I used a design build firm, for many of the same reason you mentioned, and because they were casual friends.

I am doing a beachhouse project now and specifically AVOIDING all design-build firms.

Here's why. Even people who build more than one home are still neophytes. GC's can screw over homeowners so many ways and we are none the wiser (and my DH and I are in finance and law, respectively, very organized, very involved, very anal). But we had our eyeballs ripped out.

This time, I want my architect, not just to create plans, but to create budgets and oversee the GC. I want the architect to be in my corner representing my interests vis the GC. I want him to treat it as if we were overseeing his own home, and I will pay him/her to do so.

If the GC and the architect are the same, the only one representing your interests is you, and you lack the expertise to do that effectively, unless you already are a GC or architect, in which case I'm sure you wouldn't have posted!

Of course everyone's experience may differ, but in my market, NYC metro area, GC's are disproportionately sharks. Apologies to the exceptions.

The primary advantage of independently hiring an architect rather than hiring a Design-Build firm is that the architect will act as your agent/representative throughout the project and try to protect your interests. That is not really possible if the architect is working for the builder or acting as the builder.

In the past, architects have been required by law to avoid conflicts of interest but that has slowly changed over the last 20 years especially for single family homes that don't require a license to design.

Personally, I would never be able to sign a professional design service contract if I had any other interest in the project whatsoever and I have never known an architect who felt differently.

Just to be safe you should verify online the license of the architect who is offering to design and build your house. If you use him be sure to use a well established Design-Build contract form so the overlap of responsibilities is clear and that the architect is not acting in any professional capacity as your agent or consultant.

Good comments above, worth serious consideration.

Design-build firms, particularly those that are owned by an architect, do offer the advantage of early expense management by virtue of their construction experience and contacts with suppliers and tradespeople.

The fact that this firm is using AIA documents (even older ones) is also a good sign of the use of construction industry standard business procedures.

The real challenge of using design-build firms is what has been stated above: there is no one to represent the owner's interests and advise the owner impartially. A design-build firm will look after their own interests as a matter of staying in business.

I'd look closely at this firm's references and get first-hand comments from past clients before making a decision.

Good luck on your project!

mtnrdredux, Renovator8, Mr. Carter, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question, your replies were very helpful.

Point taken about verifying licenses and references. We have done both. We are presently trying to contact clients not on the list. But even if they check out, I agree, the issue of impartial representation remains.

Is there a reason a design-build would prefer the A191 1996 contracts over the more recent A141 2004 replacement?

The answer is not simple; first you need to understand the nature of an AIA Design-Build contract where an architect is involved back when A191 was first written.

Difficult professional licensing and insurance issues arose when an architectural firm wanted to provide design and construction services for a project. Therefore, the architectural firm usually formed a separate Design-Build firm entity which entered into an AIA B901 contract with the architectural firm and an AIA A491 contract with a construction company. Then the Design-Build firm would enter into an AIA A191 contract with the Owner.

An AIA A191 contract between an Owner and a Design-Build firm consists of 2 separate contracts called "PART 1 - Preliminary Design & Budgeting" and "PART 2 - Final Design & Construction". At the completion of Part 1 the Design-Build firm would submit a design and price proposal to the Owner and if it was accepted they would enter into the Part 2 contract.

There are other forms of Design-Build contracts but this is the way the AIA does it because they assume the architect will be taking the lead role in the design process.

Why AIA A141 might be preferred is more difficult to explain. First you must understand that these contracts are written for projects larger projects where final design and site observation is required to be provided by an architect but an experienced Owner might want someone working for them in the preliminary design stage.

Into the A191 format AIA A141 introduces a "Consultant" hired by the Owner to provide assistance during the preliminay design phase in addition to the Architect hired by the Design-Build firm. This allows the Consultant to not be an architect and work directly for the Owner and for the product of the early design work to belong to the Owner instead of the Architect thereby allowing the Owner to take that work elsewhere if no agreement can be reached for the Part 2 contract.

I suppose there are other reasons for using A141 but this is all I know since I have always worked for Owners.

AIA A141 has also allows other forms of contractor compensation like "Cost of the Work Plus a Fee" and other kinds of dispute resolution.

How separate are independent architects and builders? It seems architects work with the same limited group of builders - maybe 4 to 6 of which they'll recommend 2 or 3 to bid on a project. They are working with the same builders over and over and may not be as impartial as it would seem?

True, JSfox. On one hand, you probably don't want an architect and a builder who have never even met before. But you don't want your architect to be an employee of the builder either, IMHO. It's a balance ...

J, in my experience the best balance and partnership on a construction project are an owner, architect and builder who are all seperate business entities, but who are used to and have a track record of successfully working with one another (or similar entities) on a regular basis.

In my experience, I would not be inclined to work with a business entity where architects and builders are on the same business payroll. Too much opportunity for conflict of interest, putting their interests ahead of the owner's. Not all such firms operate in this manner, to be sure. But it's almost impossible for an owner to seperate them all out from the exterior.

And I would be even less inclined to work with a builder who does not have a successful history of working with architects on custom-design projects. The last thing an owner seeking a custom home needs is a chain-saw spec house builder who abhors detailed construction drawings and specifications prepared by an architect, who will also be representing the owner during the bidding and construction phase.

There are all sorts of situations out there in the residential construction world and the goal should be to find folks who have a track record of successfully working with others in a team setting.

Good luck on your project.

Using an architect and builder who have not worked on a project together before should not be a problem if both are competent and if the builder is accustomed to working this way.

In my recent experience I have found that a very great problem can arise when a Design-Build company works from documents prepared by an Owner's architect. Such builders are accustomed to working from a vague list of features with little or no technical specifications and therefore feel they can substitute materials and systems and even modify structural elements without the approvals required by a standard Owner-Contractor contract.

Such companies sometimes fail to submit steel shop drawings, window and door orders and even cover up critical work like the bottom of an excavation or a structural beam without notice.

Most of the municipalities in my area require an architect or engineer to submit an affidavit of compliance for all structural work not covered in the building code (for which a building inspector is not qualified by state law to approve). When builders cover this work up before an architect or engineer can see it, the owner cannot get a Certificate of Occupancy. This has happened to me twice in the past 18 months. Presumably a Design-Build company would have an engineer available to them who would certify the structural elements without visiting the site.

Someday I will make a list of the errors, discrepancies, and code violations I have seen on residential construction sites so those of you who believe an architect is not needed for a private residence can adjust your thinking to the real world.

R8, thank you for taking the time to explain the differences between the earlier and later AIA contracts... much appreciated.

Thank you all for your comments. We're in very early stages of arch/builder search. One of our favorite houses turned out to have been built by an architect/build firm (owner is AIA) which makes decisions a bit tougher.