Do I need a general contractor to build a house?

[hslogger]

I gotta buddy. He is a gearhead, handyman extraordinare, jack of many trades. Some years back, he bought a chunk of ground, took his out of state architect friend plans and decided to have a go of it. Five thousand feet, two story place. He acted as his own GC and hired all the subs...........Ten years later he started repairing stuff. Repeat, repairing stuff, all to what his satisfaction was.

A few years later, after defects up the wazoo, that he fixed, he sold it. The new buyer did a small addition and found 'significant defects'. New buyer sued the ship out of my buddy to the tune of 275k, and won easily. The point is, you gotta be a DETAIL driven individual. I wouldn't buy anything used from my bud, though I love him dearly. And he is a good fixer, not a master.

I've got a real old place, over the last forty years we have hired out some major projects. I even worked on a couple with some buds who were pretty good, but not the best. The projects that we had done by the Best are the Best. I gotta lot of respect for those much handier than myself, but if I want the best, I look for the best and let them have at 'er.

 

[MasseyFerg231]

That might be true some places but the building inspectors here maintain a high quality standard.

No, it’s true that the building code is the minimum amount required unless there is no standard enforced.

 

[4570Man]

No, it’s true that the building code is the minimum amount required unless there is no standard enforced.

What if the minimum amount required is still a good standard? Modern diesels only meet the minimum emission standards. Is anyone claiming they still burn dirty? The building code doesn’t dictate the quality of the finish furnishings which is what I would do better vs the guts of the house.

 

[Steppenwolfe]

What if the minimum amount required is still a good standard? Modern diesels only meet the minimum emission standards. Is anyone claiming they still burn dirty? The building code doesn’t dictate the quality of the finish furnishings which is what I would do better vs the guts of the house.

The IBC is the minimum required to pass an inspection for an ultimate Certificate of Occupancy. You can over build all you want, as long as it passes the minimum requirement... Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

 

[JasperFrank]

Always had to have the conversation with contractors, that under "Time and Materials," I want their best work. NEVER WORK WITH A BID! Bids never worked for me. Under a time and materials concept there isn't a mechanic's lien. You buy the materials, they do the time. You can fire or hire anyone you want. Just have cash on hand to fire that person you don't want.

 

[4570Man]

The IBC is the minimum required to pass an inspection for an ultimate Certificate of Occupancy. You can over build all you want, as long as it passes the minimum requirement... Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

I’ve actually at times had problems with over building “because we don’t have a chart for that” or “that’s not what the engineering drawings says”. I also got failed for not bending rebar in a footer good enough to suit them when code doesn’t even require the use of rebar. I could have taken it every bit out and passed code but since it was there it had to be bent properly. Who thinks up this crap?

 

[MasseyFerg231]

What if the minimum amount required is still a good standard? Modern diesels only meet the minimum emission standards. Is anyone claiming they still burn dirty? The building code doesn’t dictate the quality of the finish furnishings which is what I would do better vs the guts of the house.

I would say that accessibility and emergency egress sections of the code are good minimums off hand along with span tables for lumber. As far as performance of your building, codes leaves ALOT to be desired. I’ll give you a real life example of where the code minimum was not a good minimum. In 2007/08 we had to remove all siding from three house that were each three stories tall. The reason was that the code (and inspectors) allowed electro-galvanized nails,hangers and straps to be used on CCA treated wood. Well the builder “upgraded” the owner and fully sheathed the house with pressure treated plywood. The house was within 2,500 feet of the Gulf of Mexico. The houses were all built in 2004. After an extensive inspection it was determined that over 50% of the sheathing nails had rusted away The builder followed the code, the homes suffered damage, the report bills for each home were in the neighborhood of $75,000. I would have rather spent the $2,000 to $3,000 dollars extra on the “guts” than on the nice finishes had I purchased the house. Countertops and trim are easy to change later.

 

[hosspuller]

On the question of sub contractors or trade people. A general contractor hires subs for tens or hundreds thousands of dollars of work. The owner / GC is a single job. Whose job is priority ? Construction is a ballet of many trades. A single misstep or failure to show can throw the whole project out of schedule through cascading scheduling failures. Example... If the electrical isn't done, the sheet rock can't finish, which throws the painter out, which throws the cabinet worker out, which delays the install of appliances, etc..

Unless the owner is doing all or most of the work, a good GC is a must.

 

[4570Man]

I highly doubt the electro galvanized nails were rated for PT lumber. Using the improper nails and the code inspectors not noticing doesn’t mean the building code was inadequate.

 

[Fxfymn413]

I highly doubt the electro galvanized nails were rated for PT lumber. Using the improper nails and the code inspectors not noticing doesn’t mean the building code was inadequate.

It is a fallacy to believe that an inspector is going to catch every mistake. The GC has to be willing to want to do it right and hold their subs to that standard. On a commercial job the Superintendent is the most crucial person who had best know what the code requires and is making sure the subs adhere to it.

Getting and holding onto good inspectors is difficult for most shops because for the most part inspectors come from the trades and inspector jobs just don't compare salary wise. It also takes several weeks to get them certified so even if you make a hire they may not be able to start doing inspections right away. And just like contractors there are good and bad inspectors. That is why I encourage anyone who believes the inspector is wrong to call the building department and ask to speak to a supervisor.

My part of the inspection process mostly took place when the building was almost complete and the developer was striving to get the OP so he/she did not renege on the financing. It would gall us when we discovered blatant code violations which the super missed and then we got blamed for holding up the OP. And yes I would hear from my boss and the politicians about why we failed them.

I also got failed for not bending rebar in a footer good enough to suit them when code doesn’t even require the use of rebar.

The code is developed based on real life experience and laboratory testing. The inspector probably did you a favor by making you do it right instead of letting you spend your money to put something in that might ultimately not do what you wanted it to do. Yeah, it sucked at the time, but no one ever went to bed at night and thought "I'm glad I didn't do that right."

 

[MasseyFerg231]

….... That is why I encourage anyone who believes the inspector is wrong to call the building department and ask to speak to a supervisor.

Good point. On items that maybe suspect that the building inspector is reaching on, we ask for them to please put it in writing on their office letterhead. We tell them that we need this to show to the owner who will get the bill for the additional work. Often, it will never get put in writing as it was not a requirement, but rather a request.

Fire Marshalls on the other hand pretty much can do as they wish, code or no code.

 

[Jeepnford]

If you value your sanity, yes.

 

[Hay Dude]

I am recently retired. I have done my own repairs or upgrades in regards to electrical and plumbing over the years.
I can do basic carpentry and have the tools to build anything.
I have project management experience in the manufacturing world.

I recently bought an IRC 0016 book online to review and have house drawings approved with an architect's stamp.

My son recently had a house built and says that he became his own contractor as he went there daily to see the work and got up to speed by asking the builders questions. I know contractors manage more than just overseeing the work but I am wondering if it's necessary.

I know enough about carpentry, electricity, and plumbing but I don't feel I know enough about footers, foundation, and waterproofing (basement) to do this on my own.
The foundation scares me a bit. i know a big box company has a reputation for cutting corners but I don't know the details. I am considering hiring a qualified contractor to oversee this up to the point where the concrete is all poured and is ready for framing.

I can afford it but I will also be twiddling my thumbs watching others do the work if I hire this out.

Hoping others here can give some advice.

I didn’t read all the replies, just your original post #1.
I would say that you could hire someone to do the site layout, excavation, footings and foundation walls under one company. They can handle all that for you. They would serve as a ”partial general contractor” for that phase of construction and leave you ready for rough framing.
You will need general contractor insurance and to do all the permits and scheduling. You’ll need to make nighttime calls to subs and do all the dirty work I do.
I have built homes and additions for over 30 years and it has its headaches-just like any other job.
My guess is it will take you substantially longer than a professional and what you save in money will be fairly substantial as well. If you have plenty of time and don’t have pressure to move into the home quickly, give it a try.
Worstcase scenario is someone will have to take over for you and finish where you left off.
Your codes inspector may be a friend to you in that his inspections can keep you code compliant, but they do not generally have much to do with quality of construction.

 

[Fxfymn413]

Fire Marshalls on the other hand pretty much can do as they wish, code or no code.

As a former FM there were times when I wished this was true, but it isn't. Basically the fire prevention code is nothing more than a maintenance code for the building code's sections that apply to life safety and fire spread. At least in the IBC world if it was built to comply with the building code the FPC just makes sure it doesn't change.

If the FMO is doing the new construction fire protection systems inspections they are using the building code to do so.

Unfortunately the NFPA's Life Safety Code takes a different approach and forces changes to existing buildings to comply with each new edition of the code. I personally take strong exception to that approach as it places an unrealistic financial burden on the property owner. Unless things have changed since I retired Florida is the only state that uses the LSC statewide.

One of the short comings of the code compliance system is that each inspector pretty much works alone without immediate supervision. This can lead to an inspector thinking that he/she is the supreme authority and ends up enforcing the code as they see fit. Any decent leader of a code enforcement agency cannot tolerate this and that is why I so strongly encourage clients to call the inspector's supervisor if they believe they have been wronged. Without those phone calls the supervisor may never know what the inspector is doing.

A good inspector goes out with the attitude of "What can I do to help the client do what they want to do." not "What can I find to stop the client from doing what they want to do."

 

[deezler]

That is why I encourage anyone who believes the inspector is wrong to call the building department and ask to speak to a supervisor.

Not really an option in many places. My township has ONE dude, same for many others around here. My guy is terrific, but he is the entire building department. He pulls in another guy to do the electrical inspections, but he handles all mechanical and structural stuff.

 

[Fxfymn413]

Not really an option in many places. My township has ONE dude, same for many others around here. My guy is terrific, but he is the entire building department. He pulls in another guy to do the electrical inspections, but he handles all mechanical and structural stuff.

I agree as one person shops are quite common, but everybody has a boss. (At least if you are married!)

Believe me; when something went south I almost always heard from the county council members in whose district the problem occurred. Political pressure usually greases the wheels for a solution like keeping an inspector on site until the work is brought up to speed and approved.

And if all else fails there is an appeal process in the code.

 

[4570Man]

The code is developed based on real life experience and laboratory testing. The inspector probably did you a favor by making you do it right instead of letting you spend your money to put something in that might ultimately not do what you wanted it to do. Yeah, it sucked at the time, but no one ever went to bed at night and thought "I'm glad I didn't do that right."

When the code doesn’t require the use of rebar at all but the job has rebar it’s just not optimally bent how does thar not qualify for doing it right? Using it at all for a footer that was already more than double the minimum required size was already doing a good job. Another time I got failed for using more than the required amount of trusses. We ended up with 2 extra so rather than throw them away we decided to set them all at the end of the stack. Apparently when the engineer drawings were rated for one truss setting 3 in its place isn’t acceptable.

 

[duffer]

One thing I've learned over the years building my own houses, is that no matter if you're playing general contractor for yourself, or not, pull your own permit. Why? Because whoever pulls the permit, controls the work.

You hire a general contractor to build your place, and he turns out to be a dud, it's almost impossible to fire him, because he pulled the permit. You could go get another permit, but more costs, more headaches, building dept will have a red flag on you, etc.

If you pull your own permit, you can hire and fire whoever you want on the job, including the general contractor if you use one.

The benefit of a general contractor in this environment, is that they have a bevy of subs already lined up and willing to work for them. If you're your own GC, then you become a "one and done" for all the subs. You will constantly go to the bottom of their priority list to show up on time, or complete the job if one of their other "regular" GC's calls them and says I need you now. It will likely take you twice as long for your build than using a general contractor.

 

[Steppenwolfe]

I agree as one person shops are quite common, but everybody has a boss. (At least if you are married!)

Believe me; when something went south I almost always heard from the county council members in whose district the problem occurred. Political pressure usually greases the wheels for a solution like keeping an inspector on site until the work is brought up to speed and approved.

And if all else fails there is an appeal process in the code.

I can assume you aren't working in California or New Jersey or Mass or a Philly, Boston, Chicago, or DC... Those boys move to their own drum beat, and no one else's.

 

[Fxfymn413]

I can assume you aren't working in California or New Jersey or Mass or a Philly, Boston, Chicago, or DC... Those boys move to their own drum beat, and no one else's.

DC area actually,,,