Hi everyone, I'm doing a unit where the students are interviewing architects on the benefits and negatives, especially in regards to design, but also anything else, when working with different procurement methods.
The procurement method I'm assigned with is Design and Construct, or I heard its called Design and Build in the UK, not sure if there are other names for it depending on where you are, but basically the Architect either works for the Builder from the get go, or gets novated to them after conceptual or design development is done.
My question is if there is any stories you are able to share, good or bad with this method in comparison with others i.e traditional procurement/lump sump? I already know the obvious reasons, just looking for "Stories" you might have that highlights the pro and cons.
Thanks =)
P.S : I will not look up nor disclose your personal/firm details except maybe the country, if relevant, or any personal info you choose to share in your response.
With design/build you work for the contractor. The contractors main goal is to make lots of money, not provide a quality product for his client. So things like building envelope are not the main concern of the contractor and he may want cheaper products than what I would normally specify for my clients. I work for a firm that does a lot of design/build projects and we are always happy when our liability is up on those projects.
Thank you Almosthip7, yes that seems to be case, though the firms I interviewed locally at least try to remain with the client till after DD before being novated to the contractor for design control.
Aug 25, 17 10:47 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Design & Construct Contract Experience
Hi everyone, I'm doing a unit where the students are interviewing architects on the benefits and negatives, especially in regards to design, but also anything else, when working with different procurement methods.
The procurement method I'm assigned with is Design and Construct, or I heard its called Design and Build in the UK, not sure if there are other names for it depending on where you are, but basically the Architect either works for the Builder from the get go, or gets novated to them after conceptual or design development is done.
My question is if there is any stories you are able to share, good or bad with this method in comparison with others i.e traditional procurement/lump sump? I already know the obvious reasons, just looking for "Stories" you might have that highlights the pro and cons.
Thanks =)
P.S : I will not look up nor disclose your personal/firm details except maybe the country, if relevant, or any personal info you choose to share in your response.
A lump sump? Is that a broken sump pump?
With design/build you work for the contractor. The contractors main goal is to make lots of money, not provide a quality product for his client. So things like building envelope are not the main concern of the contractor and he may want cheaper products than what I would normally specify for my clients. I work for a firm that does a lot of design/build projects and we are always happy when our liability is up on those projects.
I design/build for custom house clients. What you're doing sounds like working for developers on cheap spec projects.
I live in a very remote city, the developers are the contractors. They are one in the same around here.
Time to move.
Thank you Almosthip7, yes that seems to be case, though the firms I interviewed locally at least try to remain with the client till after DD before being novated to the contractor for design control.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.