Design-build firms are a blend between independent architects/designers and independent builders.

Keep in mind there is no free lunch. If something seems too good to be true, it probably is. Design-build is simply another business model, which to stay in business must remain profitable.

Keep in mind the contractual interests. A contract with an architect means the owner is the architect's client and the owner's interests are the architect's only interest.

Contacting with a design-build firm or a builder/general contractor means that the design-build firm or builder/general contractor are first and foremost looking after their own interests, not the owner's.

Even when design-build firms separate their work with two separate contracts for design and construction, the design work will inherently be tailored to the construction preferences and practices of the construction arm of the firm.

So one must do a great deal of due diligence to ensure both the design experience and skill are appropriate for the owner's needs and wishes, as well as the construction experience and skill are appropriate.

Good luck with your project.

A teardown is likely cheaper. The most expensive projects result from trying to mesh old and new. And they are never as nice a result as all new.

This sounds like a really tough project. Have you hired a designer to assist in the design along with an architect? I would really think this through. There is a huge problem I see with two separate contracts. Finger pointing. Too much ability to blame the "other guy" for problems. Hard enough with a general contractor and architect plus designers, both overall and specialities like Kitchen Designer. I commend you for asking about this process now, because it can help you avoid terrible headaches down the road. Good luck. btw, unless there is some very strong reason to not do a teardown, I wouldn't advice this at all.

When we were deciding if we would purchase a home that could be added on to or a tear down we interviewed a few design build firms. The one we went with is actually design/build but we chose our own designer. They had no concerns adding a floor and reconfiguring main. It’s very common here in Vancouver. We did end up going with new build but it was because the house we bought wasn’t salvageable. I think having design/build has huge benefits of continuity and everyone being on same page from the start.

Of course you will have to pay for the design IMO get an architect get the design you want and then look for a builder , your architect probably knows a few. I think the big drwback would be that they will quote low for the build you won’t be a ble to beat it so you sign the contract and then oops cost over runs forever. BTW when getting to the contract get a lawyer experienced in build contracts to check it over . As a client you have so many responsiblilities to be aware of. If something is not spelled out in the contacr and it pops up smoehere that is the first oops.

Whichever way you choose to go, plan for and expect a 20% cost overrun.

I do find it a bit strange that a design-build firm would allow you to use your own contractor. Are you sure this isn’t just a design firm with a preferred contractor? We are not insured to operate as a build firm, but we do offer contractor/ builder recommendations and for new construction, offer a discounted rate if they use one of our preferred builders. But our clients still contract directly with the builder, again for insurance and/or liability reasons. If we were a true design-build firm, we would not take the risk of working with inferior contractors.

I don't think it's so much a "protection" thing, as it is whose best interest comes first. A design-build firm will always have one eye on how easy things are for them to accomplish. An independent architect will be more prone to advocate for his or her client's best interest - even if it requires the builder to put in a bit more effort.

It doesn't always even have to be conscious. We are prone to taking the path of least resistance, without even realizing it. Sometimes it's good to have another perspective.

But an architect may also design something that isn't realistic in terms of engineering, building code, or cost to build that product. There are flaws everywhere in every field and how they are related to one another. The only one looking out for the homeowner is the homeowner. Everyone else is looking out for their bottom line and what they will accomplish.

I have posted this before, and I am sorry about posting it again. This is when I get to put on my little professor hat so deal with it...

Design-build firms are nothing more than backward or forward integration in the value chain. Their operation isn't unusual at all and their advantages and disadvantages are about as mysterious as a well lit room.

All design-build firms must have value chain synergy, they will fail and break apart without it. In other words, there must be some mechanism for creating value above what the architect and builder could create separately.

This synergy is easy to spot in design-build firms. The design process is more likely to produce designs that the builder has some competence with, which should result in cost savings. Things that builders are less efficient at, cost more money and things that they are more efficient at, create savings. There is also enhanced communication, the architect should be able to anticipate where the builder will struggle.

Having said that, the synergy has a cost, a design build firm will certainly tend towards those efficiencies, or things that the firm is good at doing, and avoid inefficiencies. Thus your design may lack some of the creativity of an independent architect. In the end, it really comes down to the quality of the people you are working with and how well you mesh with them. I think you have to expect that a design build firm may be somewhat limiting but whether or not that is important to you, is up to you. This tendency towards their efficiency can be significantly limiting with some firms while not with others.

As for the us vs. them thing. I am not sure I subscribe 100% to that one. Sure the architect is supposed to advocate for you against the builder, and that could come into play. On the other hand the best way to win a battle is to avoid it altogether and I suspect design-build firms will argue that they have fewer situations like that. Additionally, two self interested parties fighting it out might help or hurt depending on the project.

My experience with my local design-build firms is that they struggled with my vision. However, my vision wasn't typical for my area, and I felt like they were not listening to my real desires. After a long meeting they kept telling me about stuff they had done somewhere else.

I don't know that they were representative of design-build firms in general, and I didn't like the builder either so, I said something I shouldn't have and left. They didn't call me back...

Couldn't agree more with bry911. Design-build firms are simply another business model in the design and construction of small buildings such as residences.

Their value is customer convenience. The customer gets "one stop shopping" in their quest for a new custom home. The design and construction experience and skill are certainly not any greater (and in some cases worse) than available in other business models.

And almost without exception the design entity and the construction entity are always working hand in glove with one another, even if not apparent on the surface. After all, it's one single business isn't it?

The business model may be a good fit for some folks in some situations. But one always has to wonder, if the design they are proposing is really best for the owner, or best for the builder.

I’m a life long tradesman that grew into building my own business, grew into design, and adopted a design-build business practice in the end.

With an investment background, no other model makes sense with bespoke and custom services on significant scope of work projects.

Fear mongering and casting aspersions are apparently a part of the competitive landscape. For every story about getting screwed by an X, there’s a story about getting screwed by a Z.

It doesn’t shock the clients who choose to work with us that we make a profit and our costing is typically in the 60-75% of my market. I could be richer, I could be poorer. We pay living wages for excellent trade work and subs. I’m good with that.

The truth- those of us with real experience working together on significant projects with significant budgets- which just means extremely significant line item details across multiple trades and disciplines, spanning pre through post production - are the only ones who can value engineer a result for a client that isn’t afraid to admit their budget limitations. Neither Design-Bid-then Build nor Design-Build models will ever change that. I decided long ago I’m through with finger pointing and time wasting getting to the results every project eventually needs. I have the experience, and earned the experience, to do that.

Prospective clients can put that team together on their own and roll the dice, or work with an entity that already works well together and stands by their cost projections as an ongoing process, and always has solutions in the wings when needed.

If the design results and the budget meet the investment goals of our clients, its win-win. If success is driven only by fear of getting “screwed”, then Design-Bid-Then Build is your only market solution. Best of luck, everything in life has odds.

Getting back to the original question, as a design-build, would you allow a client to get competitive build bids and only use you for design?

OP Q: Drawbacks to this process?

A: That depends on the quality of the construction wing of their company. If their budget projections can produce results, and they do good work, what’s the drawback? You dump them, they should collect full design service fees. What else should they do? They’re giving you their incentives to stay with them through construction. The rest is whether you feel the quality of their work is acceptable.

Where the rubber meets the road with entities offering Design-Build Services is right up front- How clear is the client’s scope of work desire- how market accurate is the DB company’s budgeting feasibility spread for finding a solution? Reality starts there; budget meets feasibility meets vetting who you’re dealing with.

KP Interiors: If they are looking for “bid” sets, I refer them to the traditional Design-Bid-then Build path. Seek out an Architect or Int. Design firm. That said, we have separate, non-binding contracts with incentives for completion. We use the Pre-con services as our incentive to earn the construction contact, and it becomes pretty transparent and eye opening why you would want to work with a company that knows design and development forwards and backwards.

N.B. These values dont always translate down on smaller scale projects. DB is excellent with the complex and the complicated.

If you use them for the build they discount the design if you go elsewhere they charge full price for the design. Is this common? Are there any drawbacks to this process?

Just to be more clear, if you are going to use a design-build firm for the design, that design will be biased to that firm. That bias isn't necessarily a bad thing as it means savings, but then taking that design other places is the worst of both worlds. You don't have the flexibility of independent actors and you don't have the cost savings of the efficiency.

You might think of it as bid rigging (though it isn't). You are designing a house specifically so one particular builder should win the contract. The question isn't whether or not he wins the contract, but whether or not you would have designed it differently if it were not being designed for him to win the contract.

Let's be clear: there are reputable and experienced design-build firms, just as there are reputable and experienced individual architects and general contractors.

Hopefully, the point of this discussion is not about ethics and integrity, as critically important as they are.

The point of the discussion (I think) is a response to the OP's question: "Are there any drawbacks to this process?"

My comments are meant to say that design-build is simply one of a number of business models in the design-construction business world. Like any business model, consumers should be very familiar with both pros and cons of design-build. It's not a magical solution. It's a business entity with its own approach to doing business.

That approach is a handshake between the design effort and the construction effort. Consumers don't know what that handshake is and will produce. Only the business knows.

Tear it down, leave ONE wall......get an architect and start over. Leaving a wall? Yeah...........often saves headaches in newer set back restrictions and even if you are ALLOWED to tear and rebuild. But the do over will most often be far better and more cost effective in the long run. Sorry.