We have been working with an architect on a conceptual design for a two phase building project on some lake property. Phase 1, which we hope to build in 2010, consists of a two bedroom cabin with a two car garage attached. Phase 2 makes this into our year round home with a significant addition and is at least 4 years out. We have been exploring three options for building… 1. The architect has a construction management service where they manage the project but are not the General Contractor. 2. A ‘briefcase’ general contractor that procures and manages sub-contractor. 3. A carpenter who helps coordinate other sub-contractors, but doesn’t act as the general contractor. Any bills that he receives are just passed through – no markup but only limited help as well. His team does the majority of the carpentry and concrete work. These are ordered in cost from most to least, although it’s difficult to get an apples to apples comparison. I’m looking to this group for pros / cons to the different aproaches. What should be the deciding factors that will help us choose one vs. another? Thanks in advance!
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
Learn more about the pros and cons of single-room ERVs.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Fine Homebuilding Magazine
Fine Home Building
Follow
-
Fine Homebuilding
Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial Now -
GBA Prime
Get instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial Now
- Home Group
- Antique Trader
- Arts & Crafts Homes
- Bank Note Reporter
- Cabin Life
- Cuisine at Home
- Fine Gardening
- Fine Woodworking
- Green Building Advisor
- Garden Gate
- Horticulture
- Keep Craft Alive
- Log Home Living
- Military Trader/Vehicles
- Numismatic News
- Numismaster
- Old Cars Weekly
- Old House Journal
- Period Homes
- Popular Woodworking
- Script
- ShopNotes
- Sports Collectors Digest
- Threads
- Timber Home Living
- Traditional Building
- Woodsmith
- World Coin News
- Writer's Digest
Replies
If you go with option #3, what that really translates into is that YOU are the GC. Yes, you can save money that way, but only if you are available 24/7 to actually oversee the project. Questions will arise about materials, placement of utilities and various fixtures, code compliances etc. Your carpenter friend is not going to make any big decisions because you are not giving him that authority. Basically, he reports to you, and so work will slow dow or stop anytime a decision is needed reagrding practically everything. So unless you are prepared to act in a GC capacity, #3 is a bad idea. Using #2, a briefcase GC is not so good either. What if the subs do shoddy work? Who you going after...the sub or the briefcase GC?
Best way to go here is with the architect as the project manager. After all, that is who you have been dealing with from the start and the Archy knows what you want and can act on your behalf. I'm sure a reputable architect can recommend several reputable general contractors. Let the architect manage the GC, and let the GC worry about the subs...cause in the end, the subs answer to the GC, the GC answers to the Architect, and the Architect answers to you. This way there is aclean chain of command. Your project will most likely get done the way you envisioned using this set-up. It may not, using the other two set-ups. Option 1 will be the most expensive...option 2, probably less expensive, and option 3 the least expensive. As for quality...option 1 should hit its mark. Option 2 may hit its mark, but that all depends on your chosen briefcase man. Unless you personally know someone who comes highly recommended in this capacity, and is insured, stay away from it. Option #3 will probably not hit its mark, cause you much delays and frustration, and possibly even cost you more money in the long run. It will also leave you the most vulnerable when it comes to rectifying any situations that may arise between your build and the subs.
Davo
It's too small a project to
It's too small a project to have an architect managing a contractor. Why don't you have a fourth option... hiring a "non-briefcase" general contractor who can take the plans and build it start to finish, using his own crew and hiring subs as needed? The architect remains available to resolve questions or add details where needed.
In this option, it's
In this option, it's important to the homeowner, that the architect makes site observation visits as the progress dictates. Not just a handfull of visits, but such that the architect, on the behalf of his clients, is able to view the construction is going according to the intent of the project and the Construction Documents.
Though not all architects provide such a service, it is invaluable if the architect is experienced in such a service. Though I am a more experience architect myself (I also mean agewise) it should be an educational requirement prior to getting licensed that all have a certain amount of on site observation experience, as well as experience in filing Field Reports.
I can't imagine having an
I can't imagine having an architect as a project manager. They don't always have field experience, and they don't have experience coordinating subs.
My vote would be what someone else suggested - Get a contractor to GC the job. Someone with a good reputation and a lot of experience.
Hire a "hands on" general contractor. That's by far your best option. You're just throwing money away otherwise.
Hiring a general for a development
Hi,
I have a situation in which i am developing a 44k sf retail plaza for a cleint. I have the contract however I do not have an employed PM yet. I was thinking of hiring a experianced PM with a license for the job and utilize his license. I am using his license to make sure he performs the project to the best of his ability. However I want the control to let him go if he starts trying to take to much control. Is there a contract out there that I can use that will give me the power to higher and fire at my discression. I am going to pay him a fixed fee with a bonus structure based on percentage of cost savings. Thanks
If the architect is not taking on a real responsibility, it's nice but it's not getting value IMO.
#2 as others said ... if this guy is a GC, then OK, but if 'briefcase' means he has limited responsibility, this would be a BAD IDEA.
If you feel like you want some hands on involvement and are able to do it, option #3 is great. But you have to be willing as others said to deal with decisions and coordination and getting bids, coordinating schedules. But that can be very satisfying being involved in your own house.
Thanks for the fast feedback, everyone!
I decided to avoid specifying the Pros and Cons as I see it... your responses align pretty well with my thoughts.
The main advantage of using the architect is the continuity, as Davo304 suggested. The concern is in their ability manage the subs. The job is an hour away from the architect's office (and my home / work) and I'm concerned about their ability to manage it at that distance.
Option #3 is the closest to what most of you are suggesting - a hands on GC... except that he's not a full blown GC. I really like the idea that he's on site frequently. I think he'll deal with many of the small issues and coordinate subs, but what I worry about is someone being responsible for the entire house. I'm an engineer by trade and what I feel is lacking is a 'Systems Engineer' - the person who makes sure everything comes together for now and the future. I think this individual will help with this, but I would have to fill some gaps. And while I know some things about building, my knowledge and time are limited.
I'm wondering if I can work some sort of a combination of #1 and #3. The architect helps me with some up front 'systems engineering' with the carpenter and me engaged. Then when it comes time to build, I depend on #3 and myself while pulling the architect in if needed.
The 'briefcase GC' isn't a bad option either as he is pretty hands on. He also is an hour away, but I think he would do a better job of managing the project as he's done jobs in the area of my project than the architect. What I don't like is a relative lack of transparency in all of the costs and some redundancy in his team with the architect (he has in house designer / interior design).
The good news is that I've done some work with all three and feel they all would be good choices.
Any more insight into this follow up would be appreciated. Thanks again!
DFros, have you narrowed your options down to only the three options you mentioned? I'm wondering why you don't add the option like the others where saying with the hands on GC. There are plenty of contractor out there that work that way. I would think that your architect would even be able to suggest one to you. Or do you only want to work with these 3 specific ppl?
Hi wardy - I have narrowed it down to these three. I've either worked with or have good references for all three and I think they represent the gamut of choices... almost. I don't have a fourth option with as strong of a reference available and I don't know if I want to add another variable to the mix.
Depending on where you're
Depending on where you're building option 3 may work well. It just depends on the local labor pool and your knowledge of them.
I just finished helping one of the gals at work, do a remodel on a 70's Ranch style she bought. I did a building inspection with her when she was looking at the house, and she paid one of the local carpenter / jack of all trades guys she knew from church to do a list of what would need fixed, and what materials it would take to do the remodel.
She hired him to run the project and function as her super / foreman, on an hourly basis. She paid him, his helpers, and the specialty trades directly.
He did the work of lining up most the subs, and scheduling them, and did the materials lists. (I lined up the guy to do the site work, new sewer lateral, landscaping, and concrete work.) She ordered that materials, delivered to the site, picked the fixtures, paints, and floor coverings herself, and got them to the site to meet his schedule.
He would call me when her questions, about how and why started to get too intense, and I would go walk the job with her, and reassure her that everything was fine and how it was supposed to be. Or, set her down in front of her computer, and log onto the online version of FHB, so she could read articles on what was going on and help her learn how things should be done.
We finished up this month, and everything went well.
Jigs - how were you compensated for your time?
Dfros:
If you have a budget for this project you need a GC to control costs. The architect won't do that vigilantly and if you put yourself in a situation where you are hiring subs and pulling permits you will own ultimate responsibility for the project and the budget. It will be your money that will be wasted when you go over there and see 40 pieces of siding laying in the mud, or a stack of drywall that didn't get put in the house out of the rain becuase no one was there who cared. It will be your money wasted when a final inspection gets performed and the stair head height is 1" too short and $1,000 worth of work has to get ripped out.
If you get a set price from a GC, that will be the price, baring change orders, etc. RE: "What I don't like is a relative lack of transparency in all of the costs" Yea - well that is part of it. He will mark up labor and material because that is how he makes a living. You don't really need to know how much because you get a final price - that is what you want to know - isn't it? The thing is he will likely get better prices on both materials and subs so it will come out somewhere near even except he will have the headaches of any problems that occur - and problems will come up, and he will own ultimate responsibility. There will be less wasted time, materials, money - that is how he earns his keep. If stuff is wasted it will be his stuff since you are just paying one price. Oh - and far less of your time will be expended too.
Matt -
Thanks for your feedback... I do see where you are coming from with the GC taking ownership of the project. There definitely does seem like reduction in risk with this approach.
I'm wondering what you think of the following article: https://www.finehomebuilding.com/how-to/departments/commentary/a-contract-that-makes-everybody-happy.aspx. The author advocates a "cost plus a fixed fee" approach. This is basically what the architect is proposing in his construction management approach. All sub-contractor bids go through him as well as the billing - with me reviewing both. If what they are telling me is true (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), then there will be a strong focus on cost control - and I will know exactly what I'm paying for.
But I would like your take on "cost plus fixed fee" vs. "fixed price" vs. "time and materials".
Thanks!
dfros... it's a small job..
dfros... it's a small job.. the architect should be able to convey exactly what he and you have designed
a good GC should be able to execute the design with no further input from the architect
if there are questions , then the architect can make a field visit and answer the questions..
i would not let the architect be the PM.. his liability is the the design.. if he wants ownership of the construction liability, then he should be doing design / build
suppose a sub fails to execute ? who makes good ? the architect ? no way.. he's just going to point the finger and let you chase the sub
you need someone who accepts the responsibility to exectue the contract
( man , these reply boxes are dumberendogshit )
DFros,
Maybe I missed something, but, I'd assume you have a budget, and that you want to stick to it. I don't see any reason for any of your three "options" to do that.
I'd get a spec sheet together. Should be easy if the architect has covered all the bases. Put it out for bids from GCs, and get a REAL price. Then get a contract.
I read you're an engineer, and understand your micro managing fetish LOL... but, it's only going to take longer to finish your project, and cost you more. Would you hire an architect to do your beam calcs? This is a good place to get the right tool for the job.
With respect to bringing in the architect as needed, this would be a disservice to you and a liability issue for the architect. The architect can only comment and maybe catch on what he/she observes. Sometimes, it's too late to catch something prior to going wrong and all of a sudden you have finger pointing. Your best interest is to have the architect involved from day one, making site observation visits on your behalf and representing your best interests. Otherwise, put your faith in the carpenter/Gc and hope for the best, and adjust or correct as it occurs.
Heres my 2 cents worth.
You are having to compromise what you want because of the people you are comfortable working with.
Problem is that you could get something great or aweful from your 3 scenarios. In my area most architects cant get out of their own way in regards to actually building. They also over engineer most of the house in my area. I work with the client to value engineer the house for their needs, wants, desire, and budget. (and then deal with the permit process and redline the plans for the inspection agency(I have an engineering background as well so am comfortable with doing such, but any seasoned builder should be able to value engineer with you as well))
Your carpenter guy might be great but you would need to bid out all of the trades and make sure that you have all your costs bid and priced prior to start and then find a way to incentivise him to stay within budget. Problem is if a carpenter doesnt have the experience, there will be items that are not clearly called out and you will end up having trip charges or extras from contractors due to lack of clarity, etc.
Some examples: Exhaust fans: who supplies? Electrician and HVAC guy could or your could (nightmare if you are an hour away)
Extra materials or shorted materials: who will go pick them up so the contractor who needs them can finish that day and not charge you for the extra trip?
Who schleps around the temporary propane tanks and manages the winter heat?
The builder option is a nice one since a builder "owns" the job as Dave M initailly pointed out and has to execute per the agreement.
p.s. Did the architect provide specifications for the job? If not, it will be very challenging. If so, did you review the specs and are you happy with them.
good luck
JeffinPa-
Good input.. more than 2 cents!
"Did the architct provide specifications for the job?" I'm not sure how to answer that as I'm not sure to what detail of specifications I should expect or that you mean. We've only done "conceptual design", which to my architect primarly means to-scale drawings of the floor plan and elevations for both phases of the project. No specific materials or products have been spec'd. I most definitely have reviewed these and the contractors that I've had do preliminary bids have been able to work off these with a few questions.
What detail is needed to ensure this isn't 'very challenging'?
Thanks!
Here's a sample of what we
Here's a sample of what we work with:
Thanks!
Your option #3 even with a 15% mark-up is going to cost you less than the other 2 options. most architects are not in the business of building homes. and if they are you better have deep pockets
find a reputable artisan contractor.
you should be able to search this site for information about "cost plus" araingements.
DFros:
If ever there were a case for hiring a reputable GC, yours is it. First is the distance involved and second is your engineering background. You need to keep yourself away, really. I'm licensed to GC in Michigan, but don't and engineers are only slightly more suspect than lawyers in my book, no offense.
Stop and think about the leverage you have with trades, which is none. Yeah, you're giving some plumber a nice contract. How much more work are you going to supply him? Little, and he knows it. He can afford to piss you off. The GC who gives him a hundred grand a year in business? No way on earth is he rocking that boat.
You don't cut your own hair or pull your own teeth. Why do you believe you can GC?
I'm willing to bet you can't do it as cheaply as a reputable GC, if you calculate the value of your time and your sleep.
Good luck,
Kowboy
One thing you did not mention is how this project is being funded. A construction loan is usually dispersed by "draws" for work completed. Someone on site managing the project should move your project along in a timely manner. Constuction loans usually have a completion date or a renewal, re; "fees". I'd be surprised in todays lending atmosphere that you would be able to secure a loan without a contractor. If you're paying out of pocket, this isn't an issue.
Thanks for the additional comments, everyone. They've been great comments, although I'm still stinging from the comment about engineers being in the same league as lawyers (no offense, Kowboy :-)). To be clear, I wasn't trying to sign up to do the full GC work in any of the three cases.. but I would ultimately be contractually bound to the subs in two of the three.
There will be financing involved and I've only had preliminary conversations with my banker, but I didn't get the impression that the length of the construction loan was going to be an issue (but maybe I didn't get the full story on the "fees"). That said, I do want to get this thing built in a timely manner and as planned.
Most of the feedback is to get a GC and have him do what he does best - fewer risks and headaches for me. This makes sense and is the way we're currently headed.
Dfross:
I just now saw your question, what with this wonderful new format and all...
You said: I'm wondering what you think of the following article: https://www.finehomebuilding.com/how-to/departments/commentary/a-contract.... The author advocates a "cost plus a fixed fee" approach.
Without actually reading the article, the problem with a cost plus arangement is that the GC/PM/etc doesn't have as much interest in controlling costs.
>>>the problem with a cost plus arangement is that the GC/PM/etc doesn't have as much interest in controlling costs
I suppose that may be true... or maybe not... but if it implies that a fixed price arrangement is better than cost plus that's DEFINITELY not always the case.
Some of the projects my clients want are well-defined and won't have many surprises. I usually estimate very carefully and then commit myself to a fixed price contract with allowances as appropriate. The costs that come in during the job are generally what I expect, and while "controlling" them is a small part of the project management scenario, they are mostly predetermined and there isn't that much to control unless you're some sort of cheap corner-cutting loser.
Other projects are not well defined and/or the owner is going to make a lot of changes during the job. These are cost-plus-fixed-fee jobs. Believe me, I am every bit as motivated to produce the job for a very reasonable cost, there is absolutely no advantage to me in letting costs run up, it just invites conflict with the owner and dirties my reputation. There's always at least a rough budget in place with these jobs anyway.
I always work on a time and materials basis. You can't do a proper job on high end work any other way.
When a job is strictly on a bid there is always a tendency on the part of the contractor to cut costs. I mean think about it, if you see yourself losing your a** on one aspect of the project you're going to figure out a way to do it for less. This leads to quality control problems.
Also, change orders and consequent billing are a potential nightmare and often times a major point of contention.
The motivation for getting the job done in a cost plus situation is entirely internal. Either you're a stand up guy or you're not.
Basically, the whole deal amounts to trust on the part of the client and the contractor.
Bringing an architect into the mix makes absolutely no sense at all. They simply don't have anything valuable to add to the construction phase of the project, unless of course, the builder is way out of his depth. In this case you're screwed no matter what happens.
Find a good builder via word of mouth and go for it.
By the way, as for the "engineer" problem, I work for engineers all the time and I find that they make great clients. They are smart enough to appreciate quality.
I think there is a small problem thinking there are clearly distinct types of GC's. We are as varied as are our clients.
There is no doubt in my mind that you simply need a GC who works well with your architect and yourselves. The architect designs and the GC should build. You have a small project and it should be quite transparent so all parties can easily see what's going on and problems can be easily solved between the three parties.
No offense, but as an engineer you may not be viewing this process from the most beneficial perspective--it's a function of the way most engineers approach problems--there's nothing wrong with you're natural first response to this situation. I say this not to put down engineers--some of my best friends and most valuable professional contacts are engineers--but to suggest that a more organic and less rigid decision structure will produce an end result that best meets your long-term needs.
If I were in your shoes I'd want a small GC who works hands on and is sharp enough to not only translate the architects plans into a building, but to fully think through the design and suggest changes that will bolster the design and make the additional work in your second phase as seamless as possible.
I have yet to work on a set of residential plans that can't be improved upon in small ways the architect either hasn't thought of or that are based on my personal strengths. Often plans are somewhat dumbed down because not all GC's or carpenters are good at all types of construction.
For example steel beams may be an ideal solution from a technical perspective but if the guy installing them isn't up to speed rather than a best practice it's just a new problem that has to be worked around reducing options, possibly increasing costs and reducing quality.
Another example is a simpson hanger I ran into that was specified on the plans that worked perfectly but happened to be almost the most expensive bracket simpson makes at nearly $600. The hanger I suggested (architect and engineer aproved) and a simple notch in one beam where it crosses another beam met the same load requirements and was less than $50.
Anytime there is a second phase to a project I'm concerned where the old meets the new. I may build a very straight structure with best practices and meeting the architects plans while making the most of bells and whistles to make the second phase work out as good as possible, but if the guy who ends up building the second phase doesn't understand or use what I've left him rather than a better solution all my extra work has just turned into extra cost without extra benefit. What comes to mind is stubbing out and properly protecting rebar loops to simplify tying the addition's foundation to the original structure. If the next guy drills and simply sets rebar stubs without using the loops he will meet the specifications and pass the rebar inspection but it's not the same. There are probably 20 such situations in a simple two phase project.
Don't think building is rocket science, but also realize a little common sense goes a long way.
In a general sense as long as the budget is important I'm usually in favor of putting more of the responsibility of a good outcome on the carpenters/GC's and less on the more expensive option utilizing the architect's or project manager's time. For every additional $1k spent on oversite what are you giving up in the actual house?
Hire a sharp architect who works well with a sharp hands on GC and you get the best of both worlds!
I would send the architect down the road as soon as you get the permit. You only need the architect to clarify the occasional plan detail once in a while.
Unless it is a big job you should not need a project manager. If it is a big job then the project manager should be working for the GC.
Hire a good GC. Research his history and look at his work. You should like his style before you sign the bottom line. Unless you are a proficient builder or a contractor yourself then I would not recommend the owner builder route.
Ok, this is coming from an architect that also happens to have done a lot of building over the years.
Get a "hands on" GC to build the thing. Don't know about your guy but most architects don't really know much about building. Your guy may be like me but most likely not.
But on the other hand, when there's the inevitable design change in mid project, large or small, don't hesitate to call the architect up for his/her imput. Most builders don't like that too much as they'd rather to quickly talk over options with you and get a quick decision. It's the old "Time is money" thing. Short term thinking over what it's going to look like forever.
Keep in mind that while most designers aren't builders, the reverse is also true, most builders aren't designers although the term "Design/Build" is plastered to a lot of construction companies vehicles. In most cases the "Design" part is just a six letter marketing term.
I'm speaking broadly of course but given the averages, use your guys for what they do best.
Doug