# uninformed irish times article re architects



## threebedsemi (10 Nov 2011)

I'm rather amazed that the Irish Times published this article a few days ago in relation to the architects role in building contracts:

[broken link removed]

There are so many factual errors and misconceptions in it, its hard to know where to start, and these deflect from whatever point he was actually trying to make.
I'll post a few comments on it tomorrow or over the weekend, this is just a link for those who buy the Independant instead and might have missed it

www.studioplustwo.com


----------



## lowCO2design (11 Nov 2011)

A mention of the legislation background/ lack of building control, should have been included as a background to his 'go' at the RIAI

thanks for the link


----------



## Spear (11 Nov 2011)

threebedsemi said:


> There are so many factual errors and misconceptions in it http://www.studioplustwo.com



It would be good if you pointed these out.


----------



## threebedsemi (11 Nov 2011)

That stated below is my own opinion on the article in question, and is based on my own understanding of the current legal situation relating to the issues raised in the article. Is it not to be taken as ‘advice’ in any particular situation, nor is it to be assumed to be the official opinion of any body or organisation.It is not to be taken as comment on any particular case. 

The first problem with the article is a lack of clarity in discussing the differing types of projects mentioned, and therefore the different contractual relationships existing.

In developer led projects (like the one mentioned at the top of the article) the ‘client’ and the ‘builder’ are generally one and the same, and for the sake of clarity I won’t comment on the workings of these type of projects, but will set out what are in my opinion misconceptions in the article when applied to the typical situation, that to which queries are generally posted on this site.

The typical architect-client-builder relationship is that in which the majority of the ‘laity’ are involved when building or extending their house, building or fitting out an office for their company etc. In terms of these types of building projects, I want to first make the following comments in relation to the article. 

Firstly, the article is misleading in that it refers to the Architect-Client relationship only in the context of the Building Contract, which is between the builder and the client, with the architect administering the contract.
It thus conveniently ignores the contract which is originally signed between client and architect. The RIAI have a suite of Client-Architect agreements, one of which generally forms the basis for the appointment of the Architect. This sets out the responsibilities of both parties, and outlines the duties which the architect is to undertake as part of their service. If the Architect acts in contravention of this agreement, they are answerable for it.
That the article makes no reference at all to the existence and use of these agreements in my opinion negates practically all of the content of the article.

The text below in bold italics are quotations from the article.

*Are we to believe that if the building goes on fire or falls down it is solely the fault of the builder who must have deviated in some way from the “perfect” designs he was given?*

Put simply the current situation is as follows:
If the Architect has drawn or specified something as part of the construction documentation, which can be shown not to be in compliance with the Building Regulations, they are generally held to account for this. Therefore, if the Architect makes a mistake, they are responsible.

The builder is responsible for building in accordance with the Building Regulations and with the drawings and specifications which form part of the building contract.
If the Builder ignores or alters what the architect has specified during the course of the building works, without having obtained agreement from the Architect, and the alteration or omission that the builder carries out results in a faulty design which results in a leak, or a collapse, or a fire hazard, the builder is generally responsible. Firstly, he has broken the law by not complying with the standards set out in the building regulations, and secondly he has breached the conditions of the building contract.


*For years now, architects have deflected responsibility from themselves by means of a standard contract that they encourage their clients and building contractors to sign.*


An Architect who does not recommend the signing of a building contract between their client and builder would in my opinion not be acting in the best interest of their client. If this is accepted (and who would proceed with a major investment of any type without having something in writing?) the question becomes what type of contract should be signed?
There is a suite of standard building contract which have been used (and updated) for private sector building works for decades. They are similar to contracts used in other common law countries. Practically every clause of the standard contracts have been tested and clarified in the courts, either in Ireland or overseas. They represent, to my eye, a comprehensive administrative tool by which to procure building works.

These contracts set out in some detail the responsibilities of the Contractor, the Client and the Architect. In the simplest terms, the contractor agrees to build the building desired by the clients for a stated price and within a stated time period. The clients agree to pay the builder for this work. The architect administers the contract, ensuring that its terms and conditions are met.
The role and responsibilities of the architect under the standard forms of contracts are both considerable and onerous. It is rather disingenuous to suggest that the Architect is ‘deflecting responsibility’ by recommending what is considered best practice in the interest of their client, and by doing so taking on considerable responsibilities. 

Use of a building contract clearly sets out the roles and responsibilities of all involved. To suggest that the Architect should also be directly involved in the building of the project would only serve to muddy the waters. 
For those interested in further light reading, I recommend picking up a copy of ‘The RIAI Contracts – A Working Guide’ by David Keane. This is a 400 page book which describes the working of the standard contracts. Even a cursory glance through this tomb should give one pause before stating that architects are ‘deflecting responsibility’ by recommending use of these contracts. 

Regarding the ‘short form’ of contract SF88:

*The contract is between the client (employer) and the builder (contractor). The architect does not feature prominently in the standard version. In fact, his relationship with, and duties to, the client/employer are vague. The architect seems to have maximum wriggle room; this is hardly mere happenstance.*

First of all, SF88 is a shortened form of contract generally used only for the smallest and simplest projects. I do not use it at all, even for ‘straightforward’ projects. However it remains a valid and workable document.
As noted above, the Architects overall relationship with and duties to their client are comprehensively set out in the separate agreement signed between them, and have no place also forming part of the building contract, which is correctly stated as being between the client and the builder. 
Regarding ‘wriggle room’, it must be realised that building contracts are probably unique in that variations or changes to the contract are accepted as almost inevitable. These may be due to unforeseen ground conditions unforeseen elements of an existing building, client alterations during the works, delays in the contract time due to inclement weather, or cost variations.
It is therefore perfectly acceptable for a contract to be used for building works to allow ‘wriggle room’ to all concerned, and a building contract which did not allow this would be practically unworkable. The article is vague in relation to what ‘wriggle room’ the architect has or has not and simply infers that this is a bad thing. Anyone familiar with the process of building will recognise that a building contract needs ‘wriggle room’ in order to be viable, and that the administrator of the contract (in this case the architect) needs powers to allow them to alter the working of the contract as required.
To compare a building contract to a contract entered into for the purposes of, say, buying a mobile phone or a car, is to totally miss the point that every building is a prototype, whether we want to admit it or not.

*For example: “The architect shall carry out periodic inspections . . . these inspections shall not in any way relieve the contractor of his sole obligation [my emphasis] to carry out the works in accordance with the contract.”*
*This means that the architect has no responsibility to ensure that the works are up to standard.*


The builder is responsible for building the building in accordance with the contract documents. This is correct, and makes sense. It is however incorrect to state that the architect has no responsibility to ensure that the works are ‘up to scratch’. The architect periodically inspects the project to ensure that the works are being carried out in accordance with the contract. They sign payment certificates, which basically states that the works completed to date have been carried out in accordance with the contract and that the client must pay the builder for these completed works. If the architect overcertifies, undercertifies, or certifies works that have been incorrectly carried out, they are answerable to their client.


*Periodic inspections are almost always done after work has been done, usually too late to make a proper assessment. Quality control is the contractor’s responsibility. This is extraordinary since it allows the builder/contractor to supervise himself.*


Periodic inspections are carried out during the building of the project. Work which is to be covered up (such as foundations) are inspected before the pouring of concrete or covering up. Even when certain work is covered up before an inspection, this work has been set out in the contract documentation and the contractor is obliged to carry it out in accordance with the contract. Is the author complaining that the contractor should be obliged to fulfill his obligations under the building contract without fulltime supervision?


*This is unfair to the client. But it is also unfair to the builder because he is contractually bound to follow all instructions given to him by the architect. Even if these instructions are unsound, the builder has to take responsibility for them, not the architect. This makes no sense.*


This paragraph is rather nonsensical. It is certainly not unfair to the builder to oblige him to satisfy the conditions of the contract which he has signed. Bear in mind that he is likely to have tendered for the project based on much the same documentation which the contract is based, and has arrived at what he feels is a fair price for the carrying out of the works. If he has any queries about anything relating to the project while preapring his tender, he is entitled to ask and recieve an answer from the architect3
If the builder clearly sees that an instruction from the architect is incorrect, he is fully entitled to raise an objection. If his objection is overridden, and the works instructed by the architect are incorrect, the architect will be held to account.


*Under this contract, the client/employer has few rights.*


The author makes no supporting argument for this statement.


*The architect becomes, through some mysterious process, the administrator of the contract between the client/employer and the builder/contractor. In essence he is the boss.*


It is hardly mysterious that the architect becomes the administrator of the contract. Someone has to administer it, and who is better placed than the designer of the building, who has also prepared all of the construction documentation, has training in the use of the contract in use, and furthermore should be up to speed with current building regulations and standards? A fourth party, brought in to administer the contract by the client, would only further diversify responsibility and liability.


*The architect can issue new instructions without invalidating the contract and he can put a value on any additional works he deems appropriate. This is such a sweeping power that one wonders what purpose the initial contract serves.*


As noted above, a building contract has to be designed to be robust enough to accept variations, as they are part and parcel of any building process. This comment shows an inherent misunderstanding of the nature of building.

*The architect can decide when he deems the works to be completed so that they can be taken over by the client/employer for their intended purpose. One would imagine that the client/employer might be consulted about this. But, no, it is a matter requiring only the architect’s “opinion”.*

The architect must decide, in their role as administrator, when the building has reached what is called ‘practical completion’. They reach this decision in conjunction with the contractor and the client. One can imagine clients wanting to ‘get in and unpack’ before the building has been completed to an appropriate standard, or the contractor wahting to ‘get out of there’ and claim some of his retention money (which is held back during the project and some of which becomes payable on practical completion). When the building has reached a stage where it is safely useable, and only minor works remain, it is practically complete and the architect will(and must) issue a certificate stating this. Where is the mystery?


*If it happens that the architect and the builder have a long and cosy association then the client could be on a hiding to nothing. In administering the contract, the architect could, if he wishes, always take the builder’s side. He could minimise or overlook mistakes, or look for the cheapest solutions if problems become visible.*


I will not comment on this paragraph as it is potentially defamatory to an entire profession.

*There are other weird aspects to this contract: a liquidated damages clause which is more or less unenforceable, the delegation of site safety completely to the builder, and conciliation and arbitration procedures drawn up by – you’ve guessed it – the RIAI.*

The liquidated damages clause is perfectly enforceable, if it was not it would have no place in a legal document

Site safety is properly the responsibility of the party in control of the site – the builder. This fact does not limit the architects responsibilities to design a building that can be safely constructed and safely maintained under current Health and Safety Legislation. An architect is also required to report on any unsafe work procedures which he sees on a site during an inspection.


The conciliation and arbitration procedures are pretty standard. As for choosing the conciliator or arbitrator, they should have a knowledge of the issue which is the subject of the conciliation or arbitration. A solicitor who specialises in family law, for instance, is unlikely to have the necessary specialist knowledge to successfully arbitrate in a building contract dispute.

*Notwithstanding the lack of responsibility, architects were able to charge lucrative fees during the Celtic Tiger period. For some jobs, they could charge up to 30 per cent of the total cost of works. There were no downside risks because they were protected by a one-sided contract which should, in the public interest, be scrapped immediately. If retained in anything like its present form, no client should ever sign it.*

There is no lack of responsibility on the part of the architect, as noted above. As for fees, it’s a free market and fees are always negotiable. It should be noted that architects remain amongst the lowest paid of the professional classes, notwithstanding the considerable responsibilities they bear, despite what the article says. I have never heard of anything close to 30% being paid. Those interested may look at the survey of fees carried out by the RIAI for the past number of years.
The comment relating to the contract being scrapped is rather pointless without a viable alternative being offered.

I would like to make the following general points in relation to the remainder of the article:

The architectural output of the Office of Public Works is (rightly) lauded. However, up to recently, they procured these buildings using the same building contracts with which the article takes issue. What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander, no?

Any architect would be delighted to have a clerk of works on site at all times. However, these have to be paid for by the Client, who is unlikely to want the extra expense.

As for letting the troika advise us on our building contracts......err....

The article annoyed me greatly. There has been huge amounts of good advice given by posters to this site (notably onq) who have tried to inform people of the advantages of hiring an architect. This type of nonsensical and ill informed article, published in the paper of record, is damaging in the extreme to the advice being offered on this site, and by Architects throughout the country on a daily basis. 
Constructive criticism or well tempered rebuke should always be welcome and considered. This article contained neither.

www.studioplustwo.com


----------



## onq (12 Nov 2011)

I am of the opinion that this is a reasoned informed critique of the article that should be sent immediately to the paper of record, the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for housing and the Registrar.

For the record I have been busy this week the with preparation for my own imminent application for registration and I have stayed away from this controversy as an unnecessary distraction.

The above rebuttal is a gentle riposte to the original article - an article written by someone who seems to know nothing about the public good, building, or contracts or responsibility - a journalist, in other words.

I know there are some fine journalists out there, but I have formed the opinion that the writer of the original article isn't one of them.

ONQ.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Nov 2011)

Lads

Isn't Michael Casey well qualified to comment on these issues? 



> Michael Casey is a former chief economist with the Central Bank and board member of the International Monetary Fund



I know nothing about the subject but if it's as bad as you say, the RIAI should lodge a formal objection. 

And threebedsemi, the Irish Times is very good at correcting errors or allowing an alternative opinion, so send them your view. 

Brendan


----------



## Spear (12 Nov 2011)

onq said:


> I am of the opinion that this is a reasoned informed critique of the article that should be sent immediately to the paper of record, the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for housing and the Registrar.



The OP's second post is well put. Perhaps it should also be sent to the Editor? There is also a a section on line to respond to article with comments.


----------



## T McGibney (12 Nov 2011)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Lads
> 
> Isn't Michael Casey well qualified to comment on these issues?
> 
> ...



The guy is, like the rest of us, entitled to his opinion, but I can't for the life of me see how experience as a Central Bank economist and IMF board member is much of a qualification on the complexities of architectural and engineering certification. Maybe we should ask Stephen Hawking what he thinks?


----------



## Purple (12 Nov 2011)

T McGibney said:


> The guy is, like the rest of us, entitled to his opinion, but I can't for the life of me see how experience as a Central Bank economist and IMF board member is much of a qualification on the complexities of architectural and engineering certification. Maybe we should ask Stephen Hawking what he thinks?



Or Tony Ward; he's an expert is a different and unrelated field as well.


----------



## lowCO2design (12 Nov 2011)

yes, a well written peace defending contract law and the RIAI position, but whats the route of this problem. imo its inaction by successive governments/ poor legislation, and a lack of building control in-lieu of any other suitable form of supervision.


----------



## onq (12 Nov 2011)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Lads
> Isn't Michael Casey well qualified to comment on these issues?



Sometimes dry humour is the hardest to appreciate...


----------



## threebedsemi (12 Nov 2011)

lowCO2design:
i agree re one of the causes of the whole problem being the total lack of official regulation of buildng standards, we are a long long way behind our nearest neighbours in this regard. 

good luck with the registration onq, i would think a compilation of your aam piece should be enough to get you over the line without anything else


----------



## onq (12 Nov 2011)

LOL!

Thanks for your support.

I have used my post to AAM to hone my own abilities over the past two and a half years using the principle "you best teach what you most need to know".

Have learned hugely from the posters here, both the positive and the negative comments - sometimes most from the latter.

For you part, please send that riposte above into the Times.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Nov 2011)

threebedsemi said:


> lowCO2design:
> 
> 
> good luck with the registration onq, i would think a compilation of your aam piece should be enough to get you over the line without anything else



Sometimes dry humour is the hardest to appreciate...


----------



## Purple (12 Nov 2011)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Sometimes dry humour is the hardest to appreciate...



Lol


----------



## onq (13 Nov 2011)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Sometimes dry humour is the hardest to appreciate...



Hoist by my own petard...


----------



## Superman (13 Nov 2011)

> If the Architect has drawn or specified something as part of the construction documentation, which can be shown not to be in compliance with the Building Regulations, they are generally held to account for this. Therefore, if the Architect makes a mistake, they are responsible.
> 
> The builder is responsible for building in accordance with the Building Regulations and with the drawings and specifications which form part of the building contract.
> If the Builder ignores or alters what the architect has specified during the course of the building works, without having obtained agreement from the Architect, and the alteration or omission that the builder carries out results in a faulty design which results in a leak, or a collapse, or a fire hazard, the builder is generally responsible. Firstly, he has broken the law by not complying with the standards set out in the building regulations, and secondly he has breached the conditions of the building contract.


I would add that the architect who is carrying out periodic inspections would also be liable for bad work - if he were on notice of that bad work.  So for example if it would be obvious to a competent architect that something is not right, he would have to investigate further - or be caught by negligence.


> Regarding ‘wriggle room’, it must be realised that building contracts are probably unique in that variations or changes to the contract are accepted as almost inevitable


Wriggle room is determined by the test applied by the court of reasonability (e.g. a contract for €1,000,000, the architect can make changes of €1000 value without having to consult the client, but not say make changes of the order of €100,000).  It can also be expressly regulated in a contract or agreement - "the architect may make changes of the order of €500 Euro per item or €2000 per month without getting client's consent before making such changes. All changes to be flagged to client after decision" etc.


> *The architect can decide when he deems the works to be completed so that they can be taken over by the client/employer for their intended purpose. One would imagine that the client/employer might be consulted about this. But, no, it is a matter requiring only the architect’s “opinion”.
> *
> The architect must decide, in their role as administrator, when the building has reached what is called ‘practical completion’. They reach this decision in conjunction with the contractor and the client. One can imagine clients wanting to ‘get in and unpack’ before the building has been completed to an appropriate standard, or the contractor wahting to ‘get out of there’ and claim some of his retention money (which is held back during the project and some of which becomes payable on practical completion). When the building has reached a stage where it is safely useable, and only minor works remain, it is practically complete and the architect will(and must) issue a certificate stating this. Where is the mystery?


The issue is more serious than that.  The date of practical completion determines whether a building has been completed on time and who is liable (and owes money) to whom for any delays.  It is an adjudicative decision as between two parties.  What the article writer is suggesting here is that the client should have the power to force the builder to pay him money for delays caused or arbitrarily prolonged by the client. 



> *There are other weird aspects to this contract: a liquidated damages clause which is more or less unenforceable, the delegation of site safety completely to the builder, and conciliation and arbitration procedures drawn up by – you’ve guessed it – the RIAI.*


The LAD clause is there as a simplification of the quantification of damages under a normal court procedure. It is a simplification as it is a pre-estimate of losses based on time and is done to bring certainty to the contracting parties. The fact that it is simple means that it is cheap to determine in the event of a problem afterwards. It need not be filled in as a clause - in which case the normal rules of court apply.  The reason it is "unenforceable" applies to small contracts - effectively the cost of employing professionals (construction claims analysts/delay analysts) to work through the project and determine liability is extraordinarily expensive. This is acceptable on large infrastructural projects, but not for domestic extensions. There is little that can be done about this type of problem - going to a court without the LAD clause will simply make it even more expensive. 
Two things can be done - firstly go to mediation rather than to a court so actual liability need not be proved. Or else stack the contract so far in favour of the client that the contractor must account for all delays - and they can be disputed at that time (as is done in the new government forms of contract).  The difficulty with this approach is that there is a large risk transfer to the contractor - a risk transfer that needs to be paid for by the client. There is also additional paperwork involved in it - again paid for by the client. For government contracts where cost certainty is more important than value for money (to avoid paper headlines screaming "overruns"), this is acceptable.

On the Health and Safety - this area is dictated by the Safety Health and Welfare at Work (Construction) Regulations 2006 - driven by the EU, not the RIAI. The building contractor takes full responsibility for the site.  Actually there was an issue with the GCCC form of contract allowing the client to interfere with the control of the site by the building contractor. I haven't checked that to see if it has been amended however.

Regarding arbitration and conciliation - the only possibly objectionable part to the rules is that in the absence of agreement of the parties, an arbitrator is to be appointed by the president of the RIAI.  That mirrors the situation in the Law Society form of contract, the IEI form of contract etc. - which refer back to the president of the respective organisation.  The new government form of contract leaves the appointment as blank (to be filled in by the client) - but has in forms I've come across been filled in with the president of the RIAI.


----------



## onq (14 Nov 2011)

Good points.

I'll offer comment on  three issues.


*Liquidated and ascertained damages clause.*

The writer of the article seems to completely misunderstand the nature  of the clause. The issue with thsi clause is NOT that it is  unenforceable, but that it  is inserted to give certainty to the building contract and to AVOID  costly enforcement action through the courts.

Liquidated and ascertained damages cannot be a penalty under the contract against the contractor - they must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
An example of how this clause can be worked for a sub €200,000 Extension is the monthly cost to the occupants to have to stay in rented accommodation until the works are completed sufficiently to allow them to return to their home.

In relation to determining the completion date, it is important that delays caused by the Employer/Client or his agents are fully allowed for and reasonable requests for extensions of time are honoured.
If reasonable delay is not allowed for, time ceases to be "of the essence" and becomes "at large" and the LAD clause becomes impossible to enforce.
Thus, competent administration of the contract by the architect is required to balance the interests and rights of both parties.


*R**esponsibility of the builder **under the **Safety** Health and Welfare at Work (Construction) Regulations.*

The Safety Health and Welfare at Work (Construction) Regulations regulations impose a duty of care on the designer of the building or works, regardless of any role they might adopt in relation to the Project Supervisor for the Design Stage on larger jobs where this is required.
Given that the designer is responsible for the design of the building, liability may arise during the works and during the use or maintenance of the building due to a design defect which fails to take account of health and safety to a sufficient degree - therefore late calls and design revisions where safety issue arise may come from the Design Team.

On a standard RIAI Contract this could result in a variation the works - the Design Process blending into the Construction Stage.
During a design-build process the architect may be novated from the client to the builder and work together with shared responsibility.
In both cases, the main contractor is in control of the site, regardless of whether or not he is the Project Supervisor for the Construction State.

The onus is on him to ensure that the organizing, training, equipping and certification of the workforce is in compliance with the requirements of the legislation.
However, while the main contractor normally assumes the role of Project Supervisor for the Construction Process, it is not his "by right" but by appointment.
It is entirely open to the client to appoint somebody else such as [broken link removed] (arbitrarily Googled - no connection, no endorsement).
The appointment of Project Supervisors rests with the Client, not the Design Team.

Thus delegation of responsibility for work on site, may not only NOT be to the builder but may not be to anyone on the design team.
The skillset for the Supervisors at both stages includes review, co-ordination, scheduling, communication, foreseeability.
On large projects it is feasible that both Project Supervisor Roles might be advantageously handled independently.

Thus, where Health and Safety issues arise, control of site work may fall under the Supervisor's remit.
He may also refer design safety issues back to the Design Team for review.


*R**esponsibility of the builder **under the Building Regulations.*

The builder is in general responsible for the compliance of the built work with the requirements of the Building Regulations.
Other issues can vary or mitigate this responsibility, but the legal responsibility to BUILD in accordance with the Building Regulations is his.
Most builders don't understand the legal implications of this - I know of only one that employed an architect to review what they were asked to build.

This is an issue because ignorance is no defence under the law.
There is also the common sense view that catching errors before building them saves everyone time and money.
The builder can pass responsibility for non-compliant work that was built to the architect's details back to the architect.
However, where the builder proposes varying a detail or material for reasons of cost or buildability the responsibility is less clearly defined.
In all cases, the substantive issue - the cost of repairing defective work - can be completely dwarfed by the cost of fighting legal battles over it.



ONQ

 [broken link removed]

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied       upon                                   as a defence or support - in  and      of     itself  -         should       legal        action    be            taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                                         Real Life with rights to inspect     and      issue         reports    on     the         matters    at           hand.


----------



## threebedsemi (29 Nov 2011)

The RIAI recieved their Right to Reply yesterday, link below

[broken link removed]

www.studioplustwo.com


----------



## onq (29 Nov 2011)

Thanks threebedsemi.

A typically understated piece by John Graby.

4-7% fees on larger projects and an average of 10%.

So much for Casey's 30% fee comment - another one who can't count who is in charge of money.


ONQ

 [broken link removed]

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied                   upon                                   as a defence or     support  -     in     and      of     itself  -         should           legal             action      be             taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                                                     Real Life with  rights    to         inspect     and      issue         reports    on      the                matters        at           hand.


----------



## Firefly (30 Nov 2011)

onq said:


> For the record I have been busy this week the with preparation for my own imminent application for registration and I have stayed away from this controversy as an unnecessary distraction.



Hi ONQ,

I hope I speak for all on this site when I say we sincerely wish you the best of luck with your application. Your knowledge and experience in this field is clear for all to see. 

Firefly.


----------

