Traditionally, local builders employed much of their own workforce. Bricklayers, carpenters, plasterers and labourers worked together as one team, moving from project to project under the same company – with the rate of pay controlled by the firm.

Homes used to be simple buildings, but with modern regulation and technology, even basic homes are much less simple. Move to the prime sector and the specification choice is huge and involves an enormous range of specialists – none of which are directly employed by the contractor.

As construction has changed, so has the business model of the local builder. Today, many construction companies operate with a relatively small permanent team and employ subcontractors to carry out much of the work.

The builder becomes responsible for selecting those people, coordinating them, programming their work, checking quality and ultimately taking responsibility for the finished project.

In many ways, the modern main contractor has become a risk-carrying project manager. They assemble the team, manage the construction process and stand contractually between the client and the dozens of businesses delivering it. Along with the suppliers, it is these companies that set the rates and ultimately determine the cost of your project.

I strongly believe this also creates an interesting point when comparing builders.

Within our local area, the pool of genuinely good subcontractors capable of consistently delivering high-end residential work is not unlimited. The same bricklayers, electricians, decorators, joiners and other specialist trades will often work for several of the better local contractors.

So if the same project is built to the same specification, using comparable local trades and materials, should the final cost fluctuate depending on which quality contractor you appoint?

In our experience, it really doesn’t.

Recently, we have reviewed competing tender returns for high-specification new builds as part of project management appointments and, once the scopes, exclusions, provisional sums and assumptions have been properly aligned, the underlying costs have become remarkably similar.

One contractor may initially appear considerably cheaper, but once you establish exactly what has been included, that gap often starts to disappear. Of course there will always be variables – different overheads, management structures and profit expectations but in the current market, there really wont be much in it when you are comparing apples to apples.

If the modern contractor is effectively responsible for managing the people, information, programme, quality and financial risk required to deliver your home, then those are the areas you should be interrogating.

Are they experienced? Properly insured? Are they organised and can they communicate? Do they have access to the right people?

And perhaps most importantly, are they transparent about what things actually cost?

Jeremy

Taylor Kings