My house renovation plan was designed by an architect and built by a friend of his who had a degree in architecture from a school in Europe but had never been registered to work as an architect in the States. The builder not only was a licensed general contractor but had also worked in our local county's building department. I had the added benefit of a husband who was a local building official. We all knew the building codes and how to adapt to them. This combination made it easy to make changes as we went along without having to run everything back to the original architect.

We've known people who had many problems with their construction project because the builder didn't follow the architect's plans and the architect didn't closely oversee the project.

I'd suggest interviewing everyone you think of hiring, check their references and whether any complaints have been lodged against them both locally and with the state, and ask how they handle changes to the plan as construction evolves.

It's easier for the homeowner to have everything done all by the same company. You don't need to stress about your builder not getting the latest plans from the architect because they work closely together.
-Angeline, GKB

Architect-bid vs Design-Build vs Build-Design

Always the issue! For me as a decades long design builder, the group that is going to execute the design and be involved with the client the most is the most critical.

Architect-Bid often assumes the critical differentiator between builder/remodeler is price. They also often assume that the client needs protection from the (implied) dishonest contractor. I submit that if there is a lack of trust, the client and the contractor shouldn’t be working together.

Build-Design – Buying the cheap (and/or inexperienced) design build firm often results in “build-design” – poorly planned and reactionary construction that can end up as a series of patches rather than a well-conceived and executed design and project

Design-Build – for me, marries both the worlds (design and construction). This requires a mutually respected team of a designer; a builder; and an owner. The team is fairly paid for their expertise and work and the client’s budget, wants and needs all get respected. Win-win-win!

I copied and pasted this from another recent post of mine:

Whether it's an architect or a designer or a design build firm is less important than getting someone who is creative. Plenty of architects out there I wouldn't trust to design a house for my dog as well as plenty of designers out there who think all "design" is, is being proficient in a CADD program. Same goes for design/build firms. Some are excellant but for others the word "design" is nothing more than a six letter marketing word painted on the side of their pick-up truck.

I've always been a big believer that the best designers are fast on their feet. In that regard look for somebody who will come out to your place, and over your dining room table, have a "real time" design session with you and any other decision maker to figure out what to do or develop several alternatives. I do these all the time. We measure the areas in question and with abundant bumwad, look at all possibilities. I call them "design charrettes" and some last several hours. And I'm not hyping myself here as these are highly interactive and dynamic so the only way I do them is face to face. And there are no spectators allowed in these as everybody's a participant.

Maybe what I'm recommending is easier said than done but hopefully it's a start. And the best of luck with your project. Exciting times!!

I just responded to a similar posted question. Here was my response:


Both methods have significant advantages and disadvantages which are way too long to discuss on this board. But here are some of the basics.

Design-build gets you working with the builder from the onset. That is a very good process since the builder can be very influential with the final product to your advantage. However, this method also, typically, locks in you to working with that builder, before you know the final cost of the home.

Having the plans designed by the architect first, allows you the flexibility to shop around using the plans for apples to apples comparison. This shopping process can help you decide which builder is right for you and potentially you will end up with a higher value (produce/service to price ratio) since you have several builders competing. However, since the architect is not a builder s/he may not have the projects financial interest at the forefront and the actual house can be designed to be more expensive to build.

If you can find a builder you want to work with, based on all the various criteria, and have them either perform a design build contract with you , or at least sit in with the architect (even if you have to pay them for their time before a contract is signed) that would be optimal.

Otherwise, you can always have the plans ready for bidding and once you decide on a builder be flexible enough to revise those plans if the builder gives you worthy feedback.

No matter what you do, hire a good local real estate attorney to review the contract with the builder!!! Don't skimp out on this step!!

Best of luck and success with your project.