Anonymous wrote:If your architects are proposing to charge you 12-15% of the estimated construction cost of the project, then they absolutely should be involved throughout the project. Typically, owner and contractor sign the standard AIA contract. At predefined stages in the project, the contractor submits request for payment to the architect, who then either approves it and passes it to the owner for payment, or issues a notice to the contractor to correct defects.

Most contracts will also include a retainage percentage which is a percentage (~5%) of payment that is held pack until the final punch list is complete. This gives the contractor a substantial incentive not to let the project linger after substantial completion but before final punch list items are resolved.

I've always been leery of design/build firms as it seems to introduce a fox/hen house issue.

What do you do for a living ?

It is also possible to find flat fee architects. That may be a way to save a little, but have the best of both worlds.

There have been many threads about design-build vs architect route, I would encourage some searching. I don't think it is worth re-hashing that debate here.

As to comp, it varies widely between firms. Architect fees are typically 7-8% for "average" projects, and 10-12% for "luxury" projects. Keep in mind average here means luxury anywhere else, and luxury means $2 million+ construction costs. These fees should be all-inclusive of pre-design, design, final plans, and construction oversight.

Design-Build firms charge less for plans, but also charge markups and profits within the construction contract (much like a GC). DB also usually charges the fees based on total DB budget, which often includes items not included in a standard GC arrangement (like interior design, owner-supplied materials, items exceeding allowances.)

That said, DB is almost always less expensive than an architect. In cases where the design aspect is somewhat limited (i.e. easy additions, build from mostly developed plans, off the shelf drawings) it is usually the most efficient way to go. In cases where you are building a true custom home, or integrating an older house into a new addition, or seeking a much stronger design aesthetic, an architect may be worth paying extra for. Each way has its advantages and disadvantages, but that is most of the difference in a nutshell.

Architects absolve themselves of responsibility once they had you the plans. Of course you can pay them again for consulting but they design things and have nothing to do with quality control.

This isn't actually the case - it depends on the contract you have with the architect. If you choose, you can hire an architect to design and prepare the construction drawings only - but you can also hire them for the construction administration part of the project. This is where they are your advocate, making sure the builder and subcontractors are following the plans and specifications. They don't supervise the contractor, but more ensure that they use the materials and methods that are specified and don't cut corners.

The benefit of design build is one stop shopping, which can cut costs and construction time - But you do lose some design control as well as having an independent architect acting as your agent.

If your architects are proposing to charge you 12-15% of the estimated construction cost of the project, then they absolutely should be involved throughout the project. Typically, owner and contractor sign the standard AIA contract. At predefined stages in the project, the contractor submits request for payment to the architect, who then either approves it and passes it to the owner for payment, or issues a notice to the contractor to correct defects.

Most contracts will also include a retainage percentage which is a percentage (~5%) of payment that is held pack until the final punch list is complete. This gives the contractor a substantial incentive not to let the project linger after substantial completion but before final punch list items are resolved.

I've always been leery of design/build firms as it seems to introduce a fox/hen house issue.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it is absolutely valuable. We are just finishing a design build process, and I WISH we had used an architect. Instead the quality control has been done by US. We've had to learn all about construction and required things to be redone several times. The design build firm also missed things that I am sure an architect would not have done. If I had to do it again I would definitely have used an architect.

Architects absolve themselves of responsibility once they had you the plans. Of course you can pay them again for consulting but they design things and have nothing to do with quality control.

Yes, it is absolutely valuable. We are just finishing a design build process, and I WISH we had used an architect. Instead the quality control has been done by US. We've had to learn all about construction and required things to be redone several times. The design build firm also missed things that I am sure an architect would not have done. If I had to do it again I would definitely have used an architect.

We have talked to a handful and so far we've got to very wide ranges - the design build firms are all in the 7% or 8% range. The architects are in the 12% range.

Can anyone guess at the difference? Why would a design build firm charge less (do they just assume they'll make it up on the construction?). I assume the extra 4 or 5% you pay for an architect is that you get an independent third party to oversee the entire build process (as opposed to hoping the design build firm does a good job). That seems valuable, I just dont know that its necessarily 4%+ valuable.