This saga of Brigid's house seems to be going in forever.
She'd have it half-built by now if she'd appointed a competent building professional!
Brigid tells us she got a quotation for tender set drawings plus an open-ended reconsideration option and is concerned about the cost.
"for doing hte tender drawings and specs only (and helping us to reconsider them depending on cost thereafter) and it was €4850 plus VAT"
Given the amount of posts Brigid has made here and the fact that she has still not settled on the design I would not have given her a fee quote that included revisions.
I would have advised her to retain a QS who could perform a detailed cost extimate on the basis of several different sets of specifications.
When she had settled on the spec/cost balance she could then instruct the architect what to draw up.
In both cases she would be paying fees for the professional work done.
In the QS's case it would be the number crunching required to satisfy Brigid's need for alternative prices - unlikely to be under €3K from my experience.
In the Architect's case it would be the designing of a compliant set of details but also the initial briefing of the QS on the specification form(s) of construction and heating systems chosen to achieve compliance with Part L.
You do not issue different sets of tender drawings to obtain costs on from builders, expecting the architect to carry the overheads for revisions to what are very nearly working drawings, and/or expecting builders to spend a lot of time performing several different tender estimates on the same house. What puts food on their table while they are doing that?
You make the big decisions with your design team, using people who can stand over costs and details, not believing every fairy tale on prices issued by builders, some of whom these days are close to being bankrupt.
There is a process of design that has to be gone through and it must be paid for - the "drawings" are only the end product of that design process, but in and of themselves they also form the basis of Building Regulation Compliance drawings.
Being led solely by your pocket because you won't be advised on what should be done is very much down to the individual, but this parallels the head-in-the-sand attitude of some of David Grant's clients, many of whom went to him on promises he couldn't later keep - despite being told by competent building professionals beforehand what the outcome of a particular appplication would be.
Re dodgy builders one client we are aware of has been left with a half completed dwelling, the builder having been paid in advance to secure his "services" and then disappearing after 3 months on the job.
Badly advised, looking for bargains, misplaced trust in the builder.
I will not be surprised to see Brigid here in 6 months time complaining she won't be in for Chrstmas and the builder has let her down and the architect she eventually selects who was paid €3,000 JUST to do a set of tender drawings [and having redone them twice] won't attend on site and sort out her problems.
Yes, you can approach a job on a "package of information" basis, but that's not how you build a house.
"Oh we got a project manager in and he was wonderful", may be the eventual resolution of the matter.
That's fine - but that's what an architect does on small works - and a PM cannot certify the building.
You get what you pay for.
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.