Is this finding of 'reasonable fees and reasonable work' your own professional view, or your clients' view, or is there any decent research on this?
I originally said "over decades it has been found to be a levelling drift giving reasonable fees and reasonable work" and by that I meant that my experience of it was that it was developed by the RIAI at the scale of fees with specified services under the various schedules.
I have used this to define what i term "starter" figures for profitable work, and then I offer discounts to clients based on reduced overheads for a sole tradership - but i make sure they understand the basis for the starting figure based on the percentage rate, so they know what level of discount they are getting.
Most clients I have found appreciate this, some prefer a fixed fee which I am also happy to quote.
I agree with you about the solicitors conveyancing, but actually for the EA, it makes perfect sense for it to be % based, as it is in the client's interest to get the maximum price. In fact, instead of a flat 1%, you could really incentivise your EA by offering say 5% of everything over a target price. This assumes that your EA is professional enough to know when to stop pushing for more, and take what is on the table.
Well, in fact there is no pro-rata increase in workload for conveyancing - as opposed to designing - in terms of the primary conveyance if its a straight lease.
Where the solicitor earns their fees is where the site is composed of a patchwork of titles riddled with easements and finding out and resolving all these things both on paper and on the ground.
Sometimes there is an overlap and a piece of unresolved ground gets designed around by the architect, often by making it a part of a circulation route.
In fairness, you seem to be evading the question, and implying that no architect is ever at fault. I don't know anyone who has been through a house extension project that came in under budget. It always runs over budget. So there is definitely a problem with budgeting.
What question?
I explained the derivation and use of a percentage basis for calculating fees, on a sliding scale, decreasing with cost and increasing with complexity.
That's explaining, not dodging- its up to you to review the explanation and point out a flaw in my logic or the quoted facts, but don't accuse me of dodging when I met it head on and responded directly and on topic.
As for the other matter, who says the architect is running the budget?
ON a larger scheme the client should appoint a quantity surveyor - on a smaller scheme the architect can advise on costings but it'll still be down to the tender price that has been accepted.
Depending on whether there is a Bill of Quantities or not and whether it is deemed to be part of the contract documents ore not, the architects drawings and specifications are what the job is priced on.
If the client has paid for a good set of tender and working drawings then the building should come in + or - 5-10%.
Any amount of unforeseen things can increase costs when you get to site, and while prime cost and provisional sums can be sued to estimate the total cost of the work, that#s all they are - aids to making an estimate.
It just seems fundamentally wrong to be basing the fee on a % instead of on the work involved. If my print designer wanted to charge me on a % of the number of leaflets printed, I'd tell him where to go. If my web designer wanted to charge me on the basis of transactions processed, I'd tell him where to go. If my photographer tried to charge me based on the number of times I print the photo, I tell him where to go (this one has actually happened).
So why don't architects simply charge based on the time that's going to be required to complete the job?
And what happens in a % fee agreement when the overall price of the job increases?
You asked two questions, so I'll answer sequentially as asked.
A)
Piecework can gets charge on a piecework rate, no problem.
You cannot equate professional services encompassing months or years dealing with many unknowns and a brief that isn't defined with a small job, the design content of which can be quantified in hours or days, and where the brief is understood by both parties and fully defined.
That's apples and oranges.
In relation to your photographer, he is entitled to copyright his work, as I am my drawings. If you're using his work for personal enjoyment and not commercial gain, I see no reason why he would charge you for each use. If OTOH you are using the work repeatedly for commercial gain, he is entitled to charge for its use according to my understanding of how that profession works.
My clients pay me to design buildings and when I am paid they have use of my work for the purpose of that development only.
If the site is sold on I hand over my drawings to follow-on architects with a license to use them for that development only, requesting an undertaking that they will not use them for any other work without my permission.
Using my designs elsewhere without my express permission would constitute a breach of copyright.
B)
The issue isn't cost per se, but rather why it occurred and whether the increase incurred extra complexity in the design of the built work leading to extra design work, as well as when the extra work was incurred.
Simply put, a change from lead to zinc roof at initial briefing stages costs the client nothing - such variations are allowed for at this stage.
If this occurred at statutory approval stage on a mid range project the notation on up to a dozen drawings would need to be revised - a relatively minor cost that most archtiects would absorb.
But let's say this change occurred after tenders had been accepted, contractors and subcontractors appointed, contracts for supply of materials issued, specifications and BoQ agreed in writing, and perhaps someone appointed under the artisans and tradesman's clause to carry out the roofing work.
This requires changes to finished drawings, agreed specifations and issued contract documents.
There is a revised specification, and on a large job there are possibly hundreds of finished drawings requiring to be annotated, including A4 booklets of details requiring revision and co-ordination between the documents, variations to the B of Q, an amended health and safety file, the determination of a craftsman's contract with possible legal implications and the appointment of another craftsman.
This is no longer loose change Complainer, and this revision is a relatively simple one of substituting one sheet roofing material for another.
The cost of making these changes need proper accounting procedures to be put in place in the archtiects office, they can be quantified and the addition fees charged to the client on a charge out rate reflecting the cost of work done- but these costs are not straighforward.
If the practice is a busy practice [oh, wishful thinking!] performing such changes may adversely affect the profitability of the office
- if the work needs to be done to a deadline out of hours for example
- where it it so extensive this cannot occur, during business hours in time previously allocated to complete other profitable work
- in all cases there are additional overheads to pay.
These are not "tricks" to get money out of people, they are the costs of doing business and I have yet to be involved in a job where changes did not occur at every stage in the development.
On an extension I did recently the roof changed from pitched to flat after the contractor was appointed.
Percentage fees accounts for some of the changes - at the early stages, but not all of them.
So the issue is changes and their timing, as much as the percentage fee basis, when it comes to a job starting out and remaining profitable.
There is no "dodging" here Complainer - I hope after reading this you will agree that designing buildings is different to most other design disciplines in terms of scale, complexity and how costs are arrived at and variations dealt with and some of the reasons are given above.
Put it like this - it costs circa 5-7 years and around €5 Billion in terms of design, testing, prototypes and type approval to bring one new model of car into being.
Car models are produce in the hundreds of thousands to millions range of numbers, change every 5-6 years and most are obsolete in 20-30 years maximum. The designers liability is covered by the limited company.
Most buildings are one-off designs designed in a fraction of the time, and for fees that are usually in the range of one-thousandth of the cost and the last for 60 to several thousand years. The archtiects liability in tort and negligence extends after death to his estate.
Apples and oranges, Complainer, and yes, this is only scratching the surface of this debate.
Just to finish off with my command of detail, you commented on whether architects are always right.
Not only are they sometimes wrong, but I am one of the few who will go to court against anther architect or building professional, so I see it from both sides, but percentage fees doesn't ensure competence, it just a means to ensure that the bank pays the salaries.
Competence is required at all levels - top-down and bottom-up - in a design firm, and you owe it to your client to be competence whatever the final fee.
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.