Contracting for Church Design & Construction
Which Way is the Right Way? There are a myriad of ways for a church to contract for the design and construction of a new church. Today, many churches are built by what has become traditionally known as the design-bid-build method. This is the conventional general contractor approach, where the church hires an architect to design the building, the design is sent to bid, and builders submit bids to build the building, usually at a fixed cost. This is undoubtedly the worse way for the church to contract for the design and construction of their church.
There is a growing trend towards design-build, which, while better than design-bid-build, is not the best method in terms of lowering cost and risk. In a typical design-build model the church hires a builder by who, in turn, hires an architect who does the design work for the builder. The drawback, however, is that the architect works for the builder, not the church. This can put the church at a disadvantage as the possibility exists that the builder and architect can make design decisions that benefit the builder and architect (i.e. raise their profit), and not the church. In many cases, design-build has a drawback similar to that of the conventional general contractor model, a fixed price closed book contract where the church does not know all the costs of the building program and cost savings go to the builder, not the church.
Diametrically opposed to the sequential, and somewhat disjointed, design-bid-build delivery model, is the team approach using a construction manager. The team approach integrates the church, builder and designer together at the beginning of the design process to work in parallel throughout the design and construction process. This parallel team method provides the church with a number of advantages including: time savings, less duplicated effort, a design whose cost is counted throughout the development process, and a building design that is a collaborative effort rather than the product of a somewhat disjointed and adversarial process. All of these benefits add up to significant savings in time, cost and effort while producing a superior result.
If your church is planning to build, it will greatly benefit from having an “ideal model” to emulate. In the best church construction scenario, the church will have begun preparation to build well in advance of the design and construction phases, and accomplished two very important tasks. First and foremost, it should complete a needs and feasibility in order to objectively understand what it needs to build, what it can afford to build, and how to pay for it. (A needs and feasibility study is a prerequisite step for both architectural design and raising money through a capital campaign.
The capital campaign is the second task that the church should begin as far in advance of building as possible. Among other benefits, a capital campaign will help raise money for the up-front costs of building and potentially reduce the amount of money that needs to be borrowed. It would be in the church’s best interest to get a church building consultant, either from within their denomination or an independent consultant, for both the needs and feasibility and capital campaign. Both of these important tasks will be greatly enhanced by the wise counsel and experience of an outside consultant who is both experienced and objective.
This brings us to the model that will save the church the most time and money, reduce its risk and stress, and has the highest probability of providing the best building solution. The ultimate model for church construction is one with a consultant involved early in the process to determine needs and feasibility and execute a capital campaign who is working in a team consisting of a licensed architect and a construction manager working in an open book method where all costs and accounting are open to inspection and is working for a fixed fee.
The further away the church gets from this model, the greater the potential amount of cost, risk, and time the church will experience in their church building project. It is also important to remember that there is a lot of difference between an architect (or builder) that has done some churches and a church architect (of builder).
To get the full 4-pg article that describes this in more detail, you may request a copy from the author by using this contact form.
Related posts:
- The Worst Way to Design & Build a Church I have seen a number of articles recently that echo what I have been saying all along, that the “traditional” Design/Bid/Build (DBB) model is not...
- The Most Asked Question in Church Construction "How much will it cost to build the church?" is by far the most asked question we receive. This is a very important question, and...
- Intro to Church Design & Construction I’ve been threatening to do this for a long time, so I am starting this Church Design & Construction blog to provide a forum to...
- The Biggest Mistake in Church Design As I look back over the years and hundreds of church building stories I’ve heard, by far the single biggest mistake made by churches in...
- Avoiding Budget Bloat in Church Construction Church construction projects (and their budgets) seem only to grow over time, not shrink. Here are three tips to prevent construction budget bloat. Tip number...
- Architects and Church Construction Cost I had to laugh today as I was reading a Scout Merit Badge Review on the usscouts.org website. One of the merit badges which boy...
- Save on Church Design Using Pre-developed Plans Churches can save 50% or more on the cost of church design services by utilizing church building plans from previous building projects. Churches today have...
- Tips on Selecting a Church Architect If you are looking for a church architect, here are some tips that you will want to keep in mind that will help you get...
- Church Building Plans – The New Paradigm I am really exited over the relationships we have built with a number of church builders and architects. However, the relationships I am the most...
- Count the Cost of Church Construction One of the things that fails to concern me is the general lack of financial skills in the leadership of many churches. If I had...
Church construction management is also an excellent option. See http://www.teamwaybuilders.com. More information is available on the different building options at Joe Miller’s website, http://www.buildmychurch.com.
I totally agree, in fact this is the most common implementations of the strategy. With respect to Teamway Builders, they have an excellent reputation and track history with churches, I would not hesitate to recommend them.
I am not a fan of design-build particularly for the uninformed or inexperienced client. Design-build is a short circuit to the important arms-length relationship between the architect, client and the contractor. The key issue is accountability. The A & E design team is responsible to the client for preparing code compliant plans and specifications that meet the client’s requirements and budget. The contractor is accountable to the client for constructing according to the contract plans, specifications, budget and schedule approved by the client. When the contractor wears both hats,the lines of accountability become blurred and the hapless client will inevitably bear the brunt of cost over-runs.
IMHO Design-Build is better than Design/Bid/Build, but does have its shortcomings as well. At the end of the day, however, the contract delivery method is less of an issue than who you are doing business with. The best solution for most churches, I believe, is open book construction management.