As explained, it seems like a good way to go, but in reality, this method will take longer, cost more, cause more conflict, and reduce the church's satisfaction with the process. What happens in almost every church building project done this way is the architect over designs the building and produces a building that the church can't afford. After the design goes to bid, the church receives multiple bids that are typically 2x - 4x what the church can afford. The design goes back to the architect to be redesigned. The revised plans go back to bid and (hopefully) a reputable builder can price the job near the church's budget. The builder then helps the church value engineer the building to bring the project within the church's budget. Once again, the changes are done by the architect, and guess what, you pay for the changes again. In fairness, what I have described is the typical experience of most churches, some architects may charge differently.
For a church that does not clearly understand what they need to build and what they can truly afford, it will most likely spend tens of thousands of dollars on plans it cannot build and then spend even more to get plans that will work for the church. The best thing would be to have completed a church needs and feasibility study before talking to an architect or builder.
A lot of architects don't like what I have to say. However, the majority of architects that specialize in churches absolutely agree with my position. A number of these offer stock church plans at huge savings and/or offer services to the church at rates that are 35-50% or more below "street price".
Many of those who are now writing articles in the church magazines decrying the traditional Design/Bid/Build model (what I have been telling churches for years) are promoting the Design/Build (DB) model for building a church. While better than DBB, DB has it's own unique potential drawbacks. In a seminar this week, I was able to help a church save between $300,000 and $500,000 by explaining how modify the way they did the Design/Build contracting for their on a $4.5M project.
In a follow-up post, I will describe the best way to contract for a church building project.
Save This Page to del.icio.us
I am currently finishing up a business plan that resolves the conflicts that arise as a result of the design build "movement" in church construction. If you are interested in what I believe will be the next generation methodology in church design and construction I would be happy to share it. I have to be a little cautious at this point but you are in NC and I am in CA so I am willing to see what you think.
ReplyDeleteI am a Senior Project Manager for a church design build company - I should say I was as I have left the company after seeing not the virtue of design build but the vice.
I can be contacted at
me meial address is ldonll@sbcglobal.net
We agree that Design-Bid-Build is not ideal - the 2x to 4x budget is absurd and an insult to any competent architect. More often in my experience as a church architect, the Owner is told the correct cost (we are often within 2%) but they want to exercise "faith" and all the funds expected do not come in. We decry "Design-Build" because pf the inherent conflicts of interest. They decry the traditional architect, but aside from a couple of attractive marquee projects, serve up esthetic and functional drivel that is no bargain. The swaps and compromises during construction are legendary. Churches are paying for plane trips, hotel bills, and meals instead of for quality architectural service. It gets worse with additional/renovation projects where the quality from even one of the biggest names in D/B was atrocious. Many recommend the church retain an independent construction professional to keep an eye on the D/B team. This person will not be seen as worth the cost unless he or she finds problems, and some of these tend to be manufactured. Why pay more people with the attendant increase in paperwork, meetings, and communication which was intended to be reduced???
ReplyDeleteWe prefer and find most successful the process of an architect being retained for the programming, evaluation, master plan, phase, with a contractor being selected with the guidance of the independent architect based upon merit and appropriate experience. The contractor develops an independent budget from mine from conceptual/schematic drawings. While they normally track closely, we can make value engineering decisions based upon specific expertise of the contractor, not simply slashing quality with often increased life-cycle costs. As we develop the drawings, the contractor has input and changes requested by the Owner can have hard dollar feedback very quickly which helps guard against unintended scope creep. We have a final budget by the time we submit for permit, and we typically wait for final permit approval before signing the final contract in case anything of consequence was missed during the design phase.
There are no conflicts of interest, the Owner gets the benefit of an independent architect not only during design but also during construction, a process not adversarial by nature, and a contractor eager to please because bidding is out of the picture (except for open sub bidding, which we sometimes do) and gottcha politics is off the table.
John Teets Architect
Horsham, PA
www.johnteetsarchitect.com
John, thanks for your comment. Quoting your post, "the 2x to 4x budget is absurd and an insult to any competent architect." You should be insulted, not by me, but by the actions of many of your fellow architects. Sadly it happens all the time. Perhaps its because churches are selecting incompetent architects, or perhaps it's due to any number of reasons, not all of which are the fault of the church architect. Often times the church does not have a real or valid budget, and its certainly not the architect's job to validate their budget. (which reiterates the need for a good needs and feasibility study) The bottom line - it happens very often and if it is not happening at your firm - praise the Lord.
ReplyDeleteAgain, quoting your post, We decry "Design-Build" because pf the inherent conflicts of interest." While D/B is not my first choice, and I agree with the potential for conflicts of interest, I believe it vastly superior to Design/Bid/Build. In a perfect world with an honest God-fearing D/B firm, there would not be an issue. The trouble is finding them!
Your preferred method of a partnered approach is the very model that I would recommend. For most churches I recommend a partnered approach with a construction manager (open book, guaranteed not to exceed price contract) on board with the church architect early in the process.