Design-Build vs. General Contractor: Which Is Right for Your Project?

When planning a major construction project — whether it is a custom home, a full renovation, or a multiplex development — one of the first decisions you will face is how to structure your project team. The two most common approaches are the traditional design-bid-build model and the integrated design-build model. The difference between them affects everything from timeline to cost to the quality of the final result.

In the traditional model, you hire an architect to create a design, then put that design out to tender for general contractors to bid on. The architect and contractor are separate entities with separate contracts, and you — the homeowner — are responsible for coordinating between them. If the contractor encounters a design issue during construction, it goes back to the architect for revision, then back to the contractor, then back to you for approval. This back-and-forth can add weeks or months to a project.

The design-build model puts design and construction under one roof. A single firm handles architectural design, engineering, permitting, and construction. The architect and the builder work together from day one, which means constructability is considered during the design phase, not discovered during construction. Problems that would become costly change orders in the traditional model are caught and resolved on paper before a single shovel hits the ground.

Cost predictability is one of the biggest advantages of design-build. Because the team that designs the project is the same team that builds it, budgets are grounded in real construction costs from the start. In the traditional model, architects sometimes design beautiful buildings that come in significantly over budget when bids come back. We have seen homeowners go through two or three rounds of redesign to bring a traditional project within budget — each round costing time and additional design fees.

Timeline savings are equally significant. A design-build project can begin site preparation while interior finishes are still being finalized, because the design and construction teams are in constant communication. Traditional projects must complete the entire design before construction can begin, adding months to the overall schedule. On average, design-build projects are completed 30 to 40 percent faster than comparable traditional projects.

Accountability is clearer with design-build. If something goes wrong on a traditional project, the architect may blame the contractor and the contractor may blame the architect. With design-build, there is one point of responsibility. If a wall is in the wrong place, it is our problem to fix, not a dispute between two firms that you have to mediate.

The traditional model does have its place. For institutional projects, public buildings, or situations where the homeowner wants competitive bids from multiple contractors, design-bid-build provides a structured procurement process. But for residential projects where time, cost, and communication matter most, design-build is almost always the better choice.

At Metrohomes, we have operated as a design-build firm since 1988. Our architects, engineers, and construction teams work in the same office, attend the same meetings, and share the same goal: delivering your project on time, on budget, and to a standard of quality that speaks for itself.