The Architect's Role

Most owners - even sophisticated ones spending $5M to $15M on a custom home in Los Angeles - significantly underestimate the scope of what their architect does. They understand the creative work: floor plans, elevations, material palettes, the 3D renderings that make the project feel real for the first time. What they don't understand is the technical, legal, and administrative framework the architect operates within, or the professional obligations that come with it. That gap in understanding creates problems downstream - problems that a well-structured project team can prevent.

This page is written from the construction manager's perspective - but its purpose is to articulate and defend the architect's role. If you're an architect, we wrote this for you. If you're an owner, we wrote this so you understand what your architect does and why it matters.

Last updated: February 2026

What the Architect Actually Does - Beyond "Designing the House"

The Architect as Licensed Professional

Unlike general contractors, who hold trade licenses but are not subject to a professional standard of care in the same legal sense, architects are licensed professionals bound by obligations analogous to those of doctors and attorneys. An architect's license in California means they've completed an accredited professional degree, logged thousands of hours of supervised experience through the Architectural Experience Program, passed all divisions of the Architect Registration Examination, and maintain their license through continuing education. The California Architects Board oversees this licensure, and the standard of care it establishes is not a marketing distinction. It is a legal framework that shapes every decision the architect makes on your project.

The professional standard of care means the architect is obligated to perform their services with the skill and diligence that a reasonably prudent architect would exercise under similar circumstances. When your architect makes a recommendation about building placement on a hillside lot, specifies a structural system, or reviews a contractor's pay application, they're exercising professional judgment backed by this standard. That judgment carries legal weight. It is one of the reasons the architect's role on your project is fundamentally different from any other team member's.

The Architect's Scope of Services

Under the standard AIA B101 Owner-Architect Agreement - used on the vast majority of custom residential projects in Southern California - the architect's services are organized into five phases. Each phase builds on the previous one, and each involves a distinct set of professional obligations.

Schematic Design (SD)

This is where the architect translates your program (what you want the house to do) and the site conditions (what the property allows) into a preliminary design concept. This means floor plans that organize rooms and circulation, massing studies that establish the building's volume and form on the site, site placement that addresses views, solar orientation, setbacks, and access, and initial material concepts that set the design direction. On a complex hillside project, schematic design also involves early coordination with civil engineers and geotechnical consultants to understand what the site will and won't support. This is the phase of creative exploration, but it's exploration within constraints - zoning, geology, topography, and code all shape the design from day one. For projects in areas affected by the 2025 fires, the constraints also include PGRAZ rebuilding requirements and specific zoning overlays that govern what can be rebuilt and where.

Design Development (DD)

Design development refines the schematic design into a more detailed design with specific systems, materials, and dimensions. Structural concepts take shape - will this be a steel frame, wood frame, or concrete structure? Mechanical system approaches are established - forced air, radiant, or hybrid? Window and door specifications narrow from general concepts to specific manufacturers and product lines. Finish selections begin in earnest. Design development is where the creative vision starts becoming a buildable building. It's also the phase where cost implications begin to compound - every material selection, every structural decision, every mechanical system choice has a cost consequence that becomes increasingly difficult to reverse as the design progresses.

Construction Documents (CD)

This is the phase that produces the legal documents defining exactly what will be built. The construction document set includes architectural drawings (plans, sections, elevations, details, and schedules), structural engineering, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineering, civil engineering, and landscape architecture - all coordinated by the architect as the lead design professional. On a complex custom home, a complete CD set can run 150 to 300 sheets or more. These documents must be internally consistent, code-compliant, and detailed enough for a contractor to build from without ambiguity. The quality of the construction documents directly determines the quality of the construction process. Incomplete or poorly coordinated documents generate requests for information, field conflicts, change orders, and delays. The architect's investment in thorough documentation during this phase pays dividends throughout construction.

Bidding and Negotiation

This is the phase where the architect assists the owner in obtaining contractor proposals and evaluating bids. Under a traditional design-bid-build delivery, this means issuing the documents to multiple contractors, managing the bid process, and helping the owner evaluate the results. Under CMAR delivery, this phase is replaced by the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) negotiation process. The CM - who has been involved since schematic design, providing cost data and constructability input - presents a GMP based on the construction documents. There is no competitive bidding in the traditional sense because the CM has already been selected for their pre-construction expertise, and the GMP reflects months of collaborative cost development. The architect's role during GMP negotiation is to confirm that the CM's understanding of the scope matches the design intent.

Construction Administration (CA)

This is the phase most owners don't fully understand, and it's the phase most relevant to the question of project oversight, delivery models, and whether an owner needs additional management layers beyond the architect and the CM. Construction administration includes site visits to observe construction progress, review and certification of the contractor's pay applications, evaluation of change orders, review of submittals and shop drawings, interpretation of the contract documents when questions arise, and determination of substantial and final completion. This phase can last 18 to 36 months on a complex custom home, and it represents a significant portion of the architect's total effort on the project.

Construction Administration - The Architect's Oversight Role That Already Exists

This is the section that matters most if you're an owner evaluating whether you need an owner's representative, or if you're an architect who has had your contractual authority diluted by a third-party oversight layer. The AIA B101 Owner-Architect Agreement includes a comprehensive set of construction administration obligations. These are not optional add-ons. They are core professional services included in the architect's fee. Understanding what these obligations include - in practical, not contractual, terms - is the starting point for evaluating whether additional oversight is necessary, redundant, or counterproductive.

Site Visits and Observation

The architect is obligated to visit the site at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction to evaluate whether the work is proceeding in general conformance with the contract documents. The key phrase is "general conformance" - the architect is observing the work, not inspecting it. This is a legal distinction with practical consequences, but it doesn't diminish the value of the architect's observation. It means the architect is evaluating whether the building being constructed matches the design - whether walls are where the plans show them, whether materials match the specifications, whether the quality of execution meets the standard the design demands.

The frequency of site visits depends on the complexity of the project and the phase of construction. During critical phases - foundation work, structural framing, MEP rough-in, waterproofing - weekly or even twice-weekly visits may be appropriate. During less critical phases - interior finish work, landscaping - the frequency can decrease. On a complex hillside home with significant foundation and structural systems, the architect's presence during early construction phases is particularly important because foundation and structural work is irreversible and sets the geometry for everything that follows.

What the architect observes during site visits matters. They're looking at whether the structural steel connections match the engineer's details, whether the window rough openings are sized for the specified window system, whether the stone veneer matches the approved sample, whether the roof geometry matches the design intent. These observations are documented and communicated to the contractor and the owner. When the architect identifies a condition that deviates from the design, they have the authority to require correction.

Pay Application Review and Certification

Every month during construction, the contractor submits an application for payment - a document that says, in effect, "here is the work we completed this period, and here is the amount we're owed." The architect reviews this application. They evaluate whether the work billed has actually been performed, whether the amounts are consistent with the schedule of values (the line-item budget established at the start of construction), and whether the quality of the completed work is acceptable. The architect then issues a Certificate for Payment - a formal document authorizing the owner to release funds to the contractor.

This is not a rubber stamp. The architect is exercising professional judgment. If they observe that the framing is only 60% complete but the contractor has billed for 85%, they adjust the certification. If they observe quality issues that need to be corrected before payment is released, they note the deficiency. The Certificate for Payment is one of the most important financial controls on the project - it's a licensed professional certifying, based on their observation and review, that the contractor has earned the amount requested. For a deeper treatment of how this process integrates with GMP tracking, see our guide on budget development and cost control.

Change Order Evaluation

Every complex custom home encounters conditions that require changes to the original scope, cost, or schedule. The owner decides they want to add a wine cellar that wasn't in the original program. The contractor discovers soil conditions that differ from the geotechnical report. The architect identifies a coordination conflict between the mechanical ductwork and the structural framing that requires a design modification. These situations generate change orders, and the architect plays a critical role in evaluating them.

The architect assesses whether the change is necessary, whether the proposed scope is appropriate, whether the pricing is reasonable relative to the contracted rates, and whether the change affects the design intent. This evaluation requires the architect to understand both the design and the construction - to know whether the contractor's proposed solution to a field condition is consistent with the design or whether it compromises something important. On a project with hundreds of individual change events over a two-year construction period, the architect's role as change order evaluator is one of the most time-intensive CA obligations.

Under CMAR delivery, the CM produces change order pricing with full backup documentation - subcontractor quotes, material costs, labor hours, and the CM's markup. The architect evaluates the scope and design impact. This division is clean: the CM provides the cost data, the architect evaluates the design implications, the owner makes the business decision. Neither professional is asked to do the other's job.

Submittal and Shop Drawing Review

Before materials and systems are fabricated or installed, the contractor submits product data, shop drawings, and samples to the architect for review. The architect evaluates whether these submittals conform to the design intent and the specification requirements. This is one of the most painstaking and consequential activities in the entire project.

On a complex custom home, the submittal log can include hundreds of line items: structural steel shop drawings showing every connection and dimension, window system shop drawings showing frame profiles, glass specifications, and hardware, stone samples for every surface, plumbing fixture cut sheets, lighting fixture specifications, cabinet shop drawings, tile layouts, hardware selections, and dozens more. Each submittal requires the architect to evaluate whether what the contractor proposes to furnish matches what the architect specified and designed. A steel connection that doesn't match the engineer's detail, a window profile that's 30% wider than specified, a stone color that doesn't match the approved sample - these are the kinds of deviations the submittal process catches before materials are fabricated and installed. Catching them on paper costs nothing. Catching them in the field costs tens of thousands of dollars.

Contract Interpretation

When questions arise about the meaning or intent of the contract documents, the architect serves as the initial interpreter. And on a complex custom home, questions always arise. The floor plan shows a dimension that conflicts with an elevation. The specification calls out a product that's been discontinued. The structural drawings show a beam at a location where the architectural drawings show a flush ceiling. Two subcontractors disagree about which trade is responsible for a particular scope item.

The architect's interpretation of the contract documents governs, subject to the dispute resolution procedures in the construction contract. This interpretive authority is essential to maintaining design intent through construction. Without it, every ambiguity becomes a negotiation between the contractor and the owner, and the resolution tends to favor whatever is cheapest or fastest rather than what's most consistent with the design.

Determination of Substantial and Final Completion

The architect determines when the project reaches substantial completion - the point at which the owner can occupy and use the building for its intended purpose, even if minor work remains - and final completion, when all work is complete in accordance with the contract documents. These are not casual judgments. They trigger significant legal and financial consequences: warranty periods begin, retainage is released, the contractor's completion date is established for purposes of liquidated damages, and the owner's occupancy rights begin.

The architect's determination of substantial completion typically involves a comprehensive walk-through of the entire project, generating a punch list of items that must be completed or corrected before final completion. On a $10M custom home, the substantial completion punch list can run 300 to 500 items. Managing this list to final completion - confirming that each item has been addressed to the architect's satisfaction - is the final act of construction administration.

How Different Delivery Models Affect the Architect's Authority

The delivery model you choose for your project doesn't just affect cost and schedule. It fundamentally shapes your architect's ability to do their job. It determines whether your architect has the information they need to make good decisions, whether their authority is supported or diluted by the project structure, and whether the design you're paying for survives contact with construction reality. I've managed projects under every major delivery model over 24 years, and the architect's experience varies dramatically depending on how the team is structured.

Design-Bid-Build (Traditional)

Under design-bid-build, the architect completes the design in full before a contractor is engaged. The architect works through schematic design, design development, and construction documents without construction input - no cost data, no constructability review, no schedule analysis. When the design is complete, the owner solicits bids from contractors. The contractors price the completed design. The architect and owner discover what the building actually costs.

In practice, on complex residential projects in Los Angeles, this is where the process breaks down. The architect designs to the program and the code. They make assumptions about construction cost based on experience and general knowledge - "hillside construction in Bel Air runs $800 to $1,200 per square foot," or "a project of this complexity will probably land around $950." These assumptions are reasonable but imprecise, because the architect doesn't have the estimating infrastructure, trade relationships, or current subcontractor pricing that a construction manager maintains. For current cost ranges by project type, see our guide on what construction costs in Los Angeles.

When the bids come in 30% to 40% over the architect's conceptual budget - which happens regularly on complex projects - everyone is frustrated. The owner feels the architect designed something they can't afford. The architect feels the contractors bid the project high. The contractors feel the design is overbuilt and difficult to construct as drawn. Nobody is necessarily wrong. The problem is structural: the architect was asked to design without the data they needed, and the gap between the architect's cost assumptions and the contractor's actual pricing gets discovered at the worst possible moment.

What follows is value engineering - a process where the contractor proposes cheaper alternatives to the architect's design. On paper, value engineering is a collaborative exercise. In practice, when it happens after bidding, it's a cost-cutting exercise driven by budget panic. The contractor proposes substitutions that reduce cost. The architect evaluates each one, knowing that the owner needs the cost to come down and that rejecting too many substitutions risks losing the contractor entirely. The architect's design authority is technically intact - they can reject any substitution - but the practical dynamic puts them in a defensive position where they're fighting to preserve their design rather than making proactive choices.

Cost-Plus with an Owner's Representative

Under a cost-plus arrangement, the contractor bills the owner for actual construction costs plus a percentage markup or fixed management fee. The architect's design process is similar to design-bid-build in that they often complete or substantially advance the design before the contractor provides detailed cost input. The contractor may engage during design development, but their incentive structure (more cost equals more fee under a percentage markup) doesn't reward the kind of rigorous cost analysis that helps the architect make informed decisions. The cost feedback the architect receives tends to be general rather than granular - "this house will cost about $1,100 per square foot" rather than "the foundation system as designed costs $480K, and here's a design modification that achieves the same structural performance at $340K."

The owner, recognizing that the cost-plus structure doesn't inherently control costs, often hires an owner's representative to provide oversight. This is where the architect's experience changes - and usually not for the better. The owner's rep arrives with a broad mandate: protect the owner's interests. In practice, that mandate often leads the owner's rep to insert themselves into the architect's communication with the owner, reviewing and sometimes filtering the architect's recommendations before they reach the client. The architect's direct line to the owner - which is essential for design decisions, scope changes, and the kind of nuanced conversations that shape a custom home - now runs through an intermediary.

The architect's design recommendations are evaluated not just by the owner (who hired them and trusts their judgment) but by a third party whose construction knowledge may be deep, shallow, or somewhere in between. The architect finds themselves justifying their professional recommendations to someone who may not have the design expertise to evaluate them. The owner hears the architect's recommendation filtered through the owner's rep's interpretation. The architect's authority isn't formally reduced - they still have their AIA contractual obligations and authority - but the practical effect of the intermediary layer is dilution. For a detailed analysis of how the owner's representative model affects the architect's contractual authority, see our companion guide on construction oversight structures.

I want to be clear: this isn't an indictment of every owner's representative. Some are excellent professionals who add genuine value. The structural problem is that the role, as typically implemented, creates a competing authority that overlaps with the architect's existing contractual obligations. The architect is already obligated to review pay applications, evaluate change orders, and observe the work. When the owner's rep does the same things, the owner has two oversight layers - one from a licensed design professional with contractual authority, and one from a consultant whose authority derives from the owner's trust rather than from professional licensure or a standard form contract.

CMAR (Construction Manager at Risk)

Under CMAR delivery, the construction manager joins the project during schematic design or early design development - before the architect has committed to decisions that can't be undone affordably. The architect and CM work together through every design phase, with the CM providing real-time cost feedback, constructability review, and schedule input at each design milestone.

The architect retains full design authority. Every design decision remains the architect's to make. The CM doesn't tell the architect what to design. What the CM does is provide data that makes the architect's decisions better informed. When the architect is considering a cantilevered living room over a hillside, the CM can quantify the structural cost difference between a 10-foot cantilever ($80K in additional structural steel and engineering) and a 16-foot cantilever ($220K). The architect can then make an informed design decision - or present the owner with both options and real numbers - rather than designing in the dark and discovering the cost implications six months later when bids come in.

The Pre-Construction Collaboration - Where the Best Work Happens

The most valuable work on a well-run project doesn't happen during construction. It happens before construction starts - during the months when the architect is developing the design and the CM is providing the construction reality that shapes it. This is where the CMAR model creates value that no other delivery structure can replicate. I've managed pre-construction collaboration on projects ranging from $3M hillside renovations to $80M estates, and the pattern is consistent: when the architect and CM work together from schematic design forward, the resulting building is better designed, better budgeted, and better built than anything that emerges from a sequential process.

Schematic Design Phase

What the CM provides: Preliminary site feasibility analysis (if not already completed as a standalone feasibility study), an initial rough-order-of-magnitude (ROM) cost estimate based on the schematic design, identification of major cost drivers such as foundation type, grading volume, and access constraints, long-lead item identification for materials with extended procurement timelines, and a preliminary schedule framework that establishes the project's overall duration and critical milestones.

What the architect does with it: The architect uses this construction data to make design decisions that are both creative and cost-aware. They adjust the building footprint to optimize foundation cost. They evaluate design alternatives that achieve the same spatial program through different structural approaches. They present the owner with informed options rather than a single design that may or may not be affordable.

Here's what this looks like in practice. An architect designing a hillside home in Bel Air positioned the building to maximize ocean views, which placed the building pad on the steepest section of the lot. The CM's feasibility analysis identified that this placement required 28 caissons to variable bedrock at 25 to 45 feet, with an estimated foundation cost of $680K, plus 4,200 cubic yards of earth export at $360K in grading. By shifting the building pad 22 feet uphill - still capturing the primary view corridor - the caisson count dropped to 16 with shallower bedrock (foundation cost: $380K) and the export volume dropped to 2,100 cubic yards ($180K). The design modification saved $480K and preserved the view. The architect made the design decision. The CM provided the data that informed it. Without that data, the architect would have finalized the original placement, and the $480K cost delta would have been discovered during bidding - forcing a painful redesign under time pressure.

Design Development Phase

What the CM provides: A detailed cost estimate broken down by trade, a constructability review of the developing design, value engineering options for cost-intensive elements with design-sensitive alternatives (not just "cheaper" substitutions), subcontractor input on complex assemblies, and an updated schedule with critical path identification.

What the architect does with it: The architect refines material selections with cost awareness. They resolve constructability conflicts in the drawings before those conflicts become field problems during construction. They present value engineering options to the owner with design impact analysis. The conversation sounds like this: "We can save $120K on the window system by specifying a high-quality domestic manufacturer instead of the European minimal-frame system. The profiles are about 15% wider, which changes the aesthetic slightly, but the floor-to-ceiling glass concept is maintained. Alternatively, we can use the European system on the primary view wall where the minimal profile matters most, and the domestic system elsewhere. That hybrid approach saves $80K."

The value engineering conversation is fundamentally different when it happens during design development versus after bidding. During DD, the architect is in control. They're choosing between options they've evaluated for design impact. They're making proactive decisions informed by data. After bidding, the dynamic reverses. The contractor is proposing substitutions that the architect must react to, often under budget pressure from an owner who just learned their project costs 35% more than they expected. The architect's creative authority is preserved in the first scenario and compromised in the second. For a detailed treatment of how progressive budget refinement works through the design phases, see our guide on budget development and cost control.

Construction Documents Phase

What the CM provides: Final constructability review of the CD set, a detailed trade-by-trade estimate with competitive subcontractor pricing, the GMP proposal with line-item detail and allowances, a construction schedule with milestones and critical path, and a pre-construction risk assessment identifying items that could affect cost or schedule during construction.

What the architect does with it: The architect conducts a final coordination review incorporating the CM's constructability comments. They confirm that the specifications support the cost model - that what's specified is what's been priced, and that the quality level is consistent throughout. They participate in the GMP review to confirm that the CM's understanding of the scope matches the architect's intent - that nothing has been missed, that allowances are adequate for unresolved selections, and that the CM is building the building the architect designed.

The GMP presentation is where the entire pre-construction collaboration pays its greatest dividend. Under design-bid-build, the "bid opening" is a moment of truth that is often a moment of shock. Under CMAR, there is no shock. The GMP is the culmination of months of progressive cost tracking. The architect has seen every estimate iteration - the ROM at schematic design, the detailed estimate at DD, the final estimate at CD. The owner has tracked the budget evolution from feasibility through design. When the GMP is presented, it confirms what everyone already expects, because the CM has been providing data throughout design, not delivering a single number at the end.

The Responsibility Matrix

The following matrix codifies the collaborative relationship described above. It defines who leads, who contributes, who approves, and who is informed for each major activity across the project. The principle is consistent: the architect leads design, the CM leads execution, the owner makes business decisions. Clear lanes prevent the authority confusion that undermines projects where roles overlap or where intermediaries create competing hierarchies.

During Construction - How the Architect's CA Role Works Under CMAR

The architect's construction administration obligations under the AIA B101 don't change based on the delivery model. Whether the contractor is a design-bid-build general contractor, a cost-plus contractor, or a CMAR, the architect still visits the site, certifies payments, evaluates changes, reviews submittals, interprets documents, and determines completion. What changes under CMAR is the quality of the information the architect receives, the alignment of the incentive structure, and the level of coordination between the architect and the construction team. The obligations are the same. The experience is different.

Site Visits Under CMAR

The architect visits the site per their AIA obligations, but under CMAR the CM proactively coordinates these visits with construction milestones. The CM schedules architect walk-throughs before critical inspections, before concrete pours that will conceal structural work, and before drywall closure when framing, rough MEP, and insulation are visible and accessible for observation. The CM provides the architect with updated field drawings marked with as-built conditions, RFI responses, and any deviations from the design that have been addressed during construction.

The practical effect is that the architect's site visit is more productive. Instead of arriving at the site and trying to assess what's happened since their last visit, the architect arrives to a coordinated walk with the CM's project manager, who can show them the critical items, explain any field modifications, and get real-time direction on design questions. The architect's observation time is focused on the things that matter most to design conformance rather than spent figuring out what stage the construction is in.

Pay Application Review Under CMAR

The CM prepares the monthly pay application with detailed backup documentation: the schedule of values updated to reflect completed work, supporting documentation for stored materials, conditional and unconditional lien waivers from subcontractors and suppliers, and a reconciliation showing the pay application against the GMP. The architect reviews this documentation and issues the Certificate for Payment.

Under CMAR, this review is more efficient and more reliable than under other delivery models, because the open-book accounting structure provides the supporting data directly. The architect can see the subcontractor invoices, the material receipts, and the CM's cost tracking against the GMP. They're not trying to verify costs from a contractor who has a financial incentive to bill ahead of actual progress. The GMP structure aligns the CM's incentive with accurate billing - overbilling on a pay app doesn't increase the CM's revenue (the GMP is the ceiling), and inaccurate billing undermines the shared savings calculation that benefits both the CM and the owner.

Change Orders Under CMAR

Change order management is one of the areas where the CMAR structure most dramatically improves the architect's experience. Under traditional delivery, change orders are adversarial. The contractor proposes a price. The architect doesn't have independent cost data to evaluate whether the price is reasonable. The owner feels they're being charged too much. The contractor feels their pricing is being questioned unfairly. Every change becomes a negotiation that consumes time and erodes relationships.

Under CMAR, change orders that affect the GMP are documented with full pricing backup: subcontractor quotes, material costs, labor hours, and the CM's markup. The pricing structure is transparent because the same open-book principles that govern the base contract apply to changes. The architect evaluates whether the change is consistent with the design intent and whether the scope is appropriate. They don't need to independently verify the cost, because the open-book structure and the GMP alignment ensure the CM is pricing changes fairly. Overcharging on a change order moves the CM closer to the GMP ceiling, reducing the potential shared savings - so the CM's incentive is to price accurately, not aggressively. For a detailed treatment of how the GMP incentive structure eliminates the adversarial change order dynamic, see our guide on oversight structures.

Submittals and RFIs Under CMAR

The CM manages the submittal process - receiving submittals from subcontractors, organizing them into a coherent sequence, reviewing them for constructability and specification compliance, and transmitting them to the architect with the CM's review comments. The architect reviews for design conformance. Two sets of professional eyes, each contributing distinct expertise, ensure that materials and systems meet both the design standard and the construction standard before they're fabricated or installed.

RFI volume under CMAR is typically lower than under traditional delivery. Many of the coordination issues that generate RFIs during construction - a duct that conflicts with a beam, a window head height that doesn't work with the structural depth, a waterproofing detail that conflicts with the cladding system - were identified and resolved during pre-construction constructability review. When RFIs do arise, the CM provides the architect with context: what field condition prompted the question, what options exist for resolution, and what the cost and schedule implications are for each option. The architect provides the interpretation, informed by the CM's analysis, and the response gets back to the field faster because both professionals have contributed to the answer.

Protecting Design Intent Through Construction

Every architect I've worked with over 24 years shares a common concern: that the building they designed won't be the building that gets built. That the design will be compromised during construction by cost-cutting substitutions, expedient field decisions, and the gradual erosion of quality that happens when nobody on the construction side cares about design intent as much as the architect does. This concern isn't paranoia. It's experience. And the delivery model you choose determines whether the concern is justified or addressed.

How Design Intent Gets Lost - The Typical Pattern

On a traditional project, the architect specifies materials, details, and assemblies with care. Each specification reflects a design decision: this stone, at this thickness, with this joint pattern, installed in this orientation. During construction, the contractor discovers that the specified stone has a 16-week lead time that doesn't align with the schedule. They propose a domestic alternative that's available in four weeks. The alternative is similar in color but different in texture, veining, and the way it takes light. The owner, already stressed about the schedule, approves the substitution. The architect objects but is overruled by the practical reality of a project that can't wait 16 weeks.

This happens dozens of times across a complex project. The specified window hardware is backordered - substitute with something similar. The custom steel railing detail costs $45K - use a standard profile and save $18K. The imported tile for the primary bathroom is discontinued - find something close. Each individual substitution seems minor in isolation. Cumulatively, they transform the building from the architect's vision into something that resembles it at a distance but feels different up close. The specificity that makes a custom home feel intentional - that makes it feel designed - erodes one substitution at a time.

How CMAR Changes the Pattern

Under CMAR, the substitution conversation happens during design, not during construction. The CM identifies cost-intensive specifications during design development and presents alternatives to the architect with full analysis: here's what you specified, here's what it costs, here are two alternatives at lower cost, and here's how each alternative affects the design. The architect evaluates the alternatives on their own terms and their own timeline. They can accept a substitute because the design impact is minimal, reject it because the specification is essential to the design concept, or propose a third option that the CM then prices.

By the time construction begins, the specifications in the construction documents have been validated against both the design intent and the cost model. The materials the architect specified are the materials the CM priced, and the materials the CM priced are the materials that will be installed. There's no budget surprise that forces a substitution at the last minute, because the budget was built around the actual specifications, not around assumptions.

Material Procurement as Design Protection

On projects with long-lead specialty materials - imported stone, custom window systems, bespoke hardware, specialty structural steel - the CM initiates procurement during design development, not after construction begins. Early procurement serves two purposes. First, it locks in pricing before construction starts, protecting the GMP from material cost escalation. Second, and more important for design intent, it ensures the specified material is actually available and on a delivery schedule that aligns with the construction sequence. Design intent is protected not just by specification but by procurement. The material the architect specified is ordered, fabricated, and on site when the installer needs it - not replaced at the last minute because it's backordered or discontinued.

Long-lead procurement also gives the architect a second look at materials before they arrive. Shop drawings and production samples submitted during fabrication allow the architect to confirm that the manufactured product matches the design intent. A stone slab layout, a window frame finish sample, a steel connection mockup - these submittals are verification points that catch discrepancies while correction is still possible.

The Value Engineering Distinction

The term "value engineering" carries different meanings depending on when it happens and who controls it. Under CMAR, value engineering is a collaborative design exercise that occurs during design development. The CM identifies cost-intensive elements and presents alternatives. The architect evaluates each alternative for design impact. The owner approves the direction with full understanding of the trade-offs. The architect is driving the conversation, choosing between options they've vetted, and making decisions that reflect their professional judgment about where cost savings are acceptable and where the specification must hold.

After bidding, under traditional delivery, value engineering becomes something else entirely. The contractor proposes substitutions to reduce cost. The architect reacts. The owner arbitrates under budget pressure. The architect's role shifts from creative decision-maker to design defender. This isn't a subtle distinction. It's the difference between an architect making proactive choices about their design and an architect fighting to preserve their design against cost-cutting proposals they didn't initiate. For a deeper treatment of how budget development and cost control supports design intent through progressive estimate refinement, see our guide on the subject.

What the Architect Should NOT Be Responsible For

One of the most persistent sources of frustration for architects on complex residential projects is being held responsible for things that fall outside their professional scope. When a project runs over budget, the owner looks at the architect. When the schedule slips, the owner looks at the architect. When a field condition costs more than expected, the owner looks at the architect. Some of that scrutiny is fair. Much of it isn't. Clearly delineating what falls outside the architect's scope isn't about giving architects an excuse. It's about making sure the project team provides the support the architect needs rather than blaming them for gaps that belong to other professionals.

Cost Estimating

The architect is not a cost estimator. They can provide general guidance based on experience and familiarity with project types: "custom hillside homes in this area typically cost $900 to $1,300 per square foot," or "a home of this size and complexity will probably land between $6M and $8M." These estimates are based on the architect's observation of past projects, their general awareness of current market conditions, and their professional judgment. They are not based on trade-level takeoffs, current subcontractor pricing, or detailed quantity surveys, because architects don't maintain the estimating infrastructure that produces reliable project cost estimates.

When an architect's "budget guidance" turns out to be significantly below the actual construction cost, the problem usually isn't the architect. It's the absence of a construction professional providing real cost data during design. The architect was asked to guide the budget without the tools to do it accurately - like asking your doctor to estimate the cost of a hospital stay. They can give you a range based on experience, but the business office produces the actual numbers. Blaming the architect for a budget overrun caused by lack of construction input misidentifies the problem. The solution is to provide the architect with construction cost data from the start - which is exactly what the CMAR pre-construction process delivers. For current cost data by project type, see our guide on what construction costs in Los Angeles.

Construction Means and Methods

The architect specifies what is to be built. The contractor determines how to build it. This distinction is fundamental to the allocation of responsibility on every construction project. The architect specifies a reinforced concrete retaining wall with specific dimensions, reinforcement, and finish. The contractor determines the formwork system, the concrete placement sequence, the shoring design, and the curing methodology. The architect specifies a structural steel frame with specific member sizes and connection types. The contractor determines the erection sequence, the crane placement, the temporary bracing, and the welding procedures.

The architect's job is to define the outcome. The contractor's job is to determine the methodology to achieve it. When owners or other team members expect the architect to weigh in on construction means and methods, they're asking the architect to step outside their professional competence and into an area of liability that belongs to the contractor. The architect shouldn't specify how to shore a hillside excavation or what type of crane to use for steel erection, and they're not responsible when those construction methodology decisions prove more expensive or time-consuming than anticipated.

Construction Scheduling

The architect doesn't develop or manage the construction schedule. They provide input on design phase durations, review the schedule's milestone dates for consistency with their deliverable timeline, and coordinate their CA activities with the construction sequence. But the construction schedule itself - the critical path analysis, the trade sequencing, the resource loading, the weather contingency planning - is the contractor's responsibility. Under CMAR, it's the CM's responsibility. For a detailed treatment of how complex residential projects are scheduled, see our guide on construction timelines in Los Angeles.

When projects run late, owners sometimes blame the architect, particularly if the design phase took longer than expected. Design phase duration is worth an honest conversation - complex buildings require complex documentation, and owners should expect the construction document phase for a $10M custom home to take 6 to 12 months or more. But construction schedule management is a separate discipline entirely, and holding the architect responsible for construction delays caused by weather, subcontractor availability, permit processing, or material lead times is misattributing the problem.

Full-Time Construction Inspection

The architect's CA obligation is to visit the site at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction - not to provide full-time inspection. This distinction matters legally and practically. The AIA B101 explicitly states that the architect's site visits are for the purpose of becoming generally familiar with the progress and quality of the work, and determining in general if the work is being performed in a manner indicating that the work, when completed, will be in accordance with the contract documents. The operative words are "generally familiar" and "in general."

The architect is not on site every day. They don't verify every fastener, check every weld, or test every waterproofing membrane. These are contractor and inspection responsibilities. Under CMAR, the CM provides daily on-site supervision through a full-time project manager and site superintendent. The architect provides periodic observation. These roles are complementary: the CM ensures the day-to-day execution meets the standard, and the architect confirms that the overall work conforms to the design. Owners who expect their architect to catch every construction defect are expecting a service that the AIA agreement explicitly does not include and that the architect's fee does not reflect.

How to Choose an Architect for a Complex Residential Project

If you're planning a custom home in Los Angeles, your choice of architect is the most consequential decision you'll make. More than the contractor, more than the finishes, more than the lot itself - the architect determines the quality of the building you'll live in, the efficiency of the process that produces it, and whether the finished home achieves the vision that motivated you to build custom in the first place. Here's what to evaluate and how to think about the selection process.

What to Look For

Experience with your project type. An architect who designs beautiful flat-lot contemporary homes in Venice may not have the technical depth for a hillside project in the Hollywood Hills where caisson foundations, retaining walls, geological constraints, and steep-slope building code requirements fundamentally shape the design. Similarly, an architect experienced with new construction may not be the right fit for a major renovation that requires integrating new work with existing conditions, or for a fire rebuild in the Palisades where the design must comply with updated fire codes and PGRAZ zoning overlays. Ask to see projects similar in type, scale, and complexity to yours.

Jurisdiction experience. Permitting in Los Angeles is not permitting in Beverly Hills. Malibu is not Bel Air. Each jurisdiction has its own planning department, its own interpretation of code requirements, its own review timelines, and its own set of specific plan and overlay zone requirements. An architect who knows the jurisdiction can navigate these requirements efficiently. An architect learning the jurisdiction on your project will take longer, make avoidable mistakes, and cost you time in the permitting process.

Portfolio depth at your finish level. There's a meaningful difference between designing a $3M home and designing a $12M home. The design complexity, the material specification level, the detail resolution, and the consultant coordination all scale with budget. Review the architect's portfolio for projects at your anticipated budget and finish level. Ask about the materials they specified, the engineering complexity, and the level of detail in their construction documents.

Team structure. On a $5M to $15M custom home, the architect's team typically includes a principal who leads the design, a project architect who manages the documentation, and additional staff for drafting, specifications, and coordination. Understand who will be your day-to-day contact, who produces the construction documents, and how the principal stays involved through construction administration. The architect you interview should be the architect who designs your home and stays engaged through completion.

Collaborative experience with a CM. Not all architects have worked in a CMAR structure. Those who have typically prefer it, because they've experienced the difference between designing with cost data and designing without it. An architect with CMAR experience understands the pre-construction collaboration process, is comfortable receiving constructability feedback during design, and knows how to work with a CM as a peer rather than viewing them as a threat to design authority. If the architect hasn't worked in a CMAR structure, that's not disqualifying - but ask how they've managed the design-to-budget process on past projects and how they've handled constructability issues that emerged during construction.

The Interview Process

When you interview architects, go beyond the portfolio review. Ask questions that reveal how they work, not just what they produce.

"Tell me about a project where the budget was a significant constraint. How did you manage the design-to-budget process?" The answer tells you whether the architect is comfortable with cost discipline or whether they view budget as an imposition on their creative process. Both types of architect exist. For a complex project with a defined budget, you want the former.

"How do you handle constructability issues that emerge during construction administration?" The answer tells you whether the architect stays engaged through CA and responds to field conditions proactively, or whether they view CA as an administrative obligation they'd rather delegate.

"What's your experience with a CM providing cost feedback during design?" The answer tells you whether the architect welcomes construction input during the design process or whether they prefer to complete the design independently and let the contractor figure out the cost afterward.

"How do you manage your consultant team - structural, MEP, civil, landscape?" The answer tells you about the architect's coordination capability, which directly affects the quality of the construction documents and the number of field conflicts during construction.

Fee Structures

Architect fees for custom residential projects in Los Angeles typically range from 8% to 15% of construction cost, with several factors driving variation. More complex projects (hillside, fire rebuild, heavy engineering involvement) command higher percentages. Smaller projects tend to have higher percentages because certain fixed costs don't scale linearly with project size. Higher finish levels often require more detailed documentation and more extensive CA involvement, which increases the fee.

Some architects work on a fixed fee rather than a percentage. This can be advantageous if the scope is well-defined, but it can create misalignment if the project evolves significantly during design (which complex projects always do). Other architects bill hourly, which provides flexibility but less cost certainty for the owner.

The cheapest architect is almost never the best value on a complex project. The architect's fee is 8% to 15% of the project cost, but the architect's decisions influence 100% of it. An architect who produces thorough, well-coordinated construction documents saves multiples of their fee in avoided change orders, reduced RFIs, and faster permitting. An architect who provides rigorous construction administration catches problems early when they're cheap to fix rather than late when they're expensive. The value equation isn't about the fee - it's about the quality of the service.

For an illustration of how early CM involvement supports the architect's design-to-budget process, see our guide on construction feasibility analysis.

The Architect-CM Partnership - What It Looks Like When It Works

The dynamics described throughout this page aren't theoretical. They play out on real projects with real cost implications. The following scenarios are composites drawn from actual project situations, illustrating how the architect-CM collaboration produces outcomes that neither professional could achieve alone.

Scenario 1: The Foundation Decision

An architect designs a home with a partial basement on a hillside lot in the Hollywood Hills. The basement provides a media room, wine storage, and mechanical space - programmatic requirements the owner prioritized. The CM's geotechnical analysis reveals variable bedrock beneath the proposed basement location, ranging from 18 feet to 40 feet below grade. The foundation system required for the basement as designed involves 24 drilled caissons, a reinforced concrete mat foundation, and extensive waterproofing and drainage. Estimated cost: $620K.

The CM presents the data to the architect with an alternative: if the lower level is redesigned as a slab-on-grade configuration with the mechanical space relocated and the media room placed at the downhill end where natural grade provides the volume without excavation, the foundation simplifies to 12 caissons with a conventional spread footing system. Estimated cost: $290K.

The architect studies the alternative. The redesigned lower level actually improves the natural ventilation path and creates an unexpected connection between the media room and the garden terrace at the downhill end. The wine storage moves to a condition that's naturally cooler. The spatial program is preserved. The design is arguably better. The owner saves $330K. The architect made the design decision. The CM provided the data and the structural analysis that made the decision informed.

Scenario 2: The Window Specification

An architect specifies a European minimal-frame window system for a contemporary home in Brentwood. The system is architecturally distinctive - ultra-thin mullions that virtually disappear, creating an uninterrupted glass plane that defines the home's primary elevation. The window package as specified costs $480K.

The CM sources a domestic alternative with comparable thermal performance and a slightly wider but still narrow profile. The domestic package costs $310K. The CM presents both options to the architect with a sample mockup showing the two profiles side by side. The architect evaluates the design impact. On the secondary elevations and smaller openings, the domestic system is visually indistinguishable in context. On the primary living room wall - a 22-foot expanse of glass facing the garden - the minimal profile of the European system is essential to the design concept.

The architect proposes a hybrid specification: European system on the primary view wall and entry sequence, domestic system on all other openings. The CM prices the hybrid at $370K. Design intent preserved where it matters most, cost reduced where it matters least. The owner doesn't experience a budget surprise because the evaluation happened during design development, not during construction.

Scenario 3: The Grading Discovery

During design development for a hillside home in Pacific Palisades, the CM's site analysis identifies that the architect's proposed building pad elevation requires 3,800 cubic yards of earth export. At $85 per cubic yard for hillside hauling with the access constraints on this particular site, that's $323K in grading alone.

The CM presents the data with a question: is the pad elevation fixed by the design concept, or is there flexibility? The architect considers the options. Lowering the pad by four feet would reduce the export to 1,600 cubic yards ($136K) - a savings of $187K. The challenge is the entry sequence: at the original elevation, the entry is at grade from the street. Four feet lower, the entry requires a descent.

The architect reconceives the arrival as a garden stair sequence - a series of planted terraces that step down from the street to a new entry court below. The approach becomes experiential rather than utilitarian. The client enters through landscaping rather than walking directly from the driveway into the front door. The constraint produced a better design. The grading savings funded the landscape work and left $120K on the table. None of this happens if the architect is working alone during design, discovering the grading cost after bidding, and facing a $323K line item with no time or room to redesign the entry.

Frequently Asked Questions

The information on this page is provided for educational purposes and reflects the professional experience and perspective of Benson Construction Group. It is not legal advice. Specific contractual obligations vary based on the agreements between the parties. The AIA contract documents referenced here are proprietary to the American Institute of Architects and should be reviewed in their entirety before use. Every project is unique, and the approaches described here should be adapted to the specific circumstances, team structure, and contractual framework of each engagement.