Richard (and all other architects who are new to the very-different world of Contractor-led Design-Build)--
The single biggest thing that you, your consultants and client-owner need to know before committing to Contractor-led Design Build delivery is that if you enter into that method, then the GC becomes the only 'client' to whom loyalty and protection is owed by the A/E design professionals. In D-B, the single contract is between the GC and the Owner (who is now the sales 'customer' of the GC, and therefore the Owner has NO traditional direct privity protections or fiduciary standing whatsoever with the design team).
Contractually, ethically and by license law, in Contractor-led Design-Build, the design subcontractor is bound to protect serve the best interests and carry out the directions of the GC only (in D-B the A/E subcontractor owes the Owner nothing other than contract compliance on behalf of the employing GC plus the basic license responsibility for public safety and non-fraudulent actions). A subcontractor in D-B cannot hold the GC responsible on behalf of the Owner. Seriously.
That is not to say that D-B is bad or that it cannot serve the design and construction needs as strictly defined in a well-constructed D-B master contract between GC and Owner. It's just that
very few participants ever seem to really understand the basic D-B fact of who is the protected 'client' and who is the common 'customer'. If that fundamental issue goes wrong, then all else is at extreme risk of failure, too. Some design team members get so confused that they try to revert to our traditional education and training and try to treat the Owner as their protected 'client' instead of being fully devoted to serving the needs of their employer, the GC, first and foremost.
Make sure everyone on your design team also understands how to keep their roles and responsibilities straight in D-B --otherwise, don't do D-B.
Since you say that one or more of the Ownership group was a former 'client' of yours, be especially careful to make that whole group understand they will just be a 'customer' if Contractor-led D-B is used, and
the relationships will be very different.
Under the circumstances you describe, it would seem like you and these Owners would be better off with more traditional relationships
where they are the 'client' of both A/E and GC/CM via using CM at-Risk with parallel contracts for you and their GC. A GC under a CMR contract on an open-book, cost-plus fee early-GMP basis would appear to better serve the interests of all parties in this situation.
--Dale
-------------------------------------------
Dale Munhall AIA
Director of Construction Phase Services
Leo A Daly
Omaha NE
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 11-14-2013 10:51
From: Richard Christensen
Subject: Architect & Engineer Consultant Team vs. Design Build
This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Small Project Practitioners and Project Delivery .
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Richard Christensen AIA
ARC Architectural Group, LLC
Racine WI
-------------------------------------------
Our firm is competing for the opportunity to design an office building for 4 physicians, one of which is a long-established client. We have an appropriate team of consulting engineers.
One of the other physicians has a favored general contractor proposing a design-build approach.
None of the 4 have participated in this process ground-up before.
We are preparing an outline of the process as part of our presentation to leave with them and would like to include multiple substantial value-based reasons supporting the architect-consultant team approach over the design-build approach.
Your comments are requested.
Thank-you,
Richard arcgroup2@tds.net