The Pros and Cons of Design-Build

Defining Design-Build

Design-build is an increasingly popular delivery method in architecture. Rather than having an independent architecture firm design the home and then bid the project out to various contractors to build it, the design-build model features a single company that does both the architecture and construction under the same roof.

The traditional design-bid-build method was in need of change, as it creates an inherently adversarial relationship between the architect and the contractor. The architect will hold the contractor accountable to mistakes or omissions in construction, advocating for the owner’s desired design quality when the contractor may try to cut corners. The contractor may point their finger at the architect for drawing something incorrectly or missing a specific drawing altogether. If the roof leaks, the contractor may claim that it was drawn incorrectly, while the architect may claim that it was installed incorrectly. Conventional wisdom would suggest that through this adversarial relationship, a better outcome is achieved if both are holding the other accountable. If both architecture and construction are handled by the same company, any conflicts will theoretically be resolved internally.

The other advantage that Design-Build creates is the ability to have nearly real-time cost data during the design phases. There is a methodology that has emerged called Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) that brings together the architect, contractor, engineers, and other stakeholders early in the design to work as a unified team, facilitating coordination early and avoiding pitfalls down the road. Having the builder involved early in the design allows the architect to receive more accurate cost information early on and evaluate design decisions with more accurate numbers. This added insight can help the design to stay within budget and avoid costly change orders during construction. The often-painful exercise of value-engineering can be integrated into the design, rather than applied out of necessity if the project is found to be over-budget. Having a Design-Build company as the single point of responsibility can simplify communication and accountability for issues, reducing the finger-pointing.

Homes of Hope jobsite, Yerevan, Armenia

Misconceptions and Pitfalls

What are contractors actually delivering when they say they have an in-house “architect”? While many contractors advertise their services as design-build, it is incumbent on the client to scrutinize the actual services offered to ensure that quality standards in both design and construction are being met. Many contractors will claim that they have an “architect” on staff who does all of their drawings. This claim must be examined by the owner. The term “architect” is legally protected in the US and can only be used to refer to a person licensed in the jurisdiction in which they are practicing. It is illegal for an unlicensed individual to refer to themselves as an architect if they don’t hold an architect’s license in that jurisdiction. Therefore, the owner must ask the contractor for the architect’s license number to look up whether it is current and in good standing.

It is far more common for a contractor to hire a draftsperson who has some software experience who will merely draw what is asked of them. This creates a few professionally dubious conditions. First, the draftsperson isn’t held to the “Standard of Care” which refers to the level of skill and diligence that a reasonably competent architect would exercise under similar circumstances when providing professional services.  A licensed architect applies experience, scrutiny of project conditions, and critical thinking to deliver creative problem solving to achieve the client’s goals. Secondly, the contractor is not typically trained in design. If the contractor has the draftsperson draw what they ask for, it won’t be an equivalent replacement for an architect’s services as mentioned above. The contractor won’t be as proactive in searching for and evaluating the best design decisions. Some design-build firms will favor economy and efficiency over a tailored design that is customized for the needs of the residents. Their design may prioritize construction optimization rather than architectural quality.

The Design-Build method can also create conflicts of interest. Since the builder controls the design and therefore budget, some may prioritize cost-saving over design. Without the architect as an independent third party advocating for the needs of the owner, changes that compromise design integrity may not always be in the owner’s best interest. Also, since the project isn’t competitively bid by multiple contractors, there can be less transparency in the bid numbers. Less competition often leads to higher prices. With the owner locked into the construction contract at the start of design, these differences may not be apparent early on. Many contractors will quote low fees for the architecture portion of the bid as a way of enticing a potential client, only to increase fees elsewhere in the bid to make up for the loss leader. We have seen this strategy in bids being presented to Palisades residents in the wake of the recent LA fires.

Lastly, the most important shortcoming of Design-Build is the removal of oversight. In a traditional Design-Bid-Build scenario, there are checks and balances in place, primary through the architect’s representation of the owner to hold the contractor accountable. The architect can oversee construction quality and ensure design intent is fully realized. The architect can evaluate payment requests by the contractor to determine if they are due the full amount of fee they are billing for. In Design-Build, mistakes or shortcuts may go unchecked if the owner is not vigilant.

Our Approach

At Form Found Design, we see the advantages of both the conventional Design-Bid-Build approach as well as Design-Build and have found a hybrid approach to ensure both accountability and cost insights.  We’re calling it “Contractor Design-Assist”. In this model the architect is solely responsible for the design of the project but the owner will hire a contractor for a nominal fee to act as a budget consultant in the design phases, offering real-time cost data as well as insights into material availability. This contractor can provide detailed cost estimates well beyond what an architect can provide and can offer design alternatives for products and building materials that might save the owner money. Once the project is ready for bidding, this contractor will provide a finalized budget that can be compared to two or three additional bids. If the client is satisfied with the first contractor’s bid and work thus far, they can always fall back on that offer but the additional bids mean that the price can only get better.  This ensures competition during the bidding phase.  It also ensures that there is an independent architect who is invested from start to finish, advocating for the needs of the client to ensure the project is built according to the owner’s wishes.

Design-build offers a compelling alternative to the traditional architect–contractor model, especially when speed, simplicity, and cost predictability are priorities. However, its strengths can also become weaknesses when oversight, design quality, and transparency are compromised. At Form Found Design, we believe homeowners deserve both the creative advocacy of a dedicated architect and the real-time cost insight of a qualified builder. Our “Contractor Design-Assist” approach blends the best of both worlds—preserving the integrity of the design while staying grounded in construction realities. Ultimately, the right project delivery method depends on the goals, values, and priorities of the homeowner—but with the right team, you don’t have to choose between design excellence and budgetary certainty.

Flowchart showing the typical relationship between Architect and Contractor.

Flowchart showing the Contractor Design-Assist workflow.