I was recently asked to write a debate article for Church Solutions magazine on churches hiring an Architect versus hiring a Design-Build contractor. Their column is entitled ‘Sound-Off’, and a design-builder will be writing a counterpoint article. Having worked previously for a large design-build company, I saw first hand many of the down-sides for a client by taking this approach. It may have been fine when we were building a basic 250,000 s.f. industrial building, but the complexities of most churches today warrants a much greater involvement by the architect, and advocacy for the church’s needs throughout the process. The yet-to-be-edited article follows.  

There are several ways that a church can contract for building construction. In the construction industry, these are referred to collectively as ‘project delivery methods’. Two approaches that most churches are familiar with are competitive bidding and design-build. Considering these as the only two options for project delivery, many design-build contractors characterize the way architects work as “design-bid-build”.  They cite the downfall of this approach as “an architect Designs everything you want, but you don’t know how much it will cost to build until after bidding-out their very expensive plans, when you realize that you can’t afford it”.  While their criticism may be valid at times, this over simplification may prevent a church from seeing the significant value gained by hiring an architect from the onset. This characterization also obscures another project delivery option available to a church, which may in fact be a better way to build.

When a church hires a Design-Builder, they are first and foremost hiring a builder who agrees to build for the project for a pre-determined cost. The design-builder contracts the many trades needed for the project, and they also hire or otherwise make arrangements for an architect. (A licensed architect is needed to provide plans necessary to obtain building permits.) They may also facilitate or contract-out other aspects of the project, such as the municipal approval process (a process otherwise often led by the architect). For the design-builder to be able to deliver the building for the pre-determined cost, the church gives up control over many decisions. The church trades-off the risk of cost over-runs for the risk of an end-product that does not serve them best over the long run. Examples of this include products that do not stand-up to the heavy use a building sees over time, less expensive heating and air cooling systems that use substantially more energy, and accumulation of significant building code and construction issues that can interfere with future expansion.

Planning with future growth in view is one of many advantages gained by hiring an architect. Most architects are also master planners. Master planning includes analyzing the development potential of a property and relating it to growth trends in the church. Architects are professionally trained to do this, whereas most design-builders are not. By developing a phased master plan, the building placement on the site and the type of construction used will allow the church facility to grow in an organized manner over time. Hiring an architect from the onset can also give a church plenty of price protection.  To address concerns about cost overruns, the standard AIA Agreement used by most architects requires the design conform to the church’s approved budget. In fact, if the project is bid-out competitively and comes in over budget, the architect is often responsible to redesign it to the budget at no cost to the church! Competitive bidding of a good set of plans does insure that the church gets what they want for the best price. During construction, the architect serves as the church’s watch dog, reviewing the work for quality and conformity. This is not only in the church’s interest, but the architect’s as well, whose liability lasts long after the contractor has left the project. (The typical liability period for a contractor or design-builder is only one year, whereas the architect’s liability lasts up to 20 years in some states!) Under a standard AIA Agreement, the architect is legally designated to decide on any claims that the contractor may have for additional costs or change orders, protecting the church from any unscrupulous contractors. These are benefits that a church misses out on when going design-build. But it is not to suggest that conventional competitive-bid is the best method of project delivery.

The project delivery method we advocate most often involves hiring first the architect as master-planner and designer (allowing the church to get full value from their selection of an architect), and making an early selection of a construction manager to provide cost control and build the project. We require that all parties work open-book with an agreed upon percentage fee. When the design has been developed to the point that the construction manager is confident of the costs, a not-to-exceed contract for the construction is executed, with any savings belonging to the church. This approach fosters unity, removing the perception of conflicting interests and mirroring the unity expressed in Hebrews 11:10. This team approach provides the best opportunity for quality design, price assurance and accountability. By the inclusion of three parties, it becomes a system of checks and balances, preventing one party from having all the power, which is often the case with the design-build approach.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS