We are constantly asked why RGC&A has chosen Design As Our Specialization. Can we not also do the construction of our projects? Construction is even potentially more lucrative a specialty or practice when compared to just simply limiting one´s participation to design and supervision. So why does RGC&A opt not to do the construction of its projects as well? Many clients often cannot believe why we choose not to engage in any construction work.  

The following should serve as a standard answer—also good for the appreciation of our option. 

RGC&A does not claim any uniqueness in its professional practice. Our system is the standard for almost all larger projects and the norm among the more informed clients. RGC&A  was probably the first outfit in Baguio to specialize in design, sans construction. We remain probably the only firm in the locality that strictly does not engage in any construction work. 

Perhaps due to financial constraints, the most prevalent mode of practice among almost all other firms is the design-build option. Where the firms concerned are the designers and also the builders of their projects. As a consequence, these groups usually become contracting outfits and firms which… "also design".

Since our realization and actualization (in the mid-80's) of the inherent conflict of interest in wearing the two caps bearing the labels "designer" and "builder", we have made the critical choice to concentrate in design and opt not to do any contracting work. This is not just an office policy but has been our long-standing office rule. Whilst the debacle on the matter continues its rue in the midst of the professional circle, we have manifested time and again our belief that our clients' interest is second to none. The choice should be simple enough, and to this end we continue to adhere—no contracting work for us!

Think about this… Considering the trilogy involved in the delivery of a project, why would an Owner who has been appropriately advised, give up the inherent check-and-balance that occurs in having the standard participants in a construction project? Composed of the Owner, the Designer and the Builder, it would seem unfathomable why an Owner would want to give up the protection that an independent Designer and technical consultant would give him and opt to vesting the functions of Designer and Builder into just one party.

Consider further… Usually not being a technical man, how will an Owner—short of opting on resigned trust upon his Designer-Builder (being one party)—objectively assess a project´s implementation? Will he not be better-served having at his side an independent designer and adviser, who will protect his interests and remain objective as the project is implemented by a Builder who has been chosen based on the merit of being the most advantageous proposal obtained with the help of said designer?

RGC&A takes pride in its "sans contracting" policy and now asks you: would you rather choose a design specialist? Or will you take a chance on a firm that is a construction company that "also designs?" The choice should be fairly simple to anyone who has been properly advised.