A builder talks the client into buying the plumbing, tile, and cabinetry a designer spent three weeks specifying. The specification work still happened, and the revenue walked out with the purchase orders. That is why the question of who purchases materials keeps resurfacing, and why it is not really a turf fight. Whoever buys the material also owns the warranty, the shortages, the returns, and the cracked toilet sitting in the garage.
The markup travels with the warranty
This argument never resolves cleanly because the margin and the risk ride on the same purchase order. You do not get to keep the markup on a $40,000 tile order and hand the breakage, the dye lot variation, and the six-week backorder to someone else.
Which makes the question of who holds the product warranty the real fault line here, rather than who deserves the margin. One designer laid out the whole chain of custody in a way that reads more like a scope document than an opinion.
“How can we expect the builder to provide a warranty and take full responsibility for the installation if they aren’t also responsible for purchasing the materials? I’m not a contractor or builder, and I don’t want to assume that liability or responsibility. I’ve been there, and for me, it’s simply not worth it. There’s also the logistics side of it. The builder typically picks up the materials, stores them, gets them to the job site when they’re needed, and coordinates when they’re installed and by whom. They’re also responsible for those materials once they’re on the job site, including if something is damaged or disappears. To me, it makes sense for that responsibility to stay with the builder from purchase through installation. I do purchase designer driven items, such as decorative light fixtures, door and cabinetry hardware, and wallpaper. Those are higher touch selections that require more attention to detail and are typically ordered later in the build process. If not purchasing materials is significantly affecting your revenue, raise your design fees.”
@theurbanedesign
Notice what she does not give up. The high-touch categories stay with her, and the lost markup is not treated as free. If the builder carries the product from purchase through installation, the builder carries the invoice, and the design fee has to absorb the difference.
Who purchases materials depends on your business model
No industry default exists, and acting as though one does is how designers end up negotiating from behind. The split moves with who was hired first, what the local supply chain actually carries, which state you are working in, and whether you hold a contractor license.
Designers are also frequently hired before the builder, which is leverage that goes unused more often than not. One firm treats that sequence as the whole ballgame.
“If we’re on the job first, we almost always determine which material categories we’re purchasing (usually all finished materials) and make that very clear in the bidding packet so builders can decide whether to bid and price the project accordingly. Our pricing and profitability are directly tied to those decisions, and because designers are often hired before the builder, we have to establish this upfront. We’ve found that builders insisting they need to purchase certain materials is almost always about wanting to retain that markup and profit, often accompanied by unsubstantiated reasons for why they “have to” be the ones to buy it (and sometimes some pretty blatant misogynistic undertones). We are just as capable of determining quantities with installers, purchasing and tracking materials, and coordinating deliveries to the site. Ultimately, there shouldn’t be a default about who buys what. It should be discussed, agreed upon, and priced transparently upfront.”
@spearman_spaces
The practical move is to name your purchasing categories in the bid packet, before the builder prices the job. A builder who learns in month four that the tile is coming through your account has every reason to push back.
Settled early, it is a line item. Raised late, it is a renegotiation you will probably lose.
What the builder takes on when the builder buys
It is worth hearing this from someone carrying the schedule. Builders aren’t just protecting a markup, and the ones who say so plainly are usually the easiest to work with.
“Builder here: I am impressed by how many believe the builder should be responsible for procurement and agree with most of your points. We are responsible to the client for a timeline, the warranty, and future services that are all related to those products. Personally, we don’t mark up those materials at all because honestly the margin in most materials isn’t large enough to actually make it worth it. It is just a matter of being able to control the job timeline and the contractual promises made to the client. All that said, if a designer brings me a project and they have a business model where they believe marking up materials is profitable for them, we will purchase all of the materials from the designer as “the retailer”. This way we can still give the client the guarantee we normally would and still be reasonable for all of the things we have to be, and at the same time, the designer can make their profit. However, be careful if this is your business model as being the vendor and being responsible for expensive returns (or even worse, large warranty claims that add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars sometimes) can be a real unexpected burden. Additionally, if your clients aren’t 100% understanding of your markup policies, that can also be a source of awkward discussions during the procurement phase.”
@chadofall_chadillac
Two things there deserve underlining. He does not mark materials up at all, which undercuts the assumption that every builder fighting for procurement is fighting for margin, and he offers the designer-as-retailer structure as the workaround.
He also names the risk nobody budgets for: a six-figure warranty claim landing on whoever sold the product. Elizabeth Scruggs on running the general contractor and the design studio under one roof is useful here, because she prices both sides of that risk on the same project.
The categories designers keep, and the test behind them
Across dozens of answers, the same list keeps coming back: decorative lighting, cabinet and door hardware, wallpaper, window treatments, furnishings, and rugs. Tile sometimes joins it, when the designer did the layout and owns the quantities.
The pattern is not about prestige. Those categories get ordered late; they are chosen for appearance rather than performance, and a mistake in them is a reselection rather than a schedule failure. One designer compressed it into a rule of thumb.
“Rule of thumb: “If it ain’t a permanent structural item, then it’s under me. If it is, then it’s under the GC.” I get paid for specifying materials that are to become part of the permanent architecture but the purchase, install and warranties are under the GC’s scope of work. Exceptions are decorative lighting such as chandeliers and sconces, special order tile and sometimes plumbing fixtures from trusted vendors.”
@carter_averbeck_interiors
Permanent and structural goes to the GC. Decorative and late-ordered stays with the designer. Exceptions get named out loud, which is the part most firms skip.
A test like that is worth writing down, and worth handing to the builder at the start. It answers the client’s question before it arrives, and it keeps you from relitigating the same boundary on every project.
If you purchase it, you have to be able to guarantee it
The designers who keep procurement and make money on it are not winging it. They maintain vendor relationships deep enough to fix problems before the client sees them, and they decline work in categories where they cannot.
“Our firm has an in-house procurement department. We have an employee who specializes in tile and plumbing because, drains (!). Our goal is to make the process as easy as possible for the entire team: builder and homeowner. But purchasing means responsibility. So if there a problem with the tile we are leaning on our 15 year relationship with tile vendors. If the wrong drain was ordered we are coming to get it and running to exchange it. We negotiate our entire plumbing order with our vendor and secure discounts for our clients so our fee makes sense. We order countertops because we have figured out every slab and cad in house and negotiated on behalf of our clients with multiple vendors. You have to be able to guarantee what you are procuring. If we don’t know the vendor, we step aside. We also build in profit for our builders so we all end up happy. We shop draw all of our cabinetry if we are working with our woodworkers. If we aren’t we dont guarantee or field measure the cabinets. We have great relationships with our builders because they see the amount of work and responsibility we take with any material purchased. We keep the lines of communication open and offer to step aside when the project is a spec build. But then our design fee has to reflect that we aren’t making money on the procurement. Flexibility, responsibility and communication are key.”
@mimiandhill
The decision rule is the sentence about stepping aside when they do not know the vendor. Capability is category-specific, not a blanket policy, and pretending otherwise is how a firm guarantees cabinetry it never field-measured.
It comes with an honest trade. When they don’t earn on procurement, the design fee covers it, and the builder’s profit is built in rather than competed for.
Hand over the markup, then reprice the work
The most common mistake is giving up procurement and leaving the fee schedule exactly where it was. The liability goes away. The labor does not.
You are still measuring, still specifying quantities, still chasing a rep for a replacement dye lot. Pricing specification work when the builder does the buying is the piece that actually closes the revenue gap, and it is where most of these conversations should land.
“Having done procurement both ways, I’ve found purchasing can cause so much unnecessary job site friction.Moving forward, I’m no longer purchasing plumbing fixtures, countertops or cabinetry. I provide clear measurements and quantities in my FF&E and drawings, but with a strict note that the builder is responsible for final field verification so everything is double-checked. Instead of relying on markups for permanent items, I raised my design fees to a level that makes sense. The liability just isn’t worth it. I’ve been blamed for cabinetry and countertop delays, had items go missing, and several $1,000 toilets broken on-site after delivering them in perfect condition. Never again!Leaving permanent items to the builder protects my liability and sanity. Furnishings, window treatments, decorative lighting, hardware, and some specialty items are better left to me, as I understand those product specifications best.”
@fleur_de_sel_interiors
The detail worth sitting with is the toilets. She delivered them in perfect condition, they broke on site, and she still absorbed the problem.
That is the cost of procurement no markup calculation includes, and it is why raising the design fee is usually a better trade than defending the margin.
Settle it before the bid, not on the job site
No single answer exists for who buys what, which is why the decision belongs on paper before anyone stands in a half-demolished kitchen. The range in this conversation is wide, and most of it is defensible.
What is not defensible is letting the default happen to you. A procurement clause naming the categories you purchase turns a month-four argument into a month-one agreement.
If a builder is taking purchasing off your plate, that is not automatically a loss. It is a loss only if your fee never moves.
Educational content, not legal advice.
Find IDC content more easily in Google
Set Interior Design Community as a preferred source in your Google settings and we’ll show up more often when you search. It takes less than a minute.
Add IDC as a preferred source →
After-Hours Client Communication: Where Should Designers Draw the Line?
Designer Showhouse Costs: What the Investment Really Buys
