ᐅ Architect, contract under HOAI 2013 – refusal to perform services
Created on: 15 May 2019 10:00
S
stephan.l
Hello! I am new to this forum and could use some help. I have a contract with an architect based on HOAI 2013 covering phases 1 to 8. His fee is VERY high at 18.5% of the total costs. He is also the construction manager. The architect was already 72 years old when hired and recommended himself based on a successful project for a neighbor.
The architect has already invoiced 75% of the total fee as progress payments, but so far not even the basement of the house (basement, ground floor, sleeping floor) is finished (the contractor’s share of costs so far is 24% of the total construction costs). Other trades have barely been (documentedly) worked on, the schedule is missing, and the detailed execution plans for the upper floors are incomplete. On-site, he shows up at most once a month for one hour, which has led to misunderstandings in the construction process due to lack of supervision.
Now the architect has issued another invoice, which would bring the total paid to 86% of the entire fee. I explained the situation to him and referred to a progress payment appropriate to the construction progress, asking him to please submit the invoice at a later date.
In response, the architect started quarrelling intensely with the contractor and stated that he cannot continue working due to the contractor’s insufficient quality and that he would not continue until his fully justified claim is paid. Construction is at a standstill because the plans for the ground floor are missing.
My question is: can the architect demand arbitrarily high progress payments under HOAI without corresponding progress and service delivery?
Thank you very much if anyone has experience with this.
The architect has already invoiced 75% of the total fee as progress payments, but so far not even the basement of the house (basement, ground floor, sleeping floor) is finished (the contractor’s share of costs so far is 24% of the total construction costs). Other trades have barely been (documentedly) worked on, the schedule is missing, and the detailed execution plans for the upper floors are incomplete. On-site, he shows up at most once a month for one hour, which has led to misunderstandings in the construction process due to lack of supervision.
Now the architect has issued another invoice, which would bring the total paid to 86% of the entire fee. I explained the situation to him and referred to a progress payment appropriate to the construction progress, asking him to please submit the invoice at a later date.
In response, the architect started quarrelling intensely with the contractor and stated that he cannot continue working due to the contractor’s insufficient quality and that he would not continue until his fully justified claim is paid. Construction is at a standstill because the plans for the ground floor are missing.
My question is: can the architect demand arbitrarily high progress payments under HOAI without corresponding progress and service delivery?
Thank you very much if anyone has experience with this.
Stephan.l schrieb:
Zaba12, how do you come to the conclusion "I pay the architect, so I don’t have to do anything"? I have to keep detailed minutes at every meeting with the architect, otherwise it’s never clear what was discussed and how decisions were made. He doesn’t do this. But as a layperson, I can’t tell on site how long the reinforcement steel needs to be. If it turns out to be too short, I am definitely not responsible for that. At most, I can provide the photos. Sorry, I judged you too quickly without asking for details. But your reinforcement steel example cannot be judged by your architect, unless he is a structural engineer. To notice something like that during the shell construction phase, he would have to be on the construction site daily. But I suspect no dedicated architect does that.
Zaba12 schrieb:
I agree, but just showing up once a month isn’t really proper site supervision. That should be clear. But what exactly does lack of supervision mean? Where are you present? The shell contractor can still do a poor job if they don’t know exactly how and what to do, but they all know how to carry out the work!
Always this “I’m paying the architect, so I don’t have to do anything” mindset. What good does it do to just sit back and point fingers at the architect? It’s your construction project, not the architect’s. In the end, you’ll be the one dealing with the problems. I see it differently… why hire someone for supervision if I have to be there every day myself and still have to read up on everything? What good is it to be on the site every day if I can’t assess what I’m seeing?
1. I educate myself and go there every day
2. I pay someone who knows what they’re doing
And with option 2, I can check in occasionally, but as I said, I don’t have the expertise.
Not everyone can or wants to train as a building expert; some just want to have a home.
When I buy a car, I only read reviews, check features, and test drive it, but I leave the building to the original equipment manufacturer (OEM).
Snowy36 schrieb:
I see it differently... Why would I hire someone to supervise if I’m going to be there every day myself and still have to study everything thoroughly? What’s the point of being on site every day if I can’t judge what I’m seeing?
1. I educate myself and go there every day.
2. I pay someone who knows what they’re doing.
With option 2, I can check in occasionally, but as I said, I don’t have the expertise.
Not everyone can or wants to train to become a construction expert; some just want to live in the house.
When I buy a car, I only read tests, check what it can do, take a test drive, but I leave the building to the OEM. You’re welcome to see it that way, and in an ideal world that’s certainly how it could be. However, unfortunately, this approach won’t help you if, like the original poster, you make serious mistakes with the architect’s technical work.
To be honest... even if I hired my architect through phase 8 of work, I would still be on site every day, asking the tradespeople questions and inspecting the workmanship. And why? Because as the client, I am ultimately responsible for my construction site.
S
sichtbeton8216 May 2019 07:15Of course, as a client, you are ultimately responsible for everything. Ideally, you would be on the construction site every day. However, this is often simply not possible due to work, children, distance, and so on.
I also believe that this is exactly why you have an architect. You might differentiate between a “general contractor architect” appointed by the general contractor and an architect you hire independently for all trades, although it really shouldn’t make much difference.
An architect already earns a significant amount according to the HOAI fee schedule, so it’s reasonable to expect them to be on site at least twice a week, especially during critical phases.
Judging by the original poster’s writing, I suspect they are a similarly pragmatic person like myself, assessing the situation with some objectivity. Choosing the architect based on word of mouth was certainly a wise decision. Sure, one could complain about the time span, but generally, people improve with experience. We did the same, although our timeframe was only about one year. I also think you are now taking the right approach. You tried to resolve the issue with the architect, but since they are uncooperative, you are now going to a lawyer and termination could eventually follow.
Time pressure is often a problem during construction, causing people to stick with chosen individuals or companies even when they are doing shoddy work, for fear that it will take weeks or even months for a replacement to get up to speed.
I also believe that this is exactly why you have an architect. You might differentiate between a “general contractor architect” appointed by the general contractor and an architect you hire independently for all trades, although it really shouldn’t make much difference.
An architect already earns a significant amount according to the HOAI fee schedule, so it’s reasonable to expect them to be on site at least twice a week, especially during critical phases.
Judging by the original poster’s writing, I suspect they are a similarly pragmatic person like myself, assessing the situation with some objectivity. Choosing the architect based on word of mouth was certainly a wise decision. Sure, one could complain about the time span, but generally, people improve with experience. We did the same, although our timeframe was only about one year. I also think you are now taking the right approach. You tried to resolve the issue with the architect, but since they are uncooperative, you are now going to a lawyer and termination could eventually follow.
Time pressure is often a problem during construction, causing people to stick with chosen individuals or companies even when they are doing shoddy work, for fear that it will take weeks or even months for a replacement to get up to speed.
S
stephan.l16 May 2019 12:52sichtbeton82, I’m obviously not keen on changing the architect, but I don’t see any real alternative here. If his demands are justified, that would at least be a… surprise.
For now, I’m waiting to hear what the lawyer says. Since construction resumed (March 26), the architect has only been on site once, for one hour on April 14. He has also missed appointments that he himself scheduled. The builder was left waiting alone.
For now, I’m waiting to hear what the lawyer says. Since construction resumed (March 26), the architect has only been on site once, for one hour on April 14. He has also missed appointments that he himself scheduled. The builder was left waiting alone.
Similar topics