Before you pick a builder you're picking how the project is going to be run. That choice (the procurement route) determines who designs the building, who takes the risk, when you know the cost and how much control you have.
For warehouses the choice is normally between the traditional route (you employ a design team and a builder separately) and the design and build route (one company does both).
Neither is right for every project. This guide goes into how each one works, where each one breaks down and which one is likely to be the better choice for a warehouse.
The short answer
- Traditional gives you the most control over the design but you carry more risk and you only know the build cost once the design is finished and priced.
- Design and build gives you one point of responsibility and you get cost certainty much earlier on, but you do hand over a bit of control over the detail.
- For the majority of warehouses where the brief is essentially practical and the budget and timescale are paramount, design and build is normally the way to go. For landmark or rather unusual buildings, traditional is often the preferred route.
How traditional procurement works
The traditional route is to do the design and the build sequentially, done by different people.
- You appoint a design team (normally an architect, structural engineer and services engineer, with a quantity surveyor to manage the cost).
- They design the building in full. The drawings and specs are all completed and planning permission obtained.
- The design is going out to tender and several builders have priced exactly the same drawings.
- You appoint a builder, normally on a fixed price to build what's been drawn.
- The builder builds and the design team go through it. Your architect or contract administrator will be looking at it, checking it, assessing it and dealing with any variations.
The key point is that the builder is only responsible for building what was drawn. If the design is wrong, if it's incomplete, or if it turns out to be more expensive to build than anticipated, then that's your problem, and you raise it with your design team.
What it does well:
- You have complete control over every design decision.
- Builders all price the same drawings so the tender is easy to compare.
- The design team works exclusively for you, so you get completely independent advice throughout.
Where it goes wrong:
- You won't know the real build cost until the design is complete and the tender has been submitted. If it comes in over budget you pay for the redesign and you lose months.
- It's slower as the build can't start until the design is complete.
- If the drawings have any gaps or clashes, the builder will claim extra time and money. Those claims are among the primary reasons traditional projects run over.
- When something goes wrong, the designer and the builder can blame each other, leaving you in the middle.
How design and build works
In design and build, one company (the contractor) is responsible for both the design and the build of the warehouse under one contract.
- You start off by setting out what you need. That's your brief (often referred to as the Employer's Requirements) and it will cover the space, the use, the standards and the budget.
- The contractor puts the design together. They employ or manage the architects and engineers and price the design as it develops.
- You agree on a contract price that covers both the design and the build.
- The contractor designs and builds it. Design and construction can run in parallel, so work gets underway quite early.
- You sign off key stages, you approve the design at the agreed points and you can appoint your own adviser to check the work.
The key thing is that if there's a gap, a clash or an error in the design it's the contractor's job to deal with it at their own cost. You have one company responsible for the whole building.
There are two common variants.
Novation. You appoint an architect to take the design to an early stage (often via planning). The contractor is then appointed and the architect's contract is novated to them to complete the design. You get the design direction you wanted and the contractor take on the risk from that point.
Two-stage design and build. The contractor is engaged right at the start on a relatively small first-stage agreement. They work with the design team, help to shape the design, and build up the price in the open. Once the design is sufficiently advanced, you then agree on the final price and move on to the full contract. That brings the builder's knowledge into the mix at the very beginning, when it is of the most value.
Side by side
| |
|
|
| Who designs |
Your own design team |
The contractor's design team |
| Who builds |
A builder you appoint after the design is done |
The same contractor |
| Number of contracts |
Several |
One |
| When you know the build cost |
Once the full design has been tendered |
Earlier, as the design develops |
| Speed |
Slower. Design must finish before the build starts |
Faster. Design and build can overlap |
| Design control |
High. You decide every detail |
Lower. You set the brief and sign off key stages |
| Who carries design risk |
You |
The contractor |
| If design and build clash |
You resolve it between them |
The contractor resolves it |
| Cost of changing your mind |
Expensive once on site |
Expensive once the price is agreed |
| Independent advice |
Built in, as the design team works for you |
You may need to appoint your own adviser |
One row in particular trips people up. Changes cost money in both routes. Design and build doesn't make late changes any cheaper. It simply shifts the point at which they start to cost you right to the point where the contract price is agreed. You have to get your brief right prior to that point.
When each route makes sense
Traditional is usually the better choice when:
- The building's appearance is, of course, important, particularly if it's a landmark site or a sensitive location.
- The building is either very unusual or highly specialized, and you want complete control over every single design decision.
- You already have a trusted design team, and you want them working for you throughout.
- You've got the time to do the design prior to building and can afford to have the tender come in high.
Design and build is usually the better choice when:
- The brief is very practical in fact: a certain amount of space, a certain number of doors, a certain budget.
- Cost certainty and timescale are more important than control of every single detail.
- You want one company to be responsible if anything goes wrong.
- You want the builder's knowledge to inform the design so it's cheaper and easier to build.
- You don't have the time or an in-house team to manage multiple consultants.
Novation or a two-stage can give you some of both. If you want a particular architect to set the design direction, or you want to see the price broken down transparently, these variations allow you to retain more control whilst passing the build risk to a single contractor.
How to get design and build right
Design and build works a treat, provided you get it set up correctly. That's what makes the difference.
1. Write a clear and concise specification. The contractor will build in accordance with your Employer's Requirements. They are not obliged to include anything you don't specifically state. What you need to set out is what is important: floor area, clear height, floor loading, number of doors, yard size, number of offices, energy targets, and any specific finishes or products you require. Words like "good quality" achieve nothing.
2. Fix the minimum standards rather than just the outcomes. The contractors will look for ways to build to your brief at the lowest possible cost, which is entirely reasonable and will often save you money. If, however, a particular cladding, roof warranty, or slab specification is important to you, then get that into the brief.
3. Agree how changes will be handled. Once you've agreed a price then any change you subsequently ask for will be at an additional cost. You need to agree in the contract how changes are to be priced and approved so that there are no surprises.
4. Check the design liability. Find out the level of the contractor's design liability and whether they have professional indemnity insurance for the design. Your solicitor or adviser should check this before you sign.
5. Sign off the design stages. You're handing over the risk of the design working rather than the right to see it. Agree the points at which you will review and approve the layout and the key details.
6. Think about your own adviser. On larger projects, you'll often have the option to appoint an independent employer's agent or a quantity surveyor to check the design, price, and quality on your behalf. On a fairly simple warehouse project, a competent contractor with an open cost plan may be all that you need.
Which suits a warehouse?
For the majority of warehouses, it's design-and-build.
A warehouse brief is typically very practical. You need a certain amount of space, a certain height, a number of doors and a working yard. All of that on budget and on time. That's precisely where design and build really come into their own. The builder's contribution to the steel frame, floor slab, cladding, and groundworks will often save you a lot of money, as these elements make up the bulk of a warehouse's cost.
Traditional makes the most sense for a landmark building, a highly specialized type of building, or a client who has an in-house design team they're absolutely determined to keep working for them.
Whatever route you take, the single biggest risk is, of course, a design that nobody has priced until it's complete. Get the cost tested early and most of the problems outlined in this guide just disappear.
How we work
We're a construction company, not an architectural practice. We do warehouse work on a design-and-build basis, working with ARB-registered architects throughout England, as well as structural engineers and other specialists.
We price the design at every stage so you can see what each option will cost before you commit. The contract price is based on a design that's already been tested against your budget. You end up with one contract and one team who are responsible for both the design and the build.
If you already have an architect, or indeed if you'd like to take your design as far as a certain point first, we can work with that as well.
Read more on our
Warehouse Design and Build page. If you're looking at a new warehouse or an extension, then the first site visit is free. We'll look at the site, brief you, and give you a straight view of the best way forward.
FAQs
What's the difference between design and build and traditional procurement? In traditional procurement, you engage a design team and a builder separately, and the builder builds only what's drawn. In design-build, you have a single contractor responsible for both design and construction under one contract.
Is design and build cheaper? Often, though not always. The savings tend to come from the builder being involved in the design from the outset and from the ability to overlap design and build. A very vague brief, however, can lead to a lower spec than you'd hoped for, so the brief is absolutely critical.
Do I lose control of the design with a design and build? You lose control of the detail, not of the design. You set the brief, approve the key stages, and put in writing the standards you care about.
What is novation? You appoint an architect to do the early design, then novate their contract to the design-and-build contractor to complete the rest. You retain the design direction you want, and the design and build risk is then assumed by the contractor from that point onward.
Which is the faster route? Design and build by a long chalk. Design and build can overlap and there's no separate tender for the build once the design is complete.
Can we switch from traditional to design and build part way through? Quite often, we can. Many projects will take the design through the planning stage with their own architect, then appoint a design-and-build contractor, sometimes with the architect novated over.
