Small Project Design

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Small Project Practitioners and Project Delivery .
-------------------------------------------


-------------------------------------------
Richard Christensen AIA
ARC Architectural Group, LLC
Racine WI
-------------------------------------------

Our firm is competing for the opportunity to design an office building for 4 physicians, one of which is a long-established client.  We have an appropriate team of consulting engineers.

One of the other physicians has a favored general contractor proposing a design-build approach.

None of the 4 have participated in this process ground-up before.

We are preparing an outline of  the process as part of our presentation to leave with them and would like to include multiple substantial value-based reasons supporting the architect-consultant team approach over the design-build approach.

     Your comments are requested.

     Thank-you,

     Richard                              arcgroup2@tds.net

I think your best approach would be to either define your role as an architect in the design bid process.  Or as the architect that will lead the design build process.  I think either way you could get the project.  Below are some of the value added items for both the project delivery methods.

Design Bid Project Delivery:
1.  You are under contract with the Owner, and as such you are looking out for his best interests during the bidding, contract administration and contruction administration. 
2.  Your value to the Owner during construction is to verify the quality of the work, to ensure the contractor includes all that you have specified in the construction drawings and to keep the change orders to a minimum.
3.  The Owner's bank or title company may require you to verify construction paymnets to the contractor.  An architect employed by the contractor may not be able to do this.
4.  This delivery method is to competitvely bid the work upon the completion of the construciton documents, to ensure the owner is getting the best price.  Your help in determining the lowest viable bid is crucial, as well as your investigation of the bidders so the owner can knowledgable evaluate the bids and bidders.

Architect Lead Project Design Build Delivery;
1.  This is an option if the contractor that is favored by one of the doctors is willing to work with you.
2.  If the contractor will only work with his architect, I would caution the owner about the potential colution, as the architect is working for the contractor and not the owner.  He has a vested interest in keeping the contractor content as he is getting paid by the contractor and probably has a established relationship he does not want to jeopardize.
3.  You would also have no say in the architect he using.  Does he have experience in medical facilities, proven track record with projects, is responsive to the owners needs and desires etc.  We all know that a good relantionship between owner and architect is crucial to a successful project.  The hope is that the owner and the contractor's architect can successful work together.  But this would probably not get discovered until he is well into the project.
4.  The advantage of an owner hired architect lead design build project is that the contractor is brought on early in the design.  He can lend his expertise in cost estimating, constructability issues during the design.  This can keep the project on budget and also provide costs to the owner on added value items, so the owner can intelligently decide on what items he can afford.  But to make this successful the architect and the contractor must be able to work together.  Also, the contractor may want a vehicle to get paid for this upfront work, if the owner does not go thru with the project or decides to use another contractor.
5.  The disadvantage to any design build, is that there is potentailly little competitve pricing.  Now if the contractor would agree to an open book policy, such that multiple subcontractors could bid on the work, thier bids would be evaluated by both contractor and owner to determine the best lowest cost.  But if the contractor self performs much of the work, then there is limited competitive pricing.
6.  Another disadvantage to using the contractors architect is that he maybe marking up the architectural fee.  The owner would not have this problem if he contract directly with the architect.

I had my own architectural practice for 12 years.  6 of those years I set up a separate construction company to do design build on my projects, as well as construct other architects work.  The owners would hire me for the architecture and then I could bid on the project, sometimes as the only bidder, sometimes against other contractors.  But the key was that it no matter what, it was an architect lead process, leading to good design, good construction and happy owners.

I hope this helps you and good luck with the project.
-------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Bumb AIA
Fox Architects
Ballwin MO
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-14-2013 10:51
From: Richard Christensen
Subject: Architect & Engineer Consultant Team vs. Design Build

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Small Project Practitioners and Project Delivery .
-------------------------------------------


-------------------------------------------
Richard Christensen AIA
ARC Architectural Group, LLC
Racine WI
-------------------------------------------

Our firm is competing for the opportunity to design an office building for 4 physicians, one of which is a long-established client.  We have an appropriate team of consulting engineers.

One of the other physicians has a favored general contractor proposing a design-build approach.

None of the 4 have participated in this process ground-up before.

We are preparing an outline of  the process as part of our presentation to leave with them and would like to include multiple substantial value-based reasons supporting the architect-consultant team approach over the design-build approach.

     Your comments are requested.

     Thank-you,

     Richard                              arcgroup2@tds.net

Hey Richard,

Why don't you try approaching the favored GC and make them a part of your own design-build team, with your other consulting team members.  The GC becomes a part of the project team and can help with some of the value engineering along the way.  Design-build does not have to exclude you or any of your consultants.  It can be a win-win-win proposition for all involved, including the client group.

-------------------------------------------
Bill Pisa, AIA
Architect
N. Chesterfield, VA
-------------------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 11-14-2013 10:51
From: Richard Christensen
Subject: Architect & Engineer Consultant Team vs. Design Build

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Small Project Practitioners and Project Delivery .
-------------------------------------------


-------------------------------------------
Richard Christensen AIA
ARC Architectural Group, LLC
Racine WI
-------------------------------------------

Our firm is competing for the opportunity to design an office building for 4 physicians, one of which is a long-established client.  We have an appropriate team of consulting engineers.

One of the other physicians has a favored general contractor proposing a design-build approach.

None of the 4 have participated in this process ground-up before.

We are preparing an outline of  the process as part of our presentation to leave with them and would like to include multiple substantial value-based reasons supporting the architect-consultant team approach over the design-build approach.

     Your comments are requested.

     Thank-you,

     Richard                              arcgroup2@tds.net

For the past decade, our firm has delivered roughly 50% of our work via D-B and 50% D-B-B.  We are located in the Midwest which may make a difference, I'm not sure.

Major differences;

Design Build

Physicians appear to prefer this method.

D-B is less hassle for the Owner.  It goes smoother, once they have decided that D-B is the way to go.   They will have already "drank the koolaid".

Control is in the hands of the Contractor.

Neither you nor the Owner have little if anything to say and really no control over the price that the Contractor provides to the Owner.  Once the Contractor provides a price to the Owner, there will be a few tense moments over cost but the angst will soon go away. 

There will likely be a round or two of what the Contractor will call "value engineering" which is really just cost cutting at this point.  It goes like this: they will suggest cutting something out of the project and offer back 50 cents on the dollar; to which the Owner grudgingly agrees.  The Owner will accept some of these and you will need to make the revisions.

The entire time schedule for D-B is roughly 5% faster, because the A/E portion is reduced.  Construction takes the same time frame unless you add fast track/hypertrack, etc. to the process.

Design Bid Build

D-B-B takes an extra 10-15% longer time for the A/E to produce a full set of pricing documents; ones that can be thoroughly bid, preferably to three hand selected contractors.  DO NOT cut the A/E production period short!  VE from the first day.  Scrutenize the Owner's program and drill down on the SD and early DD phases.

A/E fees will be higher.

Control is out of the hands of the Contractor and in the hands of the Owner and Architect.

The Owner feels more angst due to the natural tension between the Contractor and Architect (which is also a good thing for the Owner).

Bid projects run 15% to 25% less in construction costs than D-B.

Some people will argue that Change Orders are out of whack with bid projects.  Maybe that's because pricing is fixed without padding.  Our track record of design related change orders over the past 10 years is at 0.18% of the cost of construction.  You must provide complete and coordinated documentation.  Engage only the best quality consultants.

TOTAL cost to the Owner including A/E fees and change orders is easily within the 10% to 20% less range.
-------------------------------------------
Robin Miller AIA
MSH Architects
Sioux Falls SD
-------------------------------------------


 -------------------------------------------
Richard Christensen AIA
ARC Architectural Group, LLC
Racine WI
-------------------------------------------

Our firm is competing for the opportunity to design an office building for 4 physicians, one of which is a long-established client.  We have an appropriate team of consulting engineers.

One of the other physicians has a favored general contractor proposing a design-build approach.

None of the 4 have participated in this process ground-up before.

We are preparing an outline of  the process as part of our presentation to leave with them and would like to include multiple substantial value-based reasons supporting the architect-consultant team approach over the design-build approach.

     Your comments are requested.

     Thank-you,

     Richard                              arcgroup2@tds.net

Robin's observations and assessment of D-B-B and Design/Build are an accurate description of our firm's experience.  Except, we have rarely found that D/B allows for a less detailed set of construction documents.  The GC is usually more of a broker and scheduler than a builder and he needs the details and specs fully developed so that he can pass them on to subcontractors and suppliers for pricing.  Yet, everyone involved wants us - the A/E firm - to cut our fees because design/build is such a "team approach."  (Cough, cough.)  Our experience has been that most D/B projects are structured to take care of the GC at everyone else's expense.

When involved in D/B, we do normally reduce our construction administration phase fees.  A/E construction admin services aren't too effective once the Owner has given the GC full control of the project.  Being in the position of "responsibility without authority" is not a good thing and you have to let the Owner know this up front.  D/B is a contractual arrangement that says the Owner is agreeing to trust the GC and all his subcontractors explicitly and completely.

We only participate in D/B with a few select, trustworthy, GCs.  And even then we go into it with our eyes wide open. 

I believe that D-B-B is the best delivery method for most projects.  The bottom line is that the Architect should work for the Owner and the Contractor should work for the Owner.  Contractually and financially this keeps everybody focused on the right goals and on building the best project possible at the best value possible.

Robert Smith, AIA
Talley & Smith Architecture, Inc.
Shelby NC
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-20-2013 09:51
From: Robin Miller
Subject: Architect & Engineer Consultant Team vs. Design Build

For the past decade, our firm has delivered roughly 50% of our work via D-B and 50% D-B-B.  We are located in the Midwest which may make a difference, I'm not sure.

Major differences;

Design Build

Physicians appear to prefer this method.

D-B is less hassle for the Owner.  It goes smoother, once they have decided that D-B is the way to go.   They will have already "drank the koolaid".

Control is in the hands of the Contractor.

Neither you nor the Owner have little if anything to say and really no control over the price that the Contractor provides to the Owner.  Once the Contractor provides a price to the Owner, there will be a few tense moments over cost but the angst will soon go away. 

There will likely be a round or two of what the Contractor will call "value engineering" which is really just cost cutting at this point.  It goes like this: they will suggest cutting something out of the project and offer back 50 cents on the dollar; to which the Owner grudgingly agrees.  The Owner will accept some of these and you will need to make the revisions.

The entire time schedule for D-B is roughly 5% faster, because the A/E portion is reduced.  Construction takes the same time frame unless you add fast track/hypertrack, etc. to the process.

Design Bid Build

D-B-B takes an extra 10-15% longer time for the A/E to produce a full set of pricing documents; ones that can be thoroughly bid, preferably to three hand selected contractors.  DO NOT cut the A/E production period short!  VE from the first day.  Scrutenize the Owner's program and drill down on the SD and early DD phases.

A/E fees will be higher.

Control is out of the hands of the Contractor and in the hands of the Owner and Architect.

The Owner feels more angst due to the natural tension between the Contractor and Architect (which is also a good thing for the Owner).

Bid projects run 15% to 25% less in construction costs than D-B.

Some people will argue that Change Orders are out of whack with bid projects.  Maybe that's because pricing is fixed without padding.  Our track record of design related change orders over the past 10 years is at 0.18% of the cost of construction.  You must provide complete and coordinated documentation.  Engage only the best quality consultants.

TOTAL cost to the Owner including A/E fees and change orders is easily within the 10% to 20% less range.
-------------------------------------------
Robin Miller AIA
MSH Architects
Sioux Falls SD
-------------------------------------------


 -------------------------------------------
Richard Christensen AIA
ARC Architectural Group, LLC
Racine WI
-------------------------------------------

Our firm is competing for the opportunity to design an office building for 4 physicians, one of which is a long-established client.  We have an appropriate team of consulting engineers.

One of the other physicians has a favored general contractor proposing a design-build approach.

None of the 4 have participated in this process ground-up before.

We are preparing an outline of  the process as part of our presentation to leave with them and would like to include multiple substantial value-based reasons supporting the architect-consultant team approach over the design-build approach.

     Your comments are requested.

     Thank-you,

     Richard                              arcgroup2@tds.net

Not all states allow it yet but the delivery method I have come to love is Construction Manager At Risk. Over my 35+ years I have done them all, DBB, DB pure and modified, JOC and negotiation. And yes I have done Partnering under the federal govt programs. And I have found that over the last 10yrs, CMaR is the best yet. The owner selects the architect under QBS and selects the CM under QBS. I have participated in almost all the CM selections on the selection committees for projects I have worked on, or have at least been able to give input to the owner on the shortlist of CMs. Its a true team approach to design and construction. All open book with negotiated OH rates and markups. Owner and architect can help select contractor subs, materials, systems etc., and this has worked on projects from 25 million down to 500,000. The GMP or guaranteed maximum price is usually arrived at completion of approx. %75 construction docs. CM will give cost estimates along the way at several phases. Engineers and major subs work together on what is the best system to use on the project. I have had nothing but good luck with this delivery method. If your state doesnt have it my suggestion is to get the local AIA to help you get it approved. Some contractor groups may not like it because it takes away the low bid mentality then CO you to death. It also removes the DB process where you loose control to the contractor.

-------------------------------------------
Ronald Peters AIA
President
HistoricStreetscapes PLLC
Mesa AZ
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-21-2013 17:30
From: Robert Smith
Subject: Architect & Engineer Consultant Team vs. Design Build


Robin's observations and assessment of D-B-B and Design/Build are an accurate description of our firm's experience.  Except, we have rarely found that D/B allows for a less detailed set of construction documents.  The GC is usually more of a broker and scheduler than a builder and he needs the details and specs fully developed so that he can pass them on to subcontractors and suppliers for pricing.  Yet, everyone involved wants us - the A/E firm - to cut our fees because design/build is such a "team approach."  (Cough, cough.)  Our experience has been that most D/B projects are structured to take care of the GC at everyone else's expense.

When involved in D/B, we do normally reduce our construction administration phase fees.  A/E construction admin services aren't too effective once the Owner has given the GC full control of the project.  Being in the position of "responsibility without authority" is not a good thing and you have to let the Owner know this up front.  D/B is a contractual arrangement that says the Owner is agreeing to trust the GC and all his subcontractors explicitly and completely.

We only participate in D/B with a few select, trustworthy, GCs.  And even then we go into it with our eyes wide open. 

I believe that D-B-B is the best delivery method for most projects.  The bottom line is that the Architect should work for the Owner and the Contractor should work for the Owner.  Contractually and financially this keeps everybody focused on the right goals and on building the best project possible at the best value possible.

Robert Smith, AIA
Talley & Smith Architecture, Inc.
Shelby NC
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-20-2013 09:51
From: Robin Miller
Subject: Architect & Engineer Consultant Team vs. Design Build

For the past decade, our firm has delivered roughly 50% of our work via D-B and 50% D-B-B.  We are located in the Midwest which may make a difference, I'm not sure.

Major differences;

Design Build

Physicians appear to prefer this method.

D-B is less hassle for the Owner.  It goes smoother, once they have decided that D-B is the way to go.   They will have already "drank the koolaid".

Control is in the hands of the Contractor.

Neither you nor the Owner have little if anything to say and really no control over the price that the Contractor provides to the Owner.  Once the Contractor provides a price to the Owner, there will be a few tense moments over cost but the angst will soon go away. 

There will likely be a round or two of what the Contractor will call "value engineering" which is really just cost cutting at this point.  It goes like this: they will suggest cutting something out of the project and offer back 50 cents on the dollar; to which the Owner grudgingly agrees.  The Owner will accept some of these and you will need to make the revisions.

The entire time schedule for D-B is roughly 5% faster, because the A/E portion is reduced.  Construction takes the same time frame unless you add fast track/hypertrack, etc. to the process.

Design Bid Build

D-B-B takes an extra 10-15% longer time for the A/E to produce a full set of pricing documents; ones that can be thoroughly bid, preferably to three hand selected contractors.  DO NOT cut the A/E production period short!  VE from the first day.  Scrutenize the Owner's program and drill down on the SD and early DD phases.

A/E fees will be higher.

Control is out of the hands of the Contractor and in the hands of the Owner and Architect.

The Owner feels more angst due to the natural tension between the Contractor and Architect (which is also a good thing for the Owner).

Bid projects run 15% to 25% less in construction costs than D-B.

Some people will argue that Change Orders are out of whack with bid projects.  Maybe that's because pricing is fixed without padding.  Our track record of design related change orders over the past 10 years is at 0.18% of the cost of construction.  You must provide complete and coordinated documentation.  Engage only the best quality consultants.

TOTAL cost to the Owner including A/E fees and change orders is easily within the 10% to 20% less range.
-------------------------------------------
Robin Miller AIA
MSH Architects
Sioux Falls SD
-------------------------------------------


 -------------------------------------------
Richard Christensen AIA
ARC Architectural Group, LLC
Racine WI
-------------------------------------------

Our firm is competing for the opportunity to design an office building for 4 physicians, one of which is a long-established client.  We have an appropriate team of consulting engineers.

One of the other physicians has a favored general contractor proposing a design-build approach.

None of the 4 have participated in this process ground-up before.

We are preparing an outline of  the process as part of our presentation to leave with them and would like to include multiple substantial value-based reasons supporting the architect-consultant team approach over the design-build approach.

     Your comments are requested.

     Thank-you,

     Richard                              arcgroup2@tds.net

I've found it useful to focus on the Owner values that drive the decision. DBB offers the most control over the design but sacrifices some control over the cost. DB communicates that the Owner's highest priority is cost control - for which he is willing to give up control of the design (if the mechanism is to deliver as promised). CM at Risk offers good balance of both benefit and cost. I sense that most other arguments, however accurate, sound a bit self-interested to our clients. ------------------------------------------- Ronald Geyer AIA, NCIDQ Principal Good City Architects LLC Greenville SC -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 11-21-2013 21:48 From: Robert Smith Subject: Architect & Engineer Consultant Team vs. Design Build Robin's observations and assessment of D-B-B and Design/Build are an accurate description of our firm's experience. Except, we have rarely found that D/B allows for a less detailed set of construction documents. The GC is usually more of a broker and scheduler than a builder and he needs the details and specs fully developed so that he can pass them on to subcontractors and suppliers for pricing. Yet, everyone involved wants us - the A/E firm - to cut our fees because design/build is such a "team approach." (Cough, cough.) Our experience has been that most D/B projects are structured to take care of the GC at everyone else's expense. When involved in D/B, we do normally reduce our construction administration phase fees. A/E construction admin services aren't too effective once the Owner has given the GC full control of the project. Being in the position of "responsibility without authority" is not a good thing and you have to let the Owner know this up front. D/B is a contractual arrangement that says the Owner is agreeing to trust the GC and all his subcontractors explicitly and completely. We only participate in D/B with a few select, trustworthy, GCs. And even then we go into it with our eyes wide open. I believe that D-B-B is the best delivery method for most projects. The bottom line is that the Architect should work for the Owner and the Contractor should work for the Owner. Contractually and financially this keeps everybody focused on the right goals and on building the best project possible at the best value possible. Robert Smith, AIA Talley & Smith Architecture, Inc. Shelby NC -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 11-20-2013 09:51 From: Robin Miller Subject: Architect & Engineer Consultant Team vs. Design Build For the past decade, our firm has delivered roughly 50% of our work via D-B and 50% D-B-B. We are located in the Midwest which may make a difference, I'm not sure. Major differences; Design Build Physicians appear to prefer this method. D-B is less hassle for the Owner. It goes smoother, once they have decided that D-B is the way to go. They will have already "drank the koolaid". Control is in the hands of the Contractor. Neither you nor the Owner have little if anything to say and really no control over the price that the Contractor provides to the Owner. Once the Contractor provides a price to the Owner, there will be a few tense moments over cost but the angst will soon go away. There will likely be a round or two of what the Contractor will call "value engineering" which is really just cost cutting at this point. It goes like this: they will suggest cutting something out of the project and offer back 50 cents on the dollar; to which the Owner grudgingly agrees. The Owner will accept some of these and you will need to make the revisions. The entire time schedule for D-B is roughly 5% faster, because the A/E portion is reduced. Construction takes the same time frame unless you add fast track/hypertrack, etc. to the process. Design Bid Build D-B-B takes an extra 10-15% longer time for the A/E to produce a full set of pricing documents; ones that can be thoroughly bid, preferably to three hand selected contractors. DO NOT cut the A/E production period short! VE from the first day. Scrutenize the Owner's program and drill down on the SD and early DD phases. A/E fees will be higher. Control is out of the hands of the Contractor and in the hands of the Owner and Architect. The Owner feels more angst due to the natural tension between the Contractor and Architect (which is also a good thing for the Owner). Bid projects run 15% to 25% less in construction costs than D-B. Some people will argue that Change Orders are out of whack with bid projects. Maybe that's because pricing is fixed without padding. Our track record of design related change orders over the past 10 years is at 0.18% of the cost of construction. You must provide complete and coordinated documentation. Engage only the best quality consultants. TOTAL cost to the Owner including A/E fees and change orders is easily within the 10% to 20% less range. ------------------------------------------- Robin Miller AIA MSH Architects Sioux Falls SD ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- Richard Christensen AIA ARC Architectural Group, LLC Racine WI ------------------------------------------- Our firm is competing for the opportunity to design an office building for 4 physicians, one of which is a long-established client. We have an appropriate team of consulting engineers. One of the other physicians has a favored general contractor proposing a design-build approach. None of the 4 have participated in this process ground-up before. We are preparing an outline of the process as part of our presentation to leave with them and would like to include multiple substantial value-based reasons supporting the architect-consultant team approach over the design-build approach. Your comments are requested. Thank-you, Richard arcgroup2@tds.net

Ronald, I have heard the argument that DB helps with cost control, but I have rarely experienced it when we were working for a GC on a DB project.  More often, I have seen the GC use the "fog of war" to charge as much as he feels he can without damaging his relationship with the Owner.  I am not saying that is the way all GC's operate, but unless you have a good, trustworthy, diligent GC, then DB seems to afford the less scrupulous GC too many hidden ways to charge more than cost plus OH+P. 

For my money, I had rather that we as architects prepare a thorough and complete set of construction and bid documents, then bid the project with 3 to 5 good GCs.  If we do our job right, there will be very few change orders and the change order prices will be reasonable.  I have not had a chance to do a CM at Risk project, but the structure of it doesn't sound much different than the contract structure we normally use when we are asked to perform an Architect lead DB project.

-------------------------------------------
Robert Smith AIA
Architect, AIA, LEED AP
Talley & Smith Architecture, Inc.
Shelby NC
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-22-2013 17:43
From: Ronald Geyer
Subject: Architect & Engineer Consultant Team vs. Design Build

I've found it useful to focus on the Owner values that drive the decision. DBB offers the most control over the design but sacrifices some control over the cost. DB communicates that the Owner's highest priority is cost control - for which he is willing to give up control of the design (if the mechanism is to deliver as promised). CM at Risk offers good balance of both benefit and cost. I sense that most other arguments, however accurate, sound a bit self-interested to our clients.

-------------------------------------------
Ronald Geyer AIA, NCIDQ
Principal
Good City Architects LLC
Greenville SC
-------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------
Harold Lichtman AIA
GLP Architects, P.C.
Mt. Laurel NJ
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-25-2013 17:54
From: Robert Smith
Subject: Architect & Engineer Consultant Team vs. Design Build

Ronald, I have heard the argument that DB helps with cost control, but I have rarely experienced it when we were working for a GC on a DB project.  More often, I have seen the GC use the "fog of war" to charge as much as he feels he can without damaging his relationship with the Owner.  I am not saying that is the way all GC's operate, but unless you have a good, trustworthy, diligent GC, then DB seems to afford the less scrupulous GC too many hidden ways to charge more than cost plus OH+P. 

For my money, I had rather that we as architects prepare a thorough and complete set of construction and bid documents, then bid the project with 3 to 5 good GCs.  If we do our job right, there will be very few change orders and the change order prices will be reasonable.  I have not had a chance to do a CM at Risk project, but the structure of it doesn't sound much different than the contract structure we normally use when we are asked to perform an Architect lead DB project.

-------------------------------------------
Robert Smith AIA
Architect, AIA, LEED AP
Talley & Smith Architecture, Inc.
Shelby NC
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-22-2013 17:43
From: Ronald Geyer
Subject: Architect & Engineer Consultant Team vs. Design Build

I've found it useful to focus on the Owner values that drive the decision. DBB offers the most control over the design but sacrifices some control over the cost. DB communicates that the Owner's highest priority is cost control - for which he is willing to give up control of the design (if the mechanism is to deliver as promised). CM at Risk offers good balance of both benefit and cost. I sense that most other arguments, however accurate, sound a bit self-interested to our clients.

-------------------------------------------
Ronald Geyer AIA, NCIDQ
Principal
Good City Architects LLC
Greenville SC
-------------------------------------------

I do a lot of small to medium projects for a local private university which has a favorite son builder.  I have found that fostering an open relationship with the contractor has help me with the university in assuring my use as their architect on most projects.  I don't expect to get all of their work, but working well with their contractor has helped.  It's important to know the players and get into a "trust" relationship, if possible.  It's not always possible and the architect always has to concerned about blame from documentation lapses, timing and cost overruns.  It has been my experience that I would rather work with a contractor in a knowing design build relationship than in a bidding situation where the low bidder is usually the one who forgot something.

 

Harold Lichtman, AIA
Principal
GLP Architects, PC
Cherry Hill, NJ

I would love to find a great D/B partner from the construction realm for smaller projects. Even some of the large GC's don't get "partnering". D/B can be terrific if all are on board and understand that delivery system. 

I agree that great documents are the best way to get to competitive numbers - regardless of delivery system. 

Lately, I've had problems with design/bid/build when the client didn't take our list of approved bidders and instead got their own. That turns into lowest bid coming from "have hammer, will travel" unqualified contractor-wanna-be's who screw up in more ways than I have time to list. If the client will not work with D/B, negotiated bid (open book cost plus a fee), or a select bidder list - CHARGE DOUBLE - and that won't be enough. 

Frankly, may draw a hard line about that in the future. If I can figure out how to contractually say that we either need to approve of the contractor selection (with no liability) or we A. do no additional services past delivery of permit sets or B. charge double our normal rate for CA phase to deal with the "emergencies" that screw with our other schedules and as compensation for dealing with PITA almost-contractors. 

I already offer a discount on our fees if we can do D/B or select the GC under a negotiated bid scenario as we don't have the bid phase involvement time nor do we have the babysitting time of dealing with the less than professional builders. 

There are great GCs out there.


-------------------------------------------
John Hrivnak AIA
Principal
Hrivnak Associates, Ltd.
Saint Charles IL
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-26-2013 17:39
From: Harold Lichtman
Subject: Architect & Engineer Consultant Team vs. Design Build



-------------------------------------------
Harold Lichtman AIA
GLP Architects, P.C.
Mt. Laurel NJ
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-25-2013 17:54
From: Robert Smith
Subject: Architect & Engineer Consultant Team vs. Design Build

Ronald, I have heard the argument that DB helps with cost control, but I have rarely experienced it when we were working for a GC on a DB project.  More often, I have seen the GC use the "fog of war" to charge as much as he feels he can without damaging his relationship with the Owner.  I am not saying that is the way all GC's operate, but unless you have a good, trustworthy, diligent GC, then DB seems to afford the less scrupulous GC too many hidden ways to charge more than cost plus OH+P. 

For my money, I had rather that we as architects prepare a thorough and complete set of construction and bid documents, then bid the project with 3 to 5 good GCs.  If we do our job right, there will be very few change orders and the change order prices will be reasonable.  I have not had a chance to do a CM at Risk project, but the structure of it doesn't sound much different than the contract structure we normally use when we are asked to perform an Architect lead DB project.

-------------------------------------------
Robert Smith AIA
Architect, AIA, LEED AP
Talley & Smith Architecture, Inc.
Shelby NC
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-22-2013 17:43
From: Ronald Geyer
Subject: Architect & Engineer Consultant Team vs. Design Build

I've found it useful to focus on the Owner values that drive the decision. DBB offers the most control over the design but sacrifices some control over the cost. DB communicates that the Owner's highest priority is cost control - for which he is willing to give up control of the design (if the mechanism is to deliver as promised). CM at Risk offers good balance of both benefit and cost. I sense that most other arguments, however accurate, sound a bit self-interested to our clients.

-------------------------------------------
Ronald Geyer AIA, NCIDQ
Principal
Good City Architects LLC
Greenville SC
-------------------------------------------

I do a lot of small to medium projects for a local private university which has a favorite son builder.  I have found that fostering an open relationship with the contractor has help me with the university in assuring my use as their architect on most projects.  I don't expect to get all of their work, but working well with their contractor has helped.  It's important to know the players and get into a "trust" relationship, if possible.  It's not always possible and the architect always has to concerned about blame from documentation lapses, timing and cost overruns.  It has been my experience that I would rather work with a contractor in a knowing design build relationship than in a bidding situation where the low bidder is usually the one who forgot something.

 

Harold Lichtman, AIA
Principal
GLP Architects, PC
Cherry Hill, NJ

Ronald, not sure where you are seeing the cost savings by doing DB.  We have experienced side by side projects with some of the best GCs in the region and see roughly 20% higher costs on DB projects.  We have a client who only does DB and when we once showed them one of our projects that was bid, they simply refused to believe the cost figures, stating that there was no way that DBB could possibly be that low . . . for the quality they were seeing.

The only positive cost item we see coming from DB project is at the end of the project when the contractor typically makes a cash donation to their client; something in the range of 10 to 20% of the extra amount they took in the first place.  The net result is that the GC maybe doubles or triples their profits with less risk and the Owner thinks the GC did them a favor when some $$ is returned.  It's really pretty slick.

As an architect, it is very hard to watch.

I'm with Robert, 100% on this. 

-------------------------------------------
Robin Miller AIA
MSH Architects
Sioux Falls SD
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-25-2013 18:02
From: Robert Smith
Subject: Architect & Engineer Consultant Team vs. Design Build

Ronald, I have heard the argument that DB helps with cost control, but I have rarely experienced it when we were working for a GC on a DB project.  More often, I have seen the GC use the "fog of war" to charge as much as he feels he can without damaging his relationship with the Owner.  I am not saying that is the way all GC's operate, but unless you have a good, trustworthy, diligent GC, then DB seems to afford the less scrupulous GC too many hidden ways to charge more than cost plus OH+P. 

For my money, I had rather that we as architects prepare a thorough and complete set of construction and bid documents, then bid the project with 3 to 5 good GCs.  If we do our job right, there will be very few change orders and the change order prices will be reasonable.  I have not had a chance to do a CM at Risk project, but the structure of it doesn't sound much different than the contract structure we normally use when we are asked to perform an Architect lead DB project.

-------------------------------------------
Robert Smith AIA
Architect, AIA, LEED AP
Talley & Smith Architecture, Inc.
Shelby NC
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-22-2013 17:43
From: Ronald Geyer
Subject: Architect & Engineer Consultant Team vs. Design Build

I've found it useful to focus on the Owner values that drive the decision. DBB offers the most control over the design but sacrifices some control over the cost. DB communicates that the Owner's highest priority is cost control - for which he is willing to give up control of the design (if the mechanism is to deliver as promised). CM at Risk offers good balance of both benefit and cost. I sense that most other arguments, however accurate, sound a bit self-interested to our clients.

-------------------------------------------
Ronald Geyer AIA, NCIDQ
Principal
Good City Architects LLC
Greenville SC
-------------------------------------------

Clients who are using someone else's money love Design-Build and other forms of negotiating with only one General Contractor.  Projects go very smooth, there is money to solve problems easily, the Architect, sometimes, makes more as the price goes up, almost everybody is happy, happy, happy!  Unless a client does the same building over and over (in our area that would be Walmart, Tyson, hotel developers, etc.) any of them who treat their construction budget like "someone they cared about got to use the savings for other important stuff" won't touch a non-competitive pricing scenario.  Political bureaucrats, higher education, even charitable non-profits, have a pipeline of funding so why should they work harder to do more with less when their funding just flows to them in a convoluted bureaucracy?  The larger the budget the more important, in their eyes, the bureaucrats become.  Preaching frugality to people who work in the "if I don't spend all of my budget this year and complain like crazy that it should be larger then I will get less next year" world is not easy and contractors love working with them.

I guarantee you that the the GC is just the tip of the iceberg in the exploitation of the lack of competition.  The GC's favorite subs all get to sock money away for themselves as they also sock money away (if they want to get "selected again" in the future) to help that GC out on other less competitive projects when needed.  The subs go to their favorite suppliers, who go to their best (as in most profitable for them) manufacturers, etc.  THEN all of that inflated pricing is marked up by the GC with their very visible and very competitive looking fee.  What a bargain!  Trying to keep the GC from padding reimbursables is a joke when compared to the many "much harder to ferret out"  layers of excessive profiteering in the contract that it rests on.

Pre-qualifying several GC's and then making them compete against each other is by far the best way.  Then the GC's have huge incentives to find ways and subs to do the job for less.  They are forced to use their knowledge for the owners benefit then, not just their own.

JMVHO


-------------------------------------------
Darrel Odom AIA, LEED AP
President
Odom Peckham Architecture, Inc.
Little Rock AR
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-26-2013 09:39
From: Robert Smith
Subject: Architect & Engineer Consultant Team vs. Design Build

Ronald, I have heard the argument that DB helps with cost control, but I have rarely experienced it when we were working for a GC on a DB project.  More often, I have seen the GC use the "fog of war" to charge as much as he feels he can without damaging his relationship with the Owner.  I am not saying that is the way all GC's operate, but unless you have a good, trustworthy, diligent GC, then DB seems to afford the less scrupulous GC too many hidden ways to charge more than cost plus OH+P. 

For my money, I had rather that we as architects prepare a thorough and complete set of construction and bid documents, then bid the project with 3 to 5 good GCs.  If we do our job right, there will be very few change orders and the change order prices will be reasonable.  I have not had a chance to do a CM at Risk project, but the structure of it doesn't sound much different than the contract structure we normally use when we are asked to perform an Architect lead DB project.

-------------------------------------------
Robert Smith AIA
Architect, AIA, LEED AP
Talley & Smith Architecture, Inc.
Shelby NC
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 11-22-2013 17:43
From: Ronald Geyer
Subject: Architect & Engineer Consultant Team vs. Design Build

I've found it useful to focus on the Owner values that drive the decision. DBB offers the most control over the design but sacrifices some control over the cost. DB communicates that the Owner's highest priority is cost control - for which he is willing to give up control of the design (if the mechanism is to deliver as promised). CM at Risk offers good balance of both benefit and cost. I sense that most other arguments, however accurate, sound a bit self-interested to our clients.

-------------------------------------------
Ronald Geyer AIA, NCIDQ
Principal
Good City Architects LLC
Greenville SC
-------------------------------------------