Capability · Design + build
One contract, one team, from brief to handover.
We bring the architect, the engineer, and the trades. You get a single point of accountability from concept to PC — and a clear cost commitment earlier than the traditional model allows.
What design-and-build actually is
Design-and-build (D&B) is a single-contract delivery model where one entity is responsible for both design and construction. In residential Sydney it's the less common path — most homes are designed by an independent architect, then tendered to a builder under a separate contract. D&B is the right model when the client wants a single point of accountability, an earlier cost commitment, and is happy to delegate the design selection to the builder rather than direct the architect personally. The architect still exists, still has design IP, and still does design work — but they're engaged by the builder under a back-to-back agreement rather than by the client directly.
Design-bid-build vs design-and-build — the actual trade-offs
Design-bid-build (traditional) — client engages architect, architect designs to client brief, builder tenders against complete documentation, client signs separate contracts with both. Pros: maximum design control, architect is unconflicted (their fee doesn't depend on what gets built), competitive tendering keeps prices honest. Cons: cost commitment comes very late (after CD), variations between builder tenders can be confusing, client manages two contracts and two relationships, design and buildability are decoupled. Design-and-build — client engages builder, builder engages architect (or owns design capability), single contract covers both phases. Pros: single accountability, earlier cost commitment (often at SD/DD stage), buildability and cost are baked in from the first sketch, faster overall program. Cons: less design control at architect selection, architect's fee depends on builder's continued engagement (potential incentive conflict), harder to walk away if the relationship sours mid-design.
Where D&B is the right model — and where it isn't
D&B works well when (1) the client values cost and program certainty over design control at the architect-selection stage; (2) the brief is well-articulated but the visual outcome is open; (3) the project is medium-complexity rather than extreme heritage or extreme structural; (4) the client doesn't have an existing architect relationship; (5) the client is prepared to commit to the builder before the design is complete. It's the wrong model when (1) the client has a strong existing relationship with a specific architect they want to use; (2) the design ambition is so high that the architect-client relationship needs to be unmediated; (3) the project is on a heritage item where independent heritage architect oversight matters; (4) the client is risk-averse about cost certainty for an indefinite scope.
How Varloch runs design-and-build
We have a small panel of Sydney architects we work with on D&B projects — selected for their willingness to design within a buildable, costable framework rather than chase a singular vision. The client meets the proposed architect early; if there's no fit, we propose someone else. The contract is between client and Varloch; the architect is engaged by us under a back-to-back agreement but the client has a direct working relationship with them through the design process. We run a structured stage-gate process: brief → concept → SD → DD → CD → tender (which is essentially a cost confirmation since we're already engaged) → construction → handover. At each stage gate, the client signs off on cost and scope before the next stage begins. If the relationship breaks down mid-design, the contract specifies how IP and partially-paid design fees transfer.
Cost certainty in a D&B model
The earliest reliable cost in a D&B project is typically at end-of-SD (Schematic Design) — about 8–12 weeks into design. We provide a 'budget envelope' at brief stage (±30%), a 'cost plan' at end-of-SD (±15%), and a 'fixed-price contract sum' at end-of-DD (±5%). Compare to design-bid-build, where the first reliable cost is at end-of-CD (Construction Documentation) — usually 20+ weeks into design and after substantial design fees are committed. The earlier cost visibility is the practical advantage of D&B for most clients, more than the single-contract framing.
Design IP, fees, and what happens if the relationship ends
Architect IP is preserved. Drawings remain the architect's intellectual property under the Copyright Act 1968, with a perpetual licence to the client for use on the specific project. If you decide D&B isn't working and want to take the design to another builder, the contract specifies the transfer pathway: the architect's outstanding fees become directly payable by the client, the design IP licence transfers to the client, and the project continues with a new builder. We don't hold IP hostage — but we do charge a reasonable fee for the time invested up to the transfer point, and the architect is paid in full for work done.
Frequently asked
Can I pick my own architect under D&B?
Yes, if you have one. We can structure the contract so the architect is your appointment and we run the rest as design-assist rather than pure D&B. Most pure-D&B clients let us propose from our panel because that's the value of the model — single accountability and early cost certainty.
Will D&B be cheaper than design-bid-build?
Not necessarily. D&B usually shortens the program and reduces variations from incomplete documentation, which often nets cheaper. But the up-front contract price is rarely the cheapest single number you'll be quoted — competitive tendering in design-bid-build can produce lower headline prices, even if the final cost (after variations) lands similar.
Who owns the design IP under D&B?
The architect, with a perpetual licence to the client for the specific project. Drawings can't be reused on other sites without re-engaging the architect. If you take the design to another builder mid-project, the licence transfers — see contract clause on design transfer.
Can D&B handle heritage projects?
Sometimes — when the heritage scope is well-defined. Major heritage restorations usually benefit from an independent heritage architect engaged directly by the client (not via the builder), so we'd typically recommend the traditional model there. We can still do the build on a separate contract.
What if I don't like the architect you propose?
We propose someone else. The panel isn't fixed — we'd rather match the architect to the brief than push a forced fit. If after 2–3 introductions we can't find a good match, D&B probably isn't the right delivery model for your project.
How long does design typically take in a D&B model?
Concept to fixed-price contract sum: 14–20 weeks for a custom Sydney residential project. Concept to CD-equivalent for construction: 20–28 weeks. Faster than design-bid-build because design and construction prep run in parallel rather than serial.
Can I pause or exit the design phase?
Yes — the contract has defined stage gates where the client can pause, exit, or change scope. Stage gates are at end-of-Concept, end-of-SD, and end-of-DD. Each gate has a clear cost commitment and a clear scope; pausing or exiting after a gate is administratively simple.
Working on something in this space?
Tell us about your site.
We do an initial conversation either over the phone or on site — your call. No deck, no sales pitch. Just a look at what you’re trying to do and an honest read on whether we’re the right team for it.
Builder of the Year
Australian Business Champions Awards
NSW · Residential construction
