That would be an ideal situation for owners. However, a typical contract will have a note in itallic on the side of the clause saying that 'owner has to pay progress payment even if the works are not properly done' or something along those lines.
I'd like to know if anyone was able to delete that clause or the annotation or change it in their favour when contracting a project builder. If they did, how did they pull it off?
This is at the core of the builder's way of running the business (they must make sure they are liquid), so this is not something that they would agree to change in the contract. But still, I'd like to be proven wrong!!
Anyway, just be cautious and study your contract well before thinking of accepting someone's advice (unless it's someone who already studied your contract for you and concluded that this can be done with no consequences to you).
BTW, what other contract types there are (besides HIA)??
Maybe it depends if it's a project builder or not ?
Thanks for the feedback guys, I have decided to use an independant but remove the words from the contract. I think your comments on allowing the builder to remain liquid is a valid and considering we nearly went with Paulding......