Without experience, it is possible to successfully GC a bathroom remodel; however one has to do sufficient research and acquaint oneself of all the stesp in the remodel. It is not rocket science, however, it is a complex project and cannot be under-estimated. If you are not changing any plumbing or electrical wiring, keeping the bath layout essentially the same and only changing the skins, (e.g. faucets, tiles, tubs, etc.) it is not very hard to do. Also, if going as self-GC, try to keep some allowance for change orders, since due to lack of experience, you might make a few judgement mistakes. We are currently our bath remodel in a semi-GC fashion(semi-gc because our main guy is a jack of all trades and knows a lot about it, thus we do not need to constantly micro-manage him). We designed it entirely, I researched extensively using GW forums. Since I always knew what I wanted, look-wise, I used the forum's expertise to learn the technicalities and materials, and for hearing the experiences of the folks here with various parts/materials that we used. Also, we visited local bath remodel stores. We tried to talk to the people in the stores extensively, asked them gazillion questions. When they said "your contractor would know that", I always replied, "of course he might; however as a homeowner I want to learn about the process too". Some were clearly not interested in talking, in which case I moved on and talked to their competitor. For each type of vendor (e.g window company, mirror etc) there would be at least one of three who would be willing to educate you, and the one who left me wiser got my business (at times even though their quote was not the lowest, but within a ballpark). Besides, people who were genuinely helpful were not necessarily the most expensive. It needs a tremendous amount of time invested, patience and inclination to learn, however. You need to ask yourself whether you are interested in learning even a little, OR are you in it only to save money. If the latter, then chances are that you would end up feeling exhausted. For me, I was really passionate about learning the ropes, and I am VERY happy by the experience. I emerged much more knowledgeable and cannot wait to do my next remodel! Hope this long reply helps you.

GCs do a lot of integrating and air-traffic control, problem solving, working through problems and dealing with inspectors, municipal offices and the people who work in them. (For example, I know that in my city, it took SEVEN signatures to put a Dumpster in front of my house. That's in addition to obtaining the Dumpster itself. Could you name, for example, even one of the offices you'd need to go to? I know I couldn't. Multiply that by every tiny step of this process.) If this is your first remodel, I'd really suggest you hire a GC, unless you have a background that lends itself to these issues. A GC telling an electrician to wait because the is a trusted colleague with a working relationship he wants to protect. You telling an electrician to wait is just another client he can blow off, and you may never see him again, while he makes room in his schedule to wire a whole 16 room house for his friend the GC. Can you blame him, business-wise? That's a big check. They occasionally also ask fairly technical questions. You have to be prepared to answer them. Like how many amp line you want where. You can learn these things, obviously, but, again, you need to know you need to know them. A good GC will alert you to problems, like whether he thinks the subs workers are doing a good job, whether there are problems with the design, if he/she thinks an engineer needs to be called in (if there are surprises in a wall or floor). CAN it be done? Yes. If it's a fairly simple remodel, just straight replacing a wall or two of relatively recent cabinets, swapping appliances, not a lot of position changes, changing a floor covering where you have good reason to believe the floor underneath is sound, you could do a lot of research UP FRONT. There is definitely a lot of good information here, and people have definitely done it. People have, in fact done the actual WORK themselves. I just want you to go in with your eyes open, if you do it. Not just thinking "oh, it's just like calling the plumber a bunch of times". There were times I could really see the strain on my GC, who does this for a living, getting these guys to behave and do what he needed them to do when he needed it. But it would be smart to have a handy friend come over and give their opinion on your actual house.

To the OP - I would consult an attorney before you do anything else. Even if it is clearly spelled out in the contract that doesn't necessarily mean it is collectible. From your description I believe you are discussing a design-build firm rather than an independent architect. If it is, in fact, an independent architect then their failure to be aware of costs becomes less of a concern for him and a problem for you. I only understand a small bit of Canadian law, which is to say that I understand that contract law in Canada is pretty similar to contract law in the U.S. and that is the extent of my knowledge. In every contract there is a requirement that the parties act honestly and in good faith. Your theory seems to be that they didn't act in good faith during the design phase, because there is a reasonable expectation that a design-build firm has enough understanding of costs to keep them reasonable. Instead they acted to increase the cost of the build so that they could profit from the additional revenues, in both the design phase and the build phase. That is a theory that gets a lot of traction here in the U.S. and no matter the terms of the contract, they can't act in bad faith. Whether or not that this particular situation gets a lot of traction in Canada is something I just don't know, but I suspect it does. Your best bet is to spend just a little bit on a qualified attorney and get this behind you. I wouldn't advise waiting and doing nothing, although that is also viable, if they do pursue it, waiting will just close several doors that are open to you right now. Personally, I tend to be very aggressive on these things and would communicate to the firm that I will subpoena information on all previous design clients if they want to continue.

it appears that they've already agreed to use the architect in the role of (borrowing from George W.) "the decider." After careful consideration I revise my opinion, the OP should see an attorney. I admit that my advice may have been biased by the OP saying, "I believe means that missing the deadline is a material breach." That led me to believe that the OP had done some homework, at least enough to be confident in a meeting. However, given the discussions in this thread, maybe my expectations for general knowledge of contracts are misplaced. The contract does not say that the Architect will be the decider, only the administrator. How is deciding whether or not a contractor's performance falls within the terms of the contract relevant here? The architect can't change the terms of the contract, nor is he in any way shape or form legally allowed to determine when and if a material breach has happened. You are a contractor, please tell me you are trying to win an argument, and you don't actually believe that an architect is licensed to practice law. ----- If the OP and their architect (and readers of this thread) will take the time to read article 16 (termination of contract) of AIA A105-2017, they will find that the OP has the option to terminate the contract for convenience (without cause) by settling up with the contractor for costs incurred to date and fair overhead and profit on the uncompleted portion of the work in the original contract scope. See section 16.3. Kinda like a no-contest divorce. I was just going to leave this alone but... 16.3 may be the most worthless clause in the entire contract. It limits the contractors collection rights to what the contract would pay him and it does nothing more. These are mostly the exact same rights the contractor would have without this clause. This is calculated by using the total sum of the contract less any costs the contractor avoided from the termination. For example: Suppose the contract has $25,000 of materials $15,000 of subcontractor installation charges (their profit and overhead), and $10,000 of contractor profit and overhead for a total amount of $50,000. Suppose all materials have been purchased and are not returnable. 16.3 then states that the contractor will recover all $50,000. Suppose that $20,000 of materials still haven't been purchased and there are no commitments made for their purchase, then the contractor would get $30,000. It essentially pays the contractor in full for all services as if they had been fully performed, and eliminates extraordinary profit from any unpaid cost of sales. This is the standard legal assumption in all contracts that if the contractor were not working on your job they would have found equivalent work during that time, and if the customer cancels must pay accordingly, and it is the default position of all courts. So why is the clause even in there? In very rare cases (probably one in a few thousand) a contractor will say that he planned to market your job in such a way to increase future income. All 16.3 does is remove any claim to loss of future income resulting from the breach. It is not a lot of ink and in very rare cases saves a bit of trouble. This has to be very close to the last thing the OP wants.