Single prime contracting: how a project owner hires an architectural firm for design and a single contractor handles the whole project

If you’re looking at a project where the owner wants a design drawn up by an architectural firm and then handed off to a trusted contractor to build, the contract structure matters as much as the drawings themselves. In many Arkansas projects, this setup is best described by a single prime contracting approach. That’s the idea behind Single Prime Contracting: one main contractor owns responsibility for the whole project, with the owner directly engaging the architectural firm for the design.

What exactly does Single Prime contracting mean?

Let me explain in simple terms. In a Single Prime arrangement, the owner signs a single contract with one contractor who then takes on the overall responsibility for the project. The twist is that the owner directly hires an architectural firm to handle the design portion, while the prime contractor handles construction based on that design. The designer and builder still work closely together, but the contractual baton is passed through one main contractor. The result is a streamlined line of communication and a cleaner decision-making path from design through construction.

To put it in context, here are the other common contract formats you’ll hear about, and how they differ in terms of who does the design and who’s responsible for the build.

• Design-Build: One entity—often a single firm or joint venture—handles both design and construction under one contract. The owner interacts with that single point of contact, and the process tends to be faster because you’re compressing design and build into a single workflow.

• Traditional (Design-Bid-Build): The owner typically hires an architect directly for design and then separately engages a contractor for construction. The design and construction teams are distinct, and the process often involves a bid step after the design is complete.

• Fixed-Price: This is a pricing approach rather than a pure contract structure. It fixes the total cost for the project (or for a defined portion of it) and can sit inside various delivery methods. The key point is the price certainty, not who does what in design versus build.

Why a design-hire plus a single prime contractor makes sense in many Arkansas projects

Here’s the thing: when the owner brings in an architectural firm for design, and a single contractor for the whole build, you get a clear chain of responsibility. The designer is accountable for the quality and intent of the design; the contractor is accountable for delivering that design in the field, coordinating trades, and managing construction logistics. The two teams still work hand in hand, but the contract pins the accountability to one main player.

That arrangement can lead to real benefits:

• Clear lines of communication: Instead of juggling multiple contracts and multiple Points of Contact, the owner has one primary channel for decisions, with the architect and contractor aligned through the same frame.

• Faster decision-making: With a single prime, design queries can be resolved quickly, because the contractor is stays in the loop from early design through construction.

• Coordinated planning: Structural, mechanical, electrical, and finishing elements are planned with construction feasibility in mind, reducing surprises during permitting or on site.

• Potential for smoother changes: If a design change is needed, the contractor and architect can align on cost, timing, and scope in one integrated conversation.

But there are trade-offs as well. Every delivery method has its rough edges, and Single Prime is no exception:

• Design risk stays with the owner’s choice of architect: if the designer’s risk profile or style clashes with the contractor’s approach, that tension can show up in field decisions.

• Change management depends on the contractor’s efficiency: while a single point of contact helps, it also means the contractor must be vigilant about cost control and schedule when design evolves.

• Less formal separation of duties: some owners like the structural clarity of distinct design and construction teams; single prime can feel heavier on collaboration, requiring strong contracts and good project leadership.

Where Arkansas fits into the picture

Arkansas projects—whether public, private, small-scale, or mid-size—often value straightforward governance and clear responsibility. In many cases, the Single Prime approach is appealing when owners want tight coordination between design and construction without juggling too many contracts. It’s particularly popular for projects where the design is well-defined or where the owner wants to keep a tight rein on design quality while leaning on a capable contractor to manage build steps.

That said, the choice isn’t one-size-fits-all. Some owners prefer Design-Build because they want a single entity to shepherd both design and construction, especially when speed matters or where the market is tight. Others lean Traditional when they want the architect and contractor clearly separated, perhaps to maximize competitive bids or to align with long-standing team relationships. Fixed-Price arrangements can be useful in projects with well-scoped, repeatable elements where a firm price helps the owner budget confidently.

Pros and cons at a glance

If you’re weighing options, here’s a quick checklist you can skim and come back to:

• Single Prime Contracting (design-hire + main contractor):

• Pros: streamlined communication, faster decisions, consolidated responsibility, easier permitting in practice when the design is clearly defined.

• Cons: reliance on the contractor’s design coordination; risk if the architect and contractor don’t align on some details; potential tension if design changes impact cost.

• Design-Build:

• Pros: fast delivery, single point of accountability, often better for complex or integrated systems.

• Cons: less independence for the architect; the owner must trust the chosen design-builder to balance design quality with cost.

• Traditional (design-bid-build):

• Pros: clear separation of design and construction, competitive bidding for the build, dedicated roles.

• Cons: longer timeline, more coordination work for owners, higher risk of design flaws surfacing during construction.

• Fixed-Price:

• Pros: predictable budget, strong cost control.

• Cons: can reduce flexibility; changes can be expensive; depends on accurate scope and risk allocation.

How to decide what fits your project, practically

If you’re sizing up a project—from a small commercial build to a mid-size facility—these questions help guide the choice:

• How complex is the design? If the design is straightforward and well-defined, Single Prime can be a clean path. If it’s highly innovative or uncertain, a Design-Build team might be better at integrating design with construction realities.

• What’s the schedule pressure? Faster delivery favors delivery methods that combine design and build under one umbrella, like Design-Build or a well-coordinated Single Prime setup.

• How important is price certainty? If you need a firm price, a Fixed-Price approach within a chosen delivery method can help, but beware of the risk of change orders if scope isn’t well defined.

• Who are you most comfortable coordinating with in the field? If you want a single point of contact for both design and build, Single Prime is a natural fit. If you prefer strict separation of design and construction duties, Traditional may be better.

Practical tips for Arkansas projects

• Start with a solid design brief: the more clearly the owner’s goals are expressed, the fewer design changes will ripple through construction.

• Choose contracts with well-drafted risk allocation: look to reputable forms from sources like the American Institute of Architects (AIA) or ConsensusDocs. They often offer language that clarifies responsibilities, change management, and communication procedures.

• Involve the architect early in budgeting: even with a single prime, you want the designer’s experience to inform constructability and cost control from day one.

• Build in contingencies for changes: no process is completely change-proof, so plan for adjustments in schedule and budget.

A helpful analogy

Think of it like a car you’re building from components. The architect is the blueprint designer who ensures the engine, chassis, and interior match the vision. The prime contractor is the assembly line manager who brings those parts together, ensures the wires all connect, and that the car rolls out on time. Both sides are essential, and the way you align their responsibilities determines how smoothly the ride goes from drawing board to driveway.

Where to go from here

If you’re dealing with Arkansas projects and you want a practical sense of how to pick the right method, start with the core questions: who is responsible for design, who coordinates construction, and how change is handled. Then look at the risk you’re willing to shoulder and the pace you need to keep. It’s not just about choosing a contract type; it’s about aligning people, processes, and timing so the project flows with fewer speed bumps.

Final thought

Single Prime Contracting offers a straightforward path when a design-firm is directly engaged by the owner and a single contractor charges ahead with construction. It’s a model that can bring clarity to the process, reduce back-and-forth, and keep everything moving in a coordinated fashion. For Arkansas teams that value direct communication and a unified build path, it’s a solid choice to consider—especially when the project environment favors clear accountability and tight design-to-build alignment.

If you’re interacting with clients or evaluating bids in Arkansas, keep this framework in your pocket. It arms you with a practical lens to gauge whether a design-hire with a single prime contractor best serves the project’s goals. And when in doubt, bring in trusted sources like AIA or ConsensusDocs to review language and confirm that responsibility, risk, and timing are clearly spelled out. After all, the best projects start with clear agreements and a shared path from concept to completion.