The sequence matters less than the timing between each selection. For a smoother, more efficient process, we highly recommend engaging both the architect and builder around the same time so that you can form realistic expectations early.

It depends on what is important to you, and which path you think is most likely to deliver the experience and result you want. For clients who have a great amount of trust in their builder and want to delegate as much as they can to their builder's judgment, design-build can offer a superior result.

Design-build also comes with unique and distinct risks, which is why we no longer entertain those projects. Roles and responsibilities flow through contracts, and we find that we are less compromised both professionally and ethically when our role is to serve the client's interests directly.

Both. We keep a short list of builders in the valley whose work and integrity we admire based on past projects, and we're glad to make introductions. We will not choose or vet them for you. You should absolutely do your own due diligence on any builder you are considering.

We strongly recommend engaging a builder for preconstruction services prior to the completion of design.

Probably not. If you intend to act as your own builder, we would not be a good fit for each other. Those projects greatly increase the stress and risk for all involved.

Not inherently. A lot of sophisticated buyers assume the contract structure is what protects their interests and differentiates builders, and it isn't. A fixed fee with a cost-focused owner can push a contractor toward cheaper substitutions to protect their margin. A poorly managed cost-plus arrangement can drift in terms of schedule and budget. From a practical standpoint, most design-build arrangements differ from traditional design-bid-build only in that the general contractor chooses a lower-fee architect and pays their invoices directly (adding a markup but no additional value to the owner).

No contract structure saves a poorly managed project, and almost any structure can work in the hands of an honest, capable builder.

Plan on roughly 8 to 12 months from kickoff to submitting plans for a building permit. Sometimes more for complex sites (hillside, strict HOA, etc.).

The design timeline is greatly influenced by how engaged and responsive you are as a client, as well as how often your priorities or decisions change. Changes that occur early in a project can have little to no impact on the overall timeline. Changes that occur late in the design process (or worse, after construction has begun) can greatly impact the project schedule.

City plan review timelines vary by jurisdiction, and sometimes even by what reviewers are assigned to the project. Lately, it seems like the City of Phoenix has the widest variation in review timelines. The City of Scottsdale used to have the fastest and cleanest process, and now takes the longest. Recently, we have experienced efficeint and predictable review timelines in both Maricopa County and Paradise Valley.

Factors that increase plan review timelines:

• Skipping steps or ignoring checklists

• Rushing incomplete or uncoordinated submittals into the system

• When clients change the design during permitting

• Incomplete or uncoordinated responses to staff comments (rushed resubmittals)

• When staff changes midstream on the city side (new reviewers = new comments)

• Also, in rare instances you may be required to extend utilities to your site, which can add between one and two years to the permitting process.

On a tactical level, we strongly suggest paying very close attention to any pool projects that may begin on a site prior to the home's final inspection. We can point to numerous examples of a client's move-on date being extended many months due to issues with separate swimming pool permits. If you can, we would suggest completing the house prior to beginning any pool projects.

Partially. We don't personally stand in line at the permit counter, upload PDFs to a city server, or track submittal routing through the gears of bureaucracy. We refer those tasks to expediting services that do it better and more cost-effectively.

When (not "if") the city requests changes or additional information (aka "redline comments"), we take responsibility for addressing their comments and coordinating any changes with the engineers and consultants. The scope of these revisions (or "resubmittals") varies greatly based on the complexity of the issues identified and the municipality or specific persons reviewing the drawings. Recent experience shows that site design (pool design and grading & drainage, specifically) accounts for most issues that arise during plan review.

Occasionally, and selectively. Most of our work is here in the metro Phoenix area. For the right client and the right project in another region, we can explore a potential Design Architect / Executive Architect arrangement that could combine our design expertise with a local architect's knowledge of building techniques and regulatory processes.

Design Architect: Focuses on the creative and conceptual aspects of the project. They are primarily responsible for the initial design vision and aesthetics, but carry less legal liability for construction compliance.

Executive Architect: Takes legal responsibility for turning the design into a buildable reality. They are responsible for the technical execution and code compliance, including signing off on the drawings for permits and managing issues during construction.

Work distribution: The executive architect often handles a larger portion of the work, typically between 60 and 75 percent of the total project, and is responsible for the detailed technical work, coordination of other consultants, and ongoing site supervision.

No. Life is too short.

If you're looking for someone to put an existing design into CAD or make a concept "code compliant," you are probably better off with a drafting service instead of an architect.