This particular topic is somewhat fraught because it involves personal recommendations or advice to projects that I don’t have any knowledge of, and personnel matters. Unlike choosing a drywall subcontractor, the end result of design work is not guaranteed. If you hire a crew to board the walls of your house, all should look almost indistinguishable upon completion. The design outcome is like an option on the future, choosing the design firm will have significant downstream impacts on your project. Give the same design brief to two unrelated design firms, with the same property and instructions, the outcome will not be identical. Inevitably, one would be preferred over the other. You could not know which designer to select without the existence of a parallel universe in which you assigned the same job twice and had a time machine to allow a do-over. I think design firm selection is somewhat like the manager of a baseball time choosing from among the pitchers in his bullpen. The correct designer is the one suited to the task at hand, the best designer for project A is not going to be as suitable for project B. You can tease out strengths of the design company using some tests and analysis. Along the way many red flags could be noted and should be monitored for. I have found many builders to be dissatisfied with their design company, for various reasons that can be categorized, into service, quality, pace, and cost. The developers themselves can be their own worst enemy through the calibre of their now involvement in the process. Fair criticism is warranted because the design company wage expectations (how much they bill per hour for even junior staff can be high), and lofty promises are made that are not always manifested in the work. Also, a degree of compromise is needed too, the design job is not easy. If I did not need the design skill because I was capable of preparing my own plans, then I would do it myself. But because I can’t, hiring design is an essential decision for every project.
One overarching perspective I have on these designers, is the level of personal involvement I have had to engage in, to achieve my objectives. It is unrealistic to expect to write a cheque, then wait for an email with the final design package ready to go. However, my involvement tends to be far higher than I would wish it to be. I don’t have to assist my drywall contractor to finish his work to my satisfaction, but, with design, I have had to participate much more, and this time is not compensated for, it can feel like a donation to the value creation mission, and a highly strategic one. I fund the design bill, which can be very large, but I have many unbillable hours reviewing, commenting, writing, meeting, etc. The back and forth can be frustrating and time consuming, yet the outcome can be very satisfying, and so impactful on the construction, and operation of the asset (maintenance!). For this reason I have a bunch of recommendations and then some accompanying red flags regarding design selection.
Recommendations
The design brief - a detailed written document on what success means drafted by you, the developer. The specifics must include both ‘To Do’ and ‘Not To Do’ components. For example, I wish to use windows of a certain maximum size such that they can be removed from a delivery truck without a machine. Or, I do not approve roof slope below a 3:12 pitch. These details, up front, can go a long way to prevent downstream problems where the design company wants to charge for re-work, because they weren’t properly instructed in advance.
Portfolio review - with a new company, you must know what they can do and what they are good at. You must not hire a company that is not skilled at delivery of outcomes within the parameters of your project.
fee structure - the up front agreed upon cost of project must not waver, scope changes must not be needed, and fees cannot be paid for work that cannot lead to permit approval. The contract needs to be structured in a way that payments are linked to success, not the designer burning up some arbitrary amount of time, and needing more from you to get to satisfactory work that achieves what is in the design brief.
local knowledge - city planning departments are different enough that a design firm will not be able to operate among many jurisdictions effectively. A personal relationship between planner and designer can work magic for the client. Reputation and relationship is well worth paying more for, as it likely comes with familiarity with navigating black box type local rules too. The more complex the project, the more pitfalls a good designer will avoid, saving time.
Pace of work - there are so many techniques used by the design companies to avoid being penalized for not expediting work. While they cannot control the city planning response time, they can commit to turning around their work promptly. Too often the review comes back from the city and it sits and waits, and is not returned comprehensively enough to address all city concerns. High quality response to the city is an indicator of a good design team.
Unfortunately the red flags are many, and painful. Here is a list;
Impractical work - the designer simply has no concept of construction realities, or very little site knowledge. Many designers have spent little time on a job site or have never been responsible for actual construction work. This leads to poor transition from concept to reality, or plans are not viable. Leaving it up to the crew on site to ‘figure it out’ is a symptom of deficient design.
Artists not designers - this type may value their portfolio more than the hard job of taking the plans and making them work. I am not interested in building artistic sculptures, I need houses to function, that means roofs that drain water, yes, I need a house to function in bad weather. Not all design companies see this as a priority of their scope of work. Climate conditions need to dictate how I can avoid major warranty problems with water, and this is more important than a flashy rendering that attracts clicks on social media.
design to be expensive - there is nothing easier in designer-land than to layer on cost with little benefit other than ‘looking good’. Unfortunately I have to work within a budget in order to create value that eliminates some type of products, or labour specialties. Designers choosing to include very expensive items simply out of habit or routine is common. Expect a certain type of designer to push back from working within the developers construction budget, avoid these. One example, a project calls for a patio door, and the note on the plan calls for a folding/sliding accordion style feature. The builder looks at this and determines it is likely to cost $15k, the entire window and door package budget for that unit is less than this one feature. The design company assumed that was within scope, likely the designer has never ordered a window package before and is unaware of the implications of what has been drawn.
lack responsibility - many construction documents have embedded phrases shedding accountability for mistakes. These disclaimers are copied onto each page of the plan. The designer needs to be accountable for errors, and they make them all the time. Purchasing design from a professional must include a level of accountability for accuracy. Also, mistakes are largely repairable, a good designer will, at their expense of time, issue corrections. Often the designer will view it as reasonable to charge for site visit and re-work of their own defects.
Overbearing sense of importance - the designers today do not even design the structural parts of the building. That means trusses and joists and tall wall details, and foundation designs is all done elsewhere. When the design work is done, it is really only half complete to get to a final building permit. The client has significant time involved to get to construction well after the designer has received final payment.
high cost - the design company is benefitting here from payment before the real work is started, often, gaps and errors that appear could have been improved upon before construction. The design company benefits from early compensation, because the owner has more funds available to spend at the beginning of the project than the end. Design can be one of the higher cost items that costs the owner a lot of expense to carry until completion. If permitting is a six month process, and construction one year, that is 18 months of carrying cost to the builder, this is a real expense. In other cost categories, such as the landscaping bill, carrying cost could be insignificant if the work is done immediately before occupancy. There is no practical way to retroactively renegotiate a design fee at the project conclusion for poor work. Imagine a developer going back to the design company and giving a list of deficiencies contained in the plan, and asking for a partial refund.
lack of expertise - the design firm needs to be a specialist in the rules governing the work required. Given the cost of hiring designers, they must have the knowledge already, the developer is not paying to train the design team. A proven track record showing projects completed in the asset class the developer is building is a demonstration of expertise.
and finally, the client himself has not engaged the designer with an outcome being possible without a miracle. Lack of client knowledge of what will create value is one of the largest red flags. Designers have to work among true constraints like bylaws and land size, and the boundaries of structural components.
Hiring a design firm is undoubtedly a major decision, and one with implications for the entire process. Value is created at this stage, and the developer making large investment in design needs to extract every ounce of quality from the process. Developer involvement through the design brief can lead to such significant work being permitted, in a reasonable time, to multiply the design investment into tremendous value creation. As years pass, the design quality delivers perpetual value, while the cost of the design work dilutes into a rounding error in the overall economics of the property. In the context of the infill developer with a time horizon of permanent ownership, investing in design is one of the biggest levers to value creation. A great relationship with design is a partnership of alignment of interests, the classic win-win.