding your design? Also, please have whatever contract you consider signing first reviewed by a construction attorney that represents consumers and not builders. The time to make clarifications is before signing anything and to have it in writing in the contract :)

I actually would prefer them mainly because it eliminates the chance that you end up with architectural drawings and finishes that are too costly to implement.

Bringing a 3rd-party builder into a few of the design meetings with A1 or A2 would yield the same result. You could use someone recommended by A1 or A2, making sure to fairly compensate them for their time/advice, especially if you end up ultimately choosing a different builder to construct your house.

Architect 2 (option 3) has designed a house I really like and works with a builder who has the right aesthetics, [....]

This is super important. A2 has already designed something you really like, *and* works with a builder who is familiar with the style, and has the skills to execute it. I'd totally choose this one, if it were me.

[...] but I can't determine how comprehensive his services would be (he offers no 3D modelling, no help with finishes, it seems, so we would have to add that on independently)

3D modeling can be incredibly helpful, if visualizing things is not your forte. Other professionals can assist you with it, just like interior design, landscape design, etc. I'd definitely pay the architect the hourly fee to supervise the project as needed. You may only need 1 or 2 site visits ($200-$400, or less?).

I guess, in my mind, if you're entertaining the idea of spending $48k on all-inclusive design services, instead of thinking, "Hey, A2 can save me $42k," consider the following.

You have more options to control where that $48k is spent. $6k on the Arch, plus maybe an extra $1k for site visits [you can budget this out, and discipline yourself to a certain number of visits]. Say $15k on interior design help, not necessarily purchasing through the designer, and another $2k for 3d modelling [I have no idea, I just pulled these numbers out of my hat, lol; you'd have to do a bit of research to get accurate prices in your area]. That leaves you with, let's say, $24k to put toward the house.

I suspect that the all-inclusive price of $48k pays quite a bit for convenience. It's less legwork/research time for you, which is obviously an advantage. The question is, how much is the convenience worth to you?

Design/build... maybe... big financial and quality risk is that the fox is watching the hen house - you have nobody there to protect your interests. Architect fees? 3-D models? Its not a cost - its an investment. Do you want the lowest priced surgeon or even dentist? You get the idea. A talented architect will almost always save you more than their fee in a host of ways - so they're free. Get a good one. 3-D models, cardboard models, 3-D printed models and VR are fun... but not free... nor necessary. We do all the above on an ala carte basis. If your architect is of my vintage, they can also actually draw things right in front of you much faster and you can better participate in the process. If you want the 3-D... go all the way to VR... we can move furniture and change wall colors while you virtually walk around the room... really awesome... not free. Do you need it? Do I NEED so much horsepower and performance in a car? Same thing... not free. You'll be fine with less than 500 horsepower and with less than computer finesse. Licensed, insured architects investment? New residence? "about" 10-12% of construction cost or less than the fudge factor/contingency line item from the contractor. Again, a good one will save you more than that. 43 years of this and only 4 times we haven't been able to do that. Dang. Still, pretty good record. The rest of us should have similar abilities. Check Houzz Pros and Architects Creating Homes - they have some fee guidance on their site as well as other helps.

Hrivnak has the point. In a design build, you have no one there to protect your interests...Get a good talented architect. Interview several, find the one you click with and whose clients love their homes...

Depending on the size and complexity of your build, option 2. I'm not seeing the benefit for the $48k spent on the DB that you can't get from Option 2.

I worked on a fun project 3 years ago right after Harvey in Meyerland for an elderly couple that was rebuilding - my package was similar to your Option 2, but did include plumbing fixture selections, Revit Model and loads of renderings and a set number of trips to Houston for CA. I was not far off Option 2's number either, fee-wise.

Good luck!

"... but it seems like the cost savings are substantial if I go with an architect only and bid out the project at the end (savings of $30,000)."

Rune:

Your cost savings premise is faulty. When you attempt to bid out subs, you are competing against General Contractors that provide them with hundreds of thousands of dollars of work a year. You can imagine what's going to happen to their priority of your job when one of their regular GCs call.

You're a onsie. You will always be a onsie unless you start building homes regularly.

Do you think these GCs haven't had to sort through subs to find the right ones? There you are, a newbie sorting subs. I can't imagine anything more frightening.

Who's going to coordinate the subs you hire? I damn near walked off a commercial job recently because the Super was too stupid to schedule the electricians after hours. Lucky for him, the guy painting lines in the parking lot had a generator. I greased him $40.00 for a half hour and billed it to my customer. Your life will be filled with adventures like this.

I read this as the design fee for the DB is $48k, not Design AND Construction.

I also make the assumption that @Rune Moelbak would be doing Design-Bid-Build with a GC if he did not go with the DB.

Speaking generally and holding quality constant, a design-build firm will come out cheaper in the end. The entire reason that design build firms exist is synergies between design and build processes.

Typically the sacrifice is some measure of creativity. If you are designing to a particular builder's skill set, then you are going to avoid any designs where they lack proficiency.

----

Design fees mean nothing. Money is fungible, so in the end, the total amount spent on the home and how well it suits you are the only important value factors. So I would not get too hung up on any one line item.

Option 2 - take control of your project.

Two things about D/B.

1. You could wind up like I did where our GC said his firm was design/build with his great architect. It turned out his great architect was a draftsman with absolutely no design skills.

2. Or you could wind up with a D/B firm where the architect is truly a licensed architect. However when you say you want xyz, the architect will say no it can't be done like that. Why will he say that? Because his paycheck comes from the builder and he needs to make everything easier for the builder, not harder. You are basically hiring the builder and not the architect as a separate entity. So if the builder has never done xyz before, what do you think will happen? Bye bye xyz.

BTW: Have you met the architect of the builder yet? Have you met all three and discussed what it is you want? If so which one did you feel listened the best and understood you the best?

following

cpartist; excellent comments! This architect, many years ago, was working for a firm where we did D/B under the GC. I put code required insulation in walls and roof - GC demanded less "we'll see if the permit guys catch me" - I said "no". He reminded me that the firm got paid by him - as did my boss. That stuff happens. Your investment in your professional architect is less than the contingency (fudge factor) used by the GC in doing their pricing. That investment will leverage the success of all elements of your project.

@Hrivnak Associates, LLC - This is a problem with anecdotal evidence. You are not going to architect your way out of a bad builder.

When we look at the advantages and disadvantages of design/build firms in aggregate it is pretty easy figure the trade-offs inherent in the model. This is not rocket surgery, it is a simple backward or forward vertical integration business combination and they have been happening a long time now. Somewhere deep in the past a wine maker said. "I think we would be more profitable if we grow the grapes."

THE GOOD

Every combination requires synergy, so the two parts being better together than they would be apart. In the case of the winery owning the grapes it is a change in the decisions around growing and harvesting grapes. Essentially you can tailor your wine to your grapes and your grapes to your wine.

In design/build firms plans will be tailored to take advantage of builder proficiencies and enhanced communications. The designer will be able to anticipate areas where the builder may struggle and will design away from that when possible and communicate more clearly when not. Plans are more likely to hit cost targets as the design process is automatically designing to efficiency. There will also be more communication between the builder and designer during the design phase when they are in the same office.

THE BAD

Every combination has a sacrifice because of the exclusive nature of the combination. In the case of a winery, if you own the fields and have a grape harvest that is not particularly fantastic while a competing grower has a fantastic harvest, you are still required to use your grapes. If you sell your grapes and buy the others you have destroyed all of the value in the combination.

In design/build firms that tailoring of plans to building efficiency will limit creativity. An architect for a design build firm is not going to design towards something the builder is not good at doing. They are going to design to strengths and away from weaknesses. Those strengths and weaknesses might not be shared by every builder. This is a tangible weakness and should be given serious consideration (e.g. If a builder has a preferred window supplier the designer is likely to find a way to incorporate those windows in the design even if a different window would be better).

---

This entire thing assumes that quality is equal across the board, which it is not. I can assure you that the answer above is correct, yet it is also meaningless in your decision. Your decision is going to be based on your needs and your market. In your market you may well have several architect driven design/build firms (forward vertical integration), or you might have cost conscience builders providing design services (backward vertical integration). Do your due diligence and then pick the arrangement that you are most comfortable with.

I would advise that you take pricing quotes with a grain of salt, the best value is not likely to depend on a quoted upfront price. Also I personally would not look at portability of plans from a design/build firm. This seems like the worst of all worlds... You limit design to strengths of one firm and then don't use that firm.

Just my 2 cents... Good luck.

I worked for one of D/B. You should not have to pay $48k to an architect at a D/B firm. Why should you pay for two supervisions. If this is a D/B firm an architect would not even be allowed to override D/B management. D/B typically charges for a design (at cost sometimes less) and that is it... Obviously depends on a project size. 10mil project in CA could have astronomical fees.

Generally, It is not uncommon for an inside architect to charge like 2k here, because the details and full specs are not needed for internal construction.