My approach to working with an architect was to hire one, but there are other ways to secure the services of a design professional.
De Facto Partnership
A de facto partnership is a relationship in which both the architect and the contractor have their own businesses. Each has his or her own contract with the homeowner, and there’s no umbrella agreement defining respective roles — just the separate contracts. In essence, it’s a three-way, equal partnership.
This arrangement works well only if the contractor and architect are used to working with each other and have a high level of mutual trust and confidence. They can solve problems and settle differences behind the scenes, then go to the homeowner with proposed solutions. They don’t force the client into a conflict resolution role. Clients are rarely qualified to arbitrate between a contractor and an architect and universally resent the requirement.
Roles and responsibilities. To get started, meet with one or two architects whom you respect and have worked well with in the past, and who seem open to the idea of designbuild. Spend some time talking about what’s gone well and what’s gone badly on past projects. Work out your respective roles and reciprocal responsibilities. Talk through some “what if” scenarios: for example, “What if, at the end of the design process, the client asks for names of other contractors?” “What if, after the preconstruction conference, the client asks if the architect really needs to put in any more billable hours during construction?” “What if the client turns out to be the type who wants to keep endlessly tweaking the design even after construction starts? How do we mutually deal with that?”
The primary goal of this relationship should be that, on appropriate new-client leads, the architect will say, “The only contractor I work with is Sue,” and the contractor will say, “The only architect I work with is Joe.”
The supporting goal is that both parties — architect and contractor — need to be fully committed to making the other look good, and to working hard to compensate for each other’s weaknesses. For example, if the contractor consistently underbudgets, the architect should insist on adding a larger contingency during the initial budget process. If the architect is prone to miss deadlines, the contractor should provide ample, gentle nudging for the architect and set realistic schedule expectations for the client.
But who’s accountable? De facto partnering was a good way for me to get my feet wet in design-build. My main reservation, however, is that this approach lacks the force of sole accountability for the success of the endeavor, as when the architect works for the contractor and vice versa. Assuming all responsibility for whether my company ultimately succeeds in its design-build services makes me vigilant as no other arrangement would.
Legal Partnership
A legal partnership takes the de facto partnership one step further and creates a single legal business entity with the contractor and architect as equal partners. But remember that more partnerships eventually dissolve than really take off. The success rate is lower than that of marriage and the cost of legal separation can be nearly as high.
Despite the risk, I like the symbolism of an equal builder-architect partnership. A contractor who teams up with an architect as an equal partner in a design-build firm is making a profound statement about his or her respect for good design.
Subcontractor
In another arrangement, either the architect hires the contractor or (more likely) the contractor hires the architect as a subcontractor. It’s similar to the traditional contractor-subcontractor relationship — including pertinent IRS implications — except the stakes are higher. If you think it’s hard replacing an electrician in the middle of a job, try replacing an architect. An underperforming plumber would have to be doing pretty serious damage to cause a client to defect; an underperforming architect, however, can easily lose you the whole job before you know it.
An advantage to having architects as subcontractors is that you can have a pool of architects to offer clients. A disadvantage is that the subcontractor architect may feel less loyalty to your company, and you may find yourself spending more time monitoring progress and maintaining accountability. It’s always essential to have a clear and written description of expectations and responsibilities, but it’s particularly important when dealing with a subcontractor architect. You also need a very clear policy about who gets to handle new client leads generated from jobs designed by subcontractor architects.
Note also that with an architect as a subcontractor (or employee, for that matter), your insurance picture may change. Consult your agent — you may need to pick up errors-and-omissions insurance.
Return to main article.
