Reply to Interviewing design & build firms for doing extensive renovations

Forum Index » Real Estate

Reply to "Interviewing design & build firms for doing extensive renovations"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Builder-man here...

main feedback is hire who you trust and if you can't trust the allowances then you perhaps you should not trust the contractor.

And, I do get tired of hearing Architects marketing that they need to manage the bid process (for a fee) and the builder because the builder will cut corners. Managing the bid process is an income stream for them; having to redesign because of designs that exceed budget is an income stream; and managing construction is an income stream.

They should sell their value; not that the client needs protection from a builder who will cut corners. Well, who was paid to manage a competitive bid situation ? Who is making it about lowest dollars. You didn't hire architect based on low bid, why should you hire builder ? And you don't think that their buddies don't get last look ? BS. Happens all the time...

If they had any balls they would just do design build themselves - but ask of any of them and they will tell you the building part is a pain in the ass. So they don't want to do it but they begrudge the builder making money on their plans. In truth, we should go back to the master builder concept that existed before architects separated from builders. And that is why Design Build is actually superior. You get a better product, because a master builder takes it from design to implementation. So me, personally, I would go Design Build every day. And that's from a builder....[/quote]

Yes & No (again)... we had a good architect and a good contractor.  It was worth it for us to have someone who knew more than I do as the arbiter of what can be substituted and can be changed and what can't...  Construction oversight fees from architect were not that much in the scheme of things and definitely ensured that a few things were re-done or caught early (even with a quality builder with integrity).  We had no redesigns because of exceeding budget and no change orders due to errors or oversight by either architect or contractor.

We had no serious issues to resolve because architect, builder and we were on top of things and coordinating and communicating from start to finish.

I respect your experience but I don't believe that you or any particular builder are the sole authority who I want to trust with a couple/few hundred thousand $ of work where it's builder's view vs. mine.  I want an experienced second opinion, in this case, the architect.  Some things they raised we said were not an issue and were fine or we worked out between the builder, architect and us.  Others we asked the builder to rethink or stick to original plan.

Your last point assumes -- again, with respect to your experience --  that you, or any particular builder are, in fact, a "Master Builder."  Since there is no such certification or guarantee, your point is a good one in theory but it's not realistic to think it will fit all builders and all situations in the real world (IMO/ IME).

If I was a builder I would agree with you 100%.  As a customer/owner, I've seen the value of having the oversight of an architect working with a quality builder (remembering that "value" does not mean "cheapest price.").   :idea: [/quote]
Builder here - you seem like a good client and I like your point about a built in arbitrator. And my point about the Master Builder may have been misconstrued. In all actuality the Master Builder would be the architect not the builder in today's terms. As with most fields construction went through specialization and as part of that design was separated from production. I personally do think that was the best path; so my comment was not that I am a master builder but rather that we should still have that construct.
My frustration that you witnessed is how the architects, especially today, position their services. They should position it in terms of aesthetics, knowledge, and quality of drawings. I know a lot of very smart architects. But invariably for the most part they sell their value as being required to supervisor the builder lest they cut corners. Well, they  set up a competitive bid process that rewards disingenuous behavior. More guys have stayed home because they gave a customer an honest assessment than have won the work. And that fosters an environment of either change orders or a cut in the overall finished product. But architects love the bid process - it is a significant source of income, makes the contractors beholden to them for work (ask an architect for a sketch one time and see how they feel about free services), and if they price is too high the construction drawings normally don't get completed so builders are motivated to keep initial estimates low. to  So, my take is that they should compete for the whole process on their abilities not the need to police errant contractors.

And the irony is alot of qualified builders, in normal times, won't play - they don't bid so in reality the home owner is not drawing from the complete pool of applicants.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics