{"id":12876,"date":"2026-05-28T06:39:52","date_gmt":"2026-05-28T06:39:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/classorga.ch\/general-contractor-amo-ame-architect-roles-geneva\/"},"modified":"2026-05-28T06:43:06","modified_gmt":"2026-05-28T06:43:06","slug":"general-contractor-amo-ame-architect-roles-geneva","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/classorga.ch\/en\/general-contractor-amo-ame-architect-roles-geneva\/","title":{"rendered":"General contractor, AMO, AME, architect: who runs your jobsite in Geneva?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Across 45 years of jobsites in Geneva, we have seen every kind of project, and one observation keeps coming back: project failures are almost never technical. They are organisational. A wall built before the cables go through. A waterproofing layer laid before a pressure test. A parquet floor delivered the day before a water damage incident. These textbook problems are always the symptom of the same root cause, the way the project is being run.<\/p>\n

Before discussing materials, insulation or interior layout, the first question for any owner should be very different from the one usually asked. Not “who builds?”, but “who runs the project?”. General contractor, total contractor, project management assistance (AMO), site execution assistance (AME), architect: each has its own scope, its own contract, its own responsibility perimeter.<\/p>\n

Here is how we distinguish them at Class Orga, what each format actually covers, and the pilot mode we recommend depending on the nature of the project.<\/p>\n

Why project management decides everything<\/h2>\n

A heavy renovation in Geneva involves between fifteen and thirty trades. A new build often exceeds forty. Masonry, waterproofing, electrical, plumbing, HVAC, drywall and painting, flooring, joinery, kitchen, elevator, landscaping: each comes in with its own lead times, storage constraints, tests to pass, and specific standards.<\/p>\n

The Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects (SIA) structured this coordination in two landmark norms, SIA 102 for architects and SIA 103 for civil engineers. These texts define six phases (pre-design, design, tendering, detailed design, execution, commissioning) with a precise allocation of responsibilities at each step.<\/p>\n

On paper, everything looks clean. In real life, every owner has to decide who takes the pilot seat on their own jobsite. And that single decision determines who talks to the contractors, who carries the risk, and who is answerable for the final result.<\/p>\n

Centralised piloting or fragmented piloting<\/h3>\n

Two families of models coexist. Fragmented piloting relies on an architect who designs and supervises, individual contractors executing in separate lots, and an owner who carries the interface risk. Centralised piloting groups responsibility in a single hand, either via a general or total contractor, or via an owner project management and site execution assistance<\/a> mission handed to an independent third party.<\/p>\n

The more complex the project, the more centralised piloting becomes a real asset. Not by ideology, by mechanics. The number of interfaces between trades grows in the square of the number of trades involved. At ten trades, you have forty-five interfaces. At twenty, you have one hundred ninety. The hidden cost of piloting explodes with size.<\/p>\n

The architect and design supervision<\/h2>\n

The architect designs. The base mission, as defined by SIA 102, runs from the program to the handover. The architect draws, prepares the building permit application under the LCI (Geneva law on constructions and installations), runs the bid process and supervises execution. The architect is the author of the project and the aesthetic guardian.<\/p>\n

Design supervision is the extension of that mission into the daily life of the jobsite. The architect or a specialised mandate validates technical sheets, signs purchase orders, arbitrates differences in plan interpretation, and tracks progress.<\/p>\n

What the architect does not cover<\/h3>\n

Three blind spots recur in pure architecture missions. The first is financial risk. Contract signatures remain with the owner, not the architect. If a contractor goes bankrupt mid-job, the owner has to find a replacement and absorb the gap. The second is the fine daily coordination of intervention schedules, which requires a permanent site presence rarely included in a standard architect mission. The third is the management of post-handover construction warranties<\/a>, which is done in cascade with each contractor and weighs on follow-up for two to five years after delivery.<\/p>\n

This format suits projects where the design gesture matters more than the deadline, or public clients used to multi-lot tendering. It is less suited to a private owner who wants a single contact and a single point of responsibility.<\/p>\n

\"Geneva<\/figure>\n

The general contractor: one contract, one schedule, one responsibility<\/h2>\n

This is one of the two main formats we have operated at Class Orga for 45 years, and probably the best known. The general contractor takes charge of the execution phase. Bid process to specialised trades, contracting, execution, quality control, handover. They sign a single contract with the owner and carry the financial risk of execution. If a subcontractor defaults, the general contractor replaces them, at their own cost.<\/p>\n

In the classic setup, the owner signs the architectural project with their architect, then hands execution to a general contractor. Two main interlocutors, two contracts, but a single person to call when the jobsite slips.<\/p>\n

The model covers SIA phases 4 and 5 (detailed design and execution) with a detailed schedule, a contractual budget, clear late penalties, and a single handover. The complexity of interfaces between trades is handled behind the curtain. That is on us, not on the client.<\/p>\n

When the general contractor changes the game<\/h3>\n

Three situations make this mode particularly useful.<\/p>\n