My in-laws are having problems with the architects they hired for their house renovation. The original contract says that the architects will do “construction observation” as a phase of the work (a general contractor has recently been hired to start work). Now, we are trying to change the scope of the agreement to delete that phase, but the architect claims that they would be held liable if the construction wasn’t done to their specifications as outlined in the construction documents. I thought that was part of the permit and inspection process- i.e. if the county accepts the plans and does all the inspections (and everything passes), then the county accepts responsibility that the work was done according to code.
Any thoughts? These architects have charged an outrageous amount of money, and we want to help our in-laws out of what seems like a really bad situation.
Thanks,
Kirsten
Replies
How much are they charging for this "observation"?
I would tend to agree with the architect's point of view- they designed it and want to ensure the finished product meets the intent. Of course, if they want an exorbitant amount of money for this "service" that's a little less understandable.
I thought that was part of the permit and inspection process- i.e. if the county accepts the plans and does all the inspections (and everything passes), then the county accepts responsibility that the work was done according to code.
Good luck getting that to stick.
Jon Blakemore
RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
>How much are they charging for this "observation"?While I'm as curious as you, on another level, who cares? If it was provided for in a legitimate contract, and they're fulfilling their duties, then what's the gripe? That they're making money? I can imagine the reaction if a GC here got a place dried in and then the client wanted to rework the contract because the contractor was making more money than they thought appropriate.Rework a contract just be/c they now don't like the payment provisions, which were fine when the contract was signed, and in (thus far) absence of any wrong-doing? Now _that's_ outrageous!
Cloud,Of course, you're right. If they signed the paper they should be prepared to act in accordance to its terms.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Talk to an atty about the specifics of the contract. It'd be worth a brief consultation.
Your understanding of the role of the inspectors is not quite accurate. Yeah, they compare to code, but they don't have anything to do with the building being constructed according to the plan, except as it relates to code/tax issues. If the builder uses different finishes, or substitutes different appliances, or can't paint neatly, or can't run trim properly, or uses pine instead of maple, or uses a cheaper carpet, or scratches the glass in the windows, the inspector won't care or comment.
An architect, if the services include construction management or oversight, has a fiduciary responsibility to you (the owner) and represents your interests. Whether this one is doing that or not is not for me to decide. If he is doing what he contracted to do, then you don't have a basis for changing the contract unless there are provisions for doing so within the contract. If you can't get out of it legally, then just make sure he does the job he said he'd do.
You haven't said why the situation is bad other than, upon contemplation, you don't like the cost of the service. That is not a basis for unilaterally changing the scope of the contract. His fees and duties were outlined in the contract before your in-laws signed it.
not picking sides here . . .
but the building inspectors will be looking for the minimum standards to pass code. That's not the same as what may be on your drawings. The architects may have a higher standard than what the bare minimum is required, and are trying to protect your investment.
Another possible aspect is the irony that what gets approved on the drawings may not be approved in the inspection. Or with zoning. Or with the fire marshal. Or with whatever government entity chooses to rear its ugly head and show up. I remember an FH issue a number of years ago that had to do with a homeowner building a dock/deck on a river. Somebody at the plans/zoning office got their facts mixed up and ok'd the drawings (the right of way was measured centered on the river rather than from the centerline of the river, or something like that). He got tagged at the inspection though. Despite having certified plans, the homeowner argued through the courts that he was in the right, but wound up having to tear it all out. An unusual case, but it happened just the same. The 'construction observation' may be protecting you from a similar scenario if they're assuming the liability.
If your in-laws are genuinely unhappy with their architect, they might try to bow out (there may be a clause about paying a penalty for this though). But it sounds like they agreed to the contract, went all the way through the design and drawings, and are now trying to save money by cutting and running. If they agreed beforehand to pay "an outrageous amount of money" then it may be the price they're paying for the quality of their home.
Kristen,
I used to be a manager with one of the largest counties here in Florida. The county will NEVER accept nor be legally bound to responsibility in a constrcution matter. Many folks tried to push us to be the responsbile party when things went wrong and the laws in Florida preclude the local jurisdiction from holding any liability especially if monetary matters are involved.
In Florida, its is usually the invidividual who has signed and sealed the plans (the engineer or arc.)
Best bet it to hire an attorney.
Mike
I haven't read all the responses to your question by I do know an answer to one of your questions... The county cannot be held legally responsible for any oversight in their inspections. That as some say, "aint gonna go anywhere, that dog won't hunt." The inspector, no matter how good he/she is, can't be expected to catch every flaw in the construction of the home. They are only human and subject to error, they can't catch everything and so the county or city isn't going to be placed on the hook for something they missed in either issuing the permit or signing off on various inspections. It's been tried and failed to fly in the past.
Hate to bust yer bubble, but, the gubbmint ain't liable fer nothing.
i.e. if the county accepts the plans and does all the inspections (and everything passes), then the county accepts responsibility that the work was done according to code.
what planet are you living on I am sorry to say. if something goes wrong and they missed the violation " the county will just shrug their shoulders oh well we will try and do better next time". (You know you cant sue the county code enforcement department.) Part of the answer from the county will be that the codes do not deal with quality of the work. Most of the time the inspectors don't have the time to inspect every thing and some of the work get covered up and it is never inspected and is never seen again until the owner has a problem.
The county/city all likes the revenue the building permits / inspection generate so if the county/city usally don't hire enough inspectors to keep up to the load of inspections that need doing, (saves money to be used for other things) the inspectors don't get to spend enough time at each stop so they miss a lot of violations.
I am sorry to say not every contractor is going to build a quality home the way it should be built just because you got a signed contract quality work. I HOPE YOU USED A ATTORNY TO MAKE SURE THE CONTRACT PROTECS YOU NOT JUST ARCHITECT.
I am sorry to say some one besides the county building inspector need to checking on quality of work and the building codes to make sure it is done right. The home owner,a private builder inspector or architect.
If you are going have pay some one to do the supervising find out how often the person is going to be on the site and doing the inspection. just what they are going to be supervising the building code, quality of the construction, the schedule of work, the ordering of materials, payments schedule for work done. are they going to make sure they will insure you get a problem free work and will supply a warrantee that the work done won't have problems.
Who is going to be doing the supervising. Is it some 19 year old college want to be that does not know what a nail is or is it the architect that does know what is going on.
There are always at least two or three 'can I cancel this contract' type of threads on this forum at any given time. The answer is always the same, talk to an attorney. A novel approach might be to talk to the architect and ask if they are willing to cancel the part of the deal that you don't want. I doubt they want to force your inlaws into paying for continued service that is not wanted.
Architect's fees typically run around 8-10% of construction cost if 'construction administration' is included (you're calling it 'construction observation'... same thing). Are your in-laws paying more than this?
From my perspective as a builder, C.A. is a good thing because it gives us a lot of access to the architect to handle detail questions as they come up. From your perspective as a project owner it could be a good thing if your architect is knowledgeable and diligent and your contractor is less so. It could be entirely unnecessary if your project is simple, the plans are well detailed, and the contractor is competent.
Anyway, read the contract and see what it says about changes or cancellation.
contactors cost money. architects cost money. attorneys cost money.
people post here because it doesn't cost any money. while there are a few of us lawyers around here, including Bob, most of us try to stay out of these because we can't give meaningful advice based on what people write. (that's in here for the benefit of others, since you obviously know this)
some of the responses are notable because they are absolutely dead wrong. others are very area specific and do nothing for somebody who lives across the country. and still others are prime examples of "a little knowledge is dangerous."
saddest part of all this is that most of these issues would have been dealt with in the old days by one man talking to another man and the two of them working it out like gentlemen. that just doesn't happen much anymore.
and the legal system (and too many lawyers) can't accomodate these "trivial" issues. of course, they are trivial to the legal system, not the people involved.
are people just cheap these days? are contractors, archs and lawyers too expensive these days? are we in some bizarre bubble economy where everyone is entitled to a free BMW?
I have a good pal here at BT who asks every once in a while if I would dedicate about a zillion dollars of free legal services to a cause he feels pretty strongly about. I keep telling him no. I tell him this is how I feed my family, not a calling from God. People call me all the time for free legal advice. Their theory is that it doesn't cost me anything to tell them what to do. Lincoln said a lawyers time and advice are his stock in trade. Lincoln's dead now.
I find that I can often solve some of these problems in five minutes, maybe with some advice or a letter or telephone call. Sometimes I do. Then "no good deed goes unpunished" comes into play.
I offer no answers. I just ponder deep thoughts whilst sitting here in my drawers drinking coffee in the early morning. Wondering why I didn't become a rock and roll drummer like I planned.
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
look at the county, as just a way to raise your property tax
.... snork.......
BTW.. could we fillout that 12 with a local 4-some eager to get on and jump the waiting list ?....Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Cal asked the same question. Everybody I know (which is part of the problem) who plays golf is a club member. It would be like asking them to play naked. Life here is just different.
edit: Besides, locals can play for less than half the cost. I'm not done trying yet, but the lack of interest from attendees kinda takes the wind out of it.
Edited 7/28/2006 8:09 am ET by SHG
<I offer no answers. I just ponder deep thoughts whilst sitting here in my drawers drinking coffee in the early morning. Wondering why I didn't become a rock and roll drummer like I planned.
SHG>
I've got a Far Side cartoon posted on my wall. Office view of rows of cubicles. One guy has a tiny peaked cap with a tiny feather. Caption is,
"Thirty years had passed, and although he had no real regrets about marrying Wendy, buying a home and having the two kids, Peter found his thoughts often going back to his life in Never-Never-Land."
Sigh. . .
Forrest
Just a little more info about the situation. Yes, my in-laws signed the contract, and most likely they should have reviewed it more carefully before signing so that they were clear about what they were getting into. My perception is that there is plenty of 'blame' to go around on this one. My in-laws should have been clearer on what they were signing, and when they had questions about billing, they should have asked right away rather than waiting until they got so mad they could no longer have an objective view. This is one of the reasons that I am in the middle of this. But, the architects have not been the best either, for reasons I'll mention later.
The proposal states a not-to-exceed fee of 15% and is billed hourly at a rate of $95/hour. The biggest complaints have been schedule and budget (of course). NOw that we've started looking around, the GC and other builders we know have said fees for the architects they've used have ben in single digit thousands for this scale of project.
Regarding schedule- contractor selection was supposed to be in mid-Feb, and the architects haven't been very responsive (here we are in late July and the 'pricing set' of drawings was just ready so that my in-laws could finally select the GC). Invoicing has not been very clear, and when my in-laws asked for clarification on hours, the answer they got was "read the contract". What they wanted was an idea of what these hours were spent on since this wasn't clear to them at all, and they got a very unhelpful response. I guess we will have to utilize the contract clause that states that "records of services will be kept on the basis of generally accepted accounting principles and will be available to the owner, yaday yada"
The proposal was originally for construction cost of ~200K. The bid that came back for their design was >400K. I understand that original estimate is just that, an estimate, but in my view a professional should be able to get closer than this. Now, the design will have to be changed so that they can actually afford it, and this seems to me to be an unnecessary cost since they should have been able to get it right originally.
There is a 7-day termination clause in the contract, but it looks to me like all the drawings would still be owned by the architects, so I don't know how that would help. I'm supposed to talk to her today and try to come up some sort of resolution.
Thanks for the input.
something strange is going on here . . .no limit on fees?double the estimate?$200k budget (new)?this keeps getting more bizarre . . . would be interested in hearing how they picked this particular firm
It sounds like your in-laws have fallen into a bad deal.
If they gave the architect the 200k budget and he drew a 400k budget plan, then basically, they are screwed. The architect obviuously didn't know how to contain his pencil or be firm enough with your inlaws as they demanded more and more.
I'd start over with someone else and a new set of drawings. I'd do that because this architect has already proven that he can't work within a 200k budget.
blue
$200K is hardly a reasonable budget for a new home in most places. Here it might get you 1000SF built to the lowest possible standards.
David, without getting into a debate about what 200k will get you, what does that have to do with anything?
I'm saying that the architect has failed to listen to the clients budget and draw something that meets it. If they do this again, I'm sure the results will be the same.
If the budget was 200k, and the only thing that could be built for 200k is a two car attached garage, the architect should have stated that up front and only drawn a garage! It's obvious that this architect is not in tune with the market that he is working in and I would not give him a second chance at it. I can understand a 20 or 30% goof, but not a 100% goof.
This will not end well. The entire re-draw will be done with bad attitudes and bad intentions.
Around here, we can deliver quality homes at 100 per foot on their lot. The word quality is debatable. It would include numerous upgrades over minimum standards.
blue
>>>what does that have to do with anything?
>>>I'm saying that the architect has failed to listen to the clients budget and draw something that meets it. If they do this again, I'm sure the results will be the same. If the budget was 200k, and the only thing that could be built for 200k is a two car attached garage, the architect should have stated that up front and only drawn a garage! It's obvious that this architect is not in tune with the market that he is working in and I would not give him a second chance at it.
Well, you've answered your own question. I see a lot of situations like this, where architects are hopelessly off on their own cost estimates and design something way over budget. I've even seen design/build contractors do it. If the client had good written documentation of the deal, including the fact that they stated a budget, they could probably complain to the AIA and get some results.
I personally think architects belong in their office and only need to come to the site when clarification to their drawings is required and the open house after the CO is received. (If they’ve provided good drwgs (what they were paid for in the 1st place) there shouldn’t be much of a need for clarification.)
But since your in-laws signed the agreement what’s wrong with having them there besides the money issue? How much money is it or are they being PIAs and hindering the progress? What about the other side of the ‘coin?’ Since they are providing "construction observation" are they liable (along with the GC) if there’s a variation from the plans unsupported by change agreements or material application issues? What kind of responsibilities are they accepting as ‘construction observers?’
John7G
>I personally think architects belong in their office and only need to come to the site when clarification to their drawings is requiredAnd then other people complain that Architects exist in an ivory tower and need to get on a job site more often. Nobody wants anyone looking over their work, at least until something gets screwed up, and then it's a race to finger the fall guy. Can't win for losing.I'm not an architect, just a designer and do not take on the contract or construction management side of things, but I've always enjoyed seeing a house in progress and talking with the builders. Don't know if they enjoy it or not, but none have yet had their dog chase me off the site.
I'm an architect. There are many reasons to include a 'construction administration' section in a contract, and to be honest, very little of those reasons deal with aesthetics. Due to the nature of the business, the architect is held liable for just about everything. If this particular project is simple, then you might not have to pay for this portion of the contract, but I would not advise you to do so.
Saying that the architet belongs in his/her office is simply short-sighted. Why? Why would you want to perpetuate this notion of such a divide between architect and contractor? I have spent a better part of my career trying to narrow this gap; including working as an apprentice for a general contractor to better understand issues that come up in the field and how they are rectified.
Architecture is a service based profession. We don't provide a physical product. Part of this service should be making sure things are built correctly, up to code, and yes, consistent with the design intentions. We are all know plans examiners, city officials and inspectors can miss things or just plain get them wrong. I just don't understand trying to save money at the construction phase by not paying the architect to show up on site once or twice a week. If there is a problem in the future, that could have been caught in one of these site visits, it will surely cost you more to repair...
Just as an aside, what is the contract amount with the architect, the scope or work and the time table of the project? I am just interested to hear what an 'exorbitant' amount of money is.
Alex, Cloud,
<!----><!----><!---->
I don’t mind if the Architect/Designer comes to the site as long as I’m there with them. I understand both of your positions but if you start to meddle with the crews doing their work you’ll be asked to leave the site permantly.
<!----><!---->
Was coming down to the wire on one of the nicest houses I’ve built a few years ago. The plans were very detailed & HO & Architect spent a lot of time going over every aspect with a fine tooth comb and the whole job was going much smoother than I ever anticipated except for a 1 lighting fixture and the plumbing fixtures which were on a long delay due to mfg supply issues (probably ordered too late by the elect & plumber the point was moot). All of the spec.ed fixtures would arrive ~2 weeks after the closing/move in. I organized a meeting with the HO, the Plumber, & the Electrician, & myself to see what our options were. HO had to be out of their house the day I promised (and was actually going to meet) for closing. Any delay would create hotel & storage costs (mine). Electrician came up with a suitable temporary substitute as well as the Plumber. I could use the light and the plumbing fixtures in a rental I had. HOs were happy (not elated) with the agreement and we moved forward. Late on the last day prior to getting the CO which was the day before closing the Architect paid a visit and noticed the light not to spec as well as the plumping crew (2 young, relatively new plumbers who weren’t informed of the substitutions) installing the not-to-spec fixtures. He was able to convince the crew that what they were doing was wrong and they stopped. They couldn’t get in touch with their boss & moved to another job. I show up at the site ~6:00pm and find things not completed as I was expecting. Call the Plumber. Wait while he gets in touch with his crew. Get a call from the Architect pointing out the problems with the fixtures. I explain. He doesn’t see fit to apologize. Plumber calls back tells me his side which I described above. The Plumber, 1 of his crew , & I spend most of the night finishing the install on the fixtures. Plumber pays extra for his guy, spends his evening at the site instead of being home. I do the same and basically get no sleep that night. A lot of man hours spent becaure the Architect was meddling. The Architect never apologizes.
<!----><!---->
the day before closing the Architect paid a visit
Clearly a case of failure to commicate on your part. One call to the Archy after your meeting with the HO and subs would have prevented the problem.
"When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it." T. Roosevelt
Clearly a case of failure to communicate on your part.<!----><!----><!---->
Nope. <!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
Why should I include him on a subject that his input would not have mattered? I wasn’t building for him.<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
The Architect was paid to create a set of drawings (a very nice set at that). He had no responsibility of Quality Control (of the house), Contract Compliance, Production, or any other oversight issue. I was the GC and was responsible to the HO to provide a house that met the specs of the contract (which referenced the drawings he provided) in the time frame also specified by the contract. <!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
In a direct way of putting it, his job was done.
>In a direct way of putting it, his job was done.My job's not done till the clients move into their house. Until then, they, or the builder, can pick up the phone at any time and ask for just about anything, including additional drawings of some detail or another, or a suggestion for how to construct what I drew. They don't get a bill, either, because I fix-price projects. But I'm paid for more than just a set of drawings, and so, I'm not done till the house is.
You just thought his job was done. You were building to his ego. It was his creation and you just happened to be pounding the nails. Yes, he probably had no right to do what he did, but he saw that you weren't following his instructions, so he took action. He was wrong, but if he had known of the reason for the substitute fixtures he probably would not have stopped the work.
"When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it." T. Roosevelt
Why should I include him on a subject that his input would not have mattered? I wasn’t building for him.
Yes, but you were building for his client, right? Presumably, they hired him because they appreciate the input he could bring to the table. It sounds like all parties had a breakdown in communication at an unfortunate time.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
the clash of egos, the failure to raise issues as soon as they arise, the failure to keep everybody in the loop, the failure to remember that everybody is working for the HO, who coincidentally, is the one paying the bills. these are the continuing themes.
on some jobs, the HO and contractor are on one side against the arch. On others, the HO and arch against the contractor. And sometimes, it's the HO who is on his own. Still, there's always one party who's the bad guy. Anyone seeing a trend here?
one thing that nobody's addressed here is that things always happen in the course of a job. Something always changes. You run into something that's different, a problem or whatever, and has to be dealt with. What good can possibly come from keeping one party out of the decision makiing process? The contractor usually wants to solve the problems himself, and let the HO know that he's got it under control. This causes huge friction with the arch, if for no other reason than he feels that he's being treated like a mutt rather than a professional. So why keep the arch out of the loop? Because the contractor fears that the arch will come up with some painfully difficult answer rather than the practical solution. And the HO usually doesn't have a clue whether the solution is good or bad.
If I had a arch draw the plans, I would insist on construction oversight. And expect him to be on the jobsite at least 3 times a week. And I would be there with him. And the arch talks to me, not to the crew. It's not his crew and he doesn't get to direct anyone. But he does provide the professional advice he's paid for. And the contractor does whatever is decided. Each plays their role, and nobody gets a free ride.
But if the HO doesn't trust the arch, then the HO has made a major mistake and lost the benefit of having an arch. That's just foolish.
SHG
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
Seems we all have a somewhat different idea of what an architect is supposed to do in the building process. <!----><!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
It appears that the points we all agree that the architect is to: <!----><!---->
Work with HO to put their dreams & concept of a future home on paper.<!----><!---->
What kind of time-frame should an architect be expected to meet? This is pretty ambiguous since each HO & house are different but the OP seems to have been sandbagged by the architects. But what do you think?<!----><!---->
Make a reasonable attempt to design a house close to the final cost as defined by the HO (remember that this topic started off with an architect firm designing a house >100% over budget).<!----><!---->
Since the architects designed a house >100% over budget should the HO pay the hourly rate of the architect to bring the concept closer to the original budget or does the architect eat this cost?<!----><!---->
How close to a budget target should an architect be to be considered "within range" or "close enough?"
Provide plans w/details & specs sufficient enough to make an accurate bid on the cost of building the concept described in the drawings<!----><!---->
Make revisions & further definitions of the drawings as necessary during the construction process. Should there be additional charges for <!----><!---->
1) Errors & Omissions in the drwgs?; <!----><!---->
2) Change Orders?<!----><!---->
How often should the architect visit the job site? Remember that he probably has other clients and probably ought to be dedicating time to them as well. Should there be a fee for the site visits? (I do appreciate architects & designers’ desire to get out & see & touch their concept as it comes to fruition but there’s a line between seeing and supervising.)<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
Is there anything else? I’m sure I’ve overlooked something. <!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
So, what does everyone think the architects responsibilities are during the construction process other than what's mentioned above? <!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
What are the architects liabilities assumed when they take on the role of Construction Observation? After all thery're being paid (in this instance $95/hr not to exceed 15% (or am I reading that wrong?)) a fee for this service. <!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
What is the role of the GC during the construction process? <!----><!---->
<!----><!---->I hope I’m not hijacking the original thread but it seems that Kris’ in-laws didn’t understand at least some of these question posted above.
"So why keep the arch out of the loop?"
We try to keep the architect in the loop, until they prove that they are not contributing positively to the situation. This usually comes down to timeliness. Can they understand the problem over the phone or can they come quickly to the site to get a quick appreciation of the problem? Can they give a quick response, either in a drawing or sketch or verbally?
This one point makes all the difference in the world to the builder. He will have a number of workers standing around while the clock is running. Most builders do this often enough to themselves. They don't need an outsider adding to their money and schedule problems.
If the architect is on site three times a week, timeliness is unlikely to be a big problem. Difficulties will surface with plenty of time to come up with solutions and the architect will have established relationships with the GC and subs which will produce good and quick answers. But... we have never had an architect visist the site as much as once a week. All too often we end up arguing about a discrepancy between the drawings and reality over the phone because the architect is too busy to drive 45 minutes one way to view the area in question. It only takes one argument like that to convince me that this architect is not making things better; he is just costing me and the HO money.
I actually like an architect to do construction supervision, but they actually do have to do the work, not just use the position as a club over the contractor. What this mainly comes down to is being there, just like in any other job. If they are not there, nobody will take them seriously.
I actually like an architect to do construction supervision, but they actually do have to do the work, not just use the position as a club over the contractor. What this mainly comes down to is being there, just like in any other job. If they are not there, nobody will take them seriously.
IF the architects aren't there twice a day, I can't see how they are adding any value to a residential job. They are just another overpayed redundency if a GC is also on the hook for liability.
Choose a GC that has something to lose and pay attention yourself. If you don't have time to watch what's going on, then perhaps an architect might be a good watchdog....if he'll show up twice a day.
Things move much too fast in residential.
blue
I was told, as a very young architect, to never, NEVER tell anyone else how to do their job. If that architect had a problem, he/she should have called the GC or HO directly to clear things up, not shut down the job. If the HO was happy with the decision, that is what is important. I think one of the most important facts forgotten on a daily basis is that the architect AND the general contractor work for the Home Owner. A lot of egos get in the way of this relationship.
Not everyone has learned this valuable lesson, but most have.
Hire the architect for CA. Sometimes homeowners get themselves into trouble by handling things on their own. The GC says he can save you some money by putting in a slightly different window in the bedroom. AH-OH! You just violated the code by not having the required window opening size in an egress window required in a bedroom. The contractor thinks it would be a good idea to tie the new concrete slab porch into the existing foundation of your house, just to make sure everything is tied together. AH-OH! The porch foundation settles a half inch, to be expected, but the 50 year old house foundation does not. Your porch floor is ruined by the giant resulting crack. The contractor asks for money beyond the amount of work that he has done, you like him, know he is having some financial problems, (or you don't even realize you are paying him ahead of the work, cause you don't know what the work should cost...) AH_OH! He goes bankrupt and all his subs lien your property. You need to come up with an extra $30,000 to finish the job.....
Architects ultimately get dragged into everything, even if it is not their fault, so they like to do Construction Administration because it lets them catch some of these potential problems. Also when it comes time to price our professional liability insurance, we get penalized each time we do a job where we don't provide CA services in the way of a higher premium.
One more thing about budgets. Yes, some architects are hopeless at estimating. But I have worked on quite a few projects with owners who's wants exceed their budgets. You COULD do their initial project for the stated budget, but as the design progresses, they keep adding to the scope, increase the size of spaces, fall in love with the $30 per square foot tile, MUST have the expensive siding over less expensive alternates, etc etc. Architects will cut the scope of the project, but it is usually the owner who can't give up on something. It costs me the same to draw $3 sf tile on the bathroom wall as the onyx slabs, and I charge the same. I can make either look great. It is the owner driving the cost in most instances. You can tell them over and over that they are increasing the prices, but until they see the final bid, they just don't listen.
>>>It costs me the same to draw $3 sf tile on the bathroom wall as the onyx slabs, and I charge the same.
It sounds like the OP's architect is charging 15% of construction cost, so the onyx will cost them more in design fees. Do you not charge fees as a percentage of construction cost?
no, I never charge a percentage fee, for just this reason- it is unfair. It is much more difficult to design a nice house for $300,000 than $2million, and does not necessarily take more time. I base the fee on the scope of services, or I charge hourly. I have a client that I am doing a $1million house for right now. It is in the framing stages of construction. I have been charging them hourly. The fees are around $48,000 to date, not a bad percentage. I still have CA to do, and finalize lighting and some finishes, so the final fee will probably be around $70,000, still a 7% fee. Our average fees, including small projects, are around 10 to 12% on average (although we don't charge that way...) 15% is high, but depends on the level of services. Also, keep in mind they said they were being charged hourly with that as a maxium. The architect could be charging them much less than that. I have gone as far as picking out sheets, towels furniture, artwork and telephones for projects I have done, obviously that takes time and costs more.
fine.. i hear you ..
<<
One more thing about budgets. Yes, some architects are hopeless at estimating. But I have worked on quite a few projects with owners who's wants exceed their budgets. You COULD do their initial project for the stated budget, but as the design progresses, they keep adding to the scope, increase the size of spaces, fall in love with the $30 per square foot tile, MUST have the expensive siding over less expensive alternates, etc etc. Architects will cut the scope of the project, but it is usually the owner who can't give up on something. It costs me the same to draw $3 sf tile on the bathroom wall as the onyx slabs, and I charge the same. I can make either look great. It is the owner driving the cost in most instances. You can tell them over and over that they are increasing the prices, but until they see the final bid, they just don't listen.>>>
in building i used to get caught that way too... now i do Change Orders so i have written documentation
it would seem to me that when a design is commissioned and a budget goal is expressed, the parameters of that design should be outlined.. when the parameters change , the design contract should have a Change Order executed
it is certainly within our reach as designers to do that
Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
kris10
I am a project manager for Correctional Services Facilities Branch in Ontario Canada. I have managed projects from $5,000 to $120,000,000. Construction adminisrtation is always included in the Architectural consultant service contract when we hire the consultant. The cost for this portion of services is generally 40% of the overall architect's contract.
Hope this information is helpful.
Regards,
jnewman
Edited 7/30/2006 11:40 pm ET by jnewman