Church building experts agree that one of the most important elements in the success of any construction project is the compatibility of the contractor and architect.
Choosing an experienced contractor and skilled architect is necessary in any building project, but if these specialists don’t work well together, problems may arise, professionals say.
As an alternative to the traditional building method of choosing an architect and contractor separately, many Alabama construction companies have started offering the design/build approach, which allows churches to receive their design and construction services from one firm.
“The goal is to bring together an architect and a contractor who work as a team to provide full services in design and construction,” said Gwenn McCormick, author of “Planning and Building Church Facilities.” She added that, “When these two professionals understand and complement each other, significant advantages emerge to produce a well-coordinated project.”
Al Handley, church facilities manager for Marshall Construction of Montgomery, explained why this building approach has become so popular.
“Design/Build has been around for years and is really the preferred method of construction in today’s marketplace because it suits everybody’s needs,” he stated. “It takes the adversarial approach out of construction (and) the architect and construction company do not have to be at odds during the construction process.”
Handley added that when planning building projects, church leaders should “hire a team that can partner together and work together for a common goal to meet the needs of the owner.”
According to McCormick, design/build firms work with clients in the early construction stages to determine the broad parameters of the project including scope, structural system, mechanical system, roofing system, materials, finishes and maximum cost.
Scott Gurosky, president of Myrick, Gurosky and Associates of Birmingham, notes that contacting design/build companies early in the planning stages can help church leaders better understand their capabilities before spending money on designs. He added that this process ensures that the project meets the church’s ministry needs and serves its overall purpose without exceeding its financial capabilities.
In addition to improved business and working relationships, the design/build approach can save churches money, according to Kenneth Price, owner of H&W Construction Company of Northport.
“Typically, if you went to an architectural firm most are going to look for a fee anywhere from 7 to 9 percent of the total construction cost,” he explained.
“If you go to a design builder, the designer will incorporate the design and building costs together. They make their money in the construction cost.”
Gary Wyatt, president and CEO of Gary C. Wyatt, Inc., of Birmingham, agreed.
“The design/build process allows the church to choose the experienced contractor who then chooses the best architect for the church, saving time and money,” he said.
According to Marshall Construction, this method also saves money by eliminating the need for high-cost change orders and determining architectural, engineering and contractor fees early in the building process.
Considering the options for Design/Build
ADVANTAGES
1. The client has a single source for the delivery of the desired building and does not have to work with two or more firms.
2. The relative benefits and costs of various design alternatives can be evaluated more precisely during the design stage. The owner and design-build firm can then make a decision based on complete data.
3. A firm cost is set at the earliest possible time. This, of course, imposes severe restraints upon the owner because the projected cost is tied directly to the established design parameters. Every change made can increase the cost of the project.
DISADVANTAGES
1. The architect is primarily responsible to the firm and not to the client. For this reason, he may not represent the church’s interests as effectively as if he were employed directly by the church.
2. Architectural drawings are usually less than complete. This keeps costs down, but also gives the design-build firm more latitude in the final product. The result is the church may not get what they expected. In addition, there are usually no (or very few) construction-phase services provided by the architect.
3. Cost control is achieved primarily through manipulation of quality rather than through competition.
4. Too much attention may be given to low initial building costs and life-cycle costing may be sacrificed. This can be a mistake that forces a church to pay significant long-term maintenance and operational costs. For example, a focus on low initial building costs can lead to eliminating energy-efficient features that would be cost effective and would be extremely expensive to add later.
Share with others: