Do General Contractors still deserve their fee—or are they just expensive middlemen?
In this provocative episode, Adam and Jeff tackle a controversial listener question: “Do we even need General Contractors anymore?” With the rise of tech-driven management and self-performing owners, the traditional role of GCs is under scrutiny.
Join the debate as they explore:
Why GCs transitioned from hands-on builders to “paper-pushing” construction managers.
Hidden risks subcontractors and GCs face if owners start bypassing traditional models.
Real-world scenarios where skipping the GC might actually make sense—and when it could lead to disaster.
Why subcontractors might prefer direct-to-owner work (and why they often rely heavily on GCs).
The new trend of GCs returning to a self-perform model to regain control of risk and quality.
Are General Contractors outdated—or more essential than ever? Listen and decide.
Key Insights:
When direct-to-owner subcontractor relationships work well.
Why GCs are crucial in managing complex project risks.
The real implications for subs if GCs disappear.
Join our mailing list & gain more construction business insights from our experts.
Episode 15 Transcript:
Adam Cooper:
Today’s topic comes from a listener who asks, “Do we even need general contractors anymore?” Subs see GCs as middlemen who add unnecessary costs. Jeff, as a former GC, what’s your take?
Jeff Robertson:
Honestly, my ego wants to argue we’re essential. But GCs have evolved from self-performing trades to mostly “paper pushers,” managing contracts and schedules. Still, owners underestimate the amount of risk we manage.
Adam Cooper:
Exactly. Owners used to hire a GC who self-performed much of the work, transferring significant project risks—labor, safety, schedule—to the GC. Today, some owners think they can directly manage subs and save that GC markup. But what happens if they do?
Jeff Robertson:
That’s a huge risk shift. Owners might underestimate the complexity. As a GC, we shield them from that “three-ring circus.”
Adam Cooper:
For small, simple projects—like land improvement—cutting out the GC can make sense. But for complex jobs, it’s risky. Subs sometimes prefer direct-to-owner relationships because it’s simpler and payment is faster. But on big projects, having a GC advocate is crucial.
Jeff Robertson:
GCs provide leverage against powerful developers. Subs alone might lack that. Without a GC, subs also inherit more risk—often without realizing it.
Adam Cooper:
And there’s an emerging trend of GCs shifting back toward self-performance to regain control and manage risks more directly.
Jeff Robertson:
Absolutely. After decades of moving away from self-performance, some GCs see subbing out work as too risky now.
Adam Cooper:
Bottom line, GCs still play an essential role, though it depends heavily on project complexity and risk tolerance.
Jeff Robertson:
Right. So, we’re not ready to get rid of GCs yet—but the conversation is worth having.
Adam Cooper:
Thanks for listening to Construction Hot Takes. Be sure to subscribe for more bold industry conversations.
