Architect fee for house extension - Is this reasonable??

[onq]

Hi, I think that a percentage fee is unreasonable because if for instance someone wants to use particularly expensive materials this will push up the construction costs but will not affect the complexity of the build or increase the input from an the architect. I fully agree with ONQ's sentiments on what some people may perceive as being 'good value' is in fact exploitation but that works both ways. Is not a percentage fee a way of exploiting a situation where clients building an expensive house are seen as being able to afford to pay a professional more than he would have received were the house the same design but using less expensive materials? All professions and trades people and workers are suffering at the moment and out of necessity 'the client' will be looking for value for money ... which may indeed result in exploitation. Have we all not been living in cloud cuckoo land for the past 10 years???

Your question is sound and deserve an answer Brigid.

The short answer is "no" .
Percentage fees are not a means of exploiting clients.
This assumption arises from a lack of knowledge of how projects progress.
That's not so much an "I know more than you do" answer as a "here are some things you should know" comment.

So, without further ado, here are some things you should know.

---------------------------------------

1. Percentage fees are not charged pro-rata as cost increases.

Usually the percentage diminishes as the total cost rises.
My experience of clients suggests that those willing to spend the higher sums on their buildings expect a higher level of attendances - which have to be paid for.

---------------------------------------

2. The old "bumping up the materials bill" comment is seldom true where most buildings are concerned.
Primarily this is because most architects I know of do no build using extravagent materials - how many all copper clad or granite stone outer leaf houses do you know of?
Besides, the costs of materials alone do not form a significant cost of most buildings.
Costs are usually diviided thusly; -

1/3 Structure
1/3 Services
1/3 Fit Out

Structure usually encompasses the building envelope.
Fit out usually encompases all interior finishes.
Doubling either one will raise o/a costs 1/6.
IN addition, we have never specified something like gold taps and where something like that is introduced by the client as a variation to the contract we have never charged extra for it.
Varying work defined on finished drawings, yes, that is a significant extra cost, but again, we seldom charge for such work - I cannot answer for most archtiects, but if its a more expensive house this is expected of the client and the increased fees covers it.

---------------------------------------

3. Dearer houses are seldom less complex than cheaper ones - the opposite is usually the case.

"Expensive" houses require larger spans, more complex structures, consequently difficult details and increased supervision and co-ordination to get it right.
To put this in a nutshell - an architect can leave a small builder to his own devices doing a 4M x 3M rear extension using traditional and standard details.
However a 6M x 6M extension with a bay window without pillars and a large lantern light in the centre of a flat roof immediately requires structural steel, increased cost and complexity and specialist detailing for the bay window.
The pro-rata cost and the percentage charge system in that case may not actually cover the cost increased workload and detailing, never mind the additional time on site doing limited inspections.

---------------------------------------

4. We never get the percentage we look for initially.

Architects usually charge fees on the cost per square foot for an building of a particular type.
Very often we will agree fees before starting work that may start out based on a percentage but that's merely to set the first figure that will be discounted.
We want the client to realise the value that's been achieved with the negotiation of fees.

---------------------------------------

5. The reverse can occur.

You can have your fees agreed and do a lot of work on detailnig and product research only to have the clients change their mind and reduce overall costs.
You've still gone and done the research and the detailing to finalise the cost, even though the client doesn't proceed with that work.
Happened on a project we did once where the granite walls - not promoted by us I hasten to add - after search in terms of materials pricing and finishing - were rejected as being too costly.
On another building a carefully detailed, proportioned and designed feature rooflight was scrapped.

On another a chandelier was introduced that requried a whole set of new supports, a winding mechanisms and control systems - we didn't charge additional fees for our time.

---------------------------------------

6. There are exceptions to every rule

Perhaps with some firms the percentage fees system has been abused, and I cannot defend every firm.
Most firms will agree discounts [you may have to haggle, but that's business - and expected].
In general the apparent increase in percentage-generated fees on more costly buildings is justified by the quality of work, detailing design and supervision requried for more expensive buildings.
The fees do not increase pro-rata but on a sliding scale - or did, when there was an RIAI scale fo fees to refer back to.

---------------------------------------

7. Bona Fides

I don't get paid for my posts here or the time I put into researching or composing my replies - none of the regular contributors or posters do.

You may not believe me until you've been on board with an architect on one of these projects and seen in through from start to finish, but take some solace from the fact that I've nothing to gain by lying to you.


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.

 

[RKQ]

RKQ,

For clarity I was using the RIAI as a point of reference as not all architects are architects. It would be a good place to start when verifying that anyone calling themselves an architect is in fact an architect.

There are many architectural practises around offering architectural services but it doesn't necessarily mean there is an architect at the helm of these businesses. And I am not diminishing architectural services either, but there is a vast difference.

Sconhome, you are missing my point - not ALL qualified Architects are members of RIAI. There is no legal requirement for a Registered Architect to be a member of RIAI. You are therefore wrong to to suggest RIAI is a good place to "verify" an architect.

Secondly experienced Architects wishing to join RIAI are unable to at present, as the structures (Technical Assessment) have not been set up by RIAI yet. Again this means that not all Architects are on RIAI's old & outdated list.....

 

[onq]

I know you weren't trying to get at anyone Sconhome.
You were just follow the good example we try to set on AAM and offer the bes advice you can.

But for the record, and to show the kind of people who may be out there qualified but unregistered:

----------------------------------------------------------

I am a qualified architect of almost 20 years standing - 27th June 1990 was the date I received my Diploma in Architecture from Bolton Street College of Technology - a very funny day as my name was read out incorrectly.
Back then we were also conferred with a Bachelor of Architectural Science Degree from Trinity College Dublin, in the following November of that year, IIRC.
The full cap and gown treatment - its was the proudest day for my parents and a great day out for all.

My qualification Dipl. Arch DIT was one of four titles cited specifically in European Economic Community DIR 85/384/EEC as entitling the bearer [me] to provide architectural services and call himself an architect.

This document became known as The Architect's Directive.
Statutory Instrument 15 of 1989 wrote this right into Irish Law.

DIR 2005/36/EC is the Directive on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications - much wider in scope but including architectural qualifications - and this also refers to my qualification.
So in summary I legally called myself an architect until May 2008 when the Building Control Act 2007 came into force, in theory preventing me using the title until I became registered.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I say in theory because of difficulties in being able to apply to register or actually being registered that persisted until November 16th 2009.
That was when the Registration Board was finally able to accept applications, or in the case of those RIAI members entitled to be automatically registered, to automatically register them.

You see, under the Act only RIAI Members were automatically entitled to become registered and call themselves "architect" once that law was passed.
In my opinion this is inequitable, given the previous acquired rights of all persons holding the qualifications referred to in the Directives and the Statutory Instrument.

I am currently preparing for registration, but with most of the relevant documentation more than 12 years old - and therefore shredded or no longer on file - I anticipate some difficulty.
Still, just another straw on the camel's back at the moment.

--------------------------------------------------

Many RIAI Members are very competent architects, and I have had the privilege of working with several of them and learning from them during my career.

But competence varies from person to person and from practice to practice - not all RIAI Members are paragons of competence.
I'm not disavowing your advice, merely hoping to broaden it a bit.

People may judge my competence by my posts on AAM.
Often the only real judgement is vox populi.

--------------------------------------------------

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.