ᐅ Architect – Flat-Rate Quote Instead of Fee Structure for Residential Single-Family House
Created on: 25 May 2022 08:09
G
gregman22
Dear community,
After careful consideration, we have now chosen an architect with whom we feel the best overall confidence. Yesterday, we had our final meeting with him.
Regarding the status of our project: We are currently preparing the land purchase with the notary. After that, a single-family house with a granny flat will be built.
The architect has now shared the following information with us:
1) His office focuses on design services. Therefore, he would be involved up to work phase 5. For the subsequent phases, he would recommend several site managers he has had good experiences with.
2) He does not bill according to HOAI (Fee Structure for Architects and Engineers). Instead, he offers a fixed fee from the start for the services. He explained that he prefers planning security for both parties and does not want to be motivated by a higher project volume.
I would like to prepare a calculation for the individual work phases to understand what range an HOAI-based quote would fall into as a reference. Could you support me with this calculation?
As an assumption, I would like to use project costs of €1.5 million (approximately $1.6 million) and set a normal single-family house complexity level (III or 4?).
Would you initially commission work phases 1 and 2 and then continue with further phases afterward? Is there anything else to consider?
Thank you very much!
After careful consideration, we have now chosen an architect with whom we feel the best overall confidence. Yesterday, we had our final meeting with him.
Regarding the status of our project: We are currently preparing the land purchase with the notary. After that, a single-family house with a granny flat will be built.
The architect has now shared the following information with us:
1) His office focuses on design services. Therefore, he would be involved up to work phase 5. For the subsequent phases, he would recommend several site managers he has had good experiences with.
2) He does not bill according to HOAI (Fee Structure for Architects and Engineers). Instead, he offers a fixed fee from the start for the services. He explained that he prefers planning security for both parties and does not want to be motivated by a higher project volume.
I would like to prepare a calculation for the individual work phases to understand what range an HOAI-based quote would fall into as a reference. Could you support me with this calculation?
As an assumption, I would like to use project costs of €1.5 million (approximately $1.6 million) and set a normal single-family house complexity level (III or 4?).
Would you initially commission work phases 1 and 2 and then continue with further phases afterward? Is there anything else to consider?
Thank you very much!
G
Gerddieter25 May 2022 19:17gregman22 schrieb:
1) His office focuses on planning services. Therefore, he would be involved up to design phase 5. For the phases after that, he would suggest several site managers with whom he has had good experience. Oh no... these are the worst. I would never work with an architect again who tells me upfront that they want to step back after design phase 6...
It inevitably casts a negative light on them. Your architect seems to have a clear idea of how to earn YOUR money comfortably, namely relaxed at the drawing board – have you checked how design phase 5 is compensated?
And then the tough job afterward is done by another poor soul...
No way, never again – but I've paid my dues...
GD
gregman22 schrieb:
11ant – I tried to read your HOAI guide. The link to episode 3 did not work. The link only does not work when accessed from episode 2; you can find it through the post list. Maybe @11ant could fix it sometime 🙂
gregman22 schrieb:
Are you referring to a time gap? Of course, I will involve a site manager at the appropriate time. The architect said he would recommend several site managers who have worked well with his clients after his involvement in the project. No, the more significant gap is not the time between design phases 5 and 8, but rather the gap in phases 6 and 7 that arises if he only handles up to design phase 5 and then only the site manager (phase 8) takes over.
gregman22 schrieb:
He also told me that he continues to follow the project after being hired. Probably more in a passive role... Hehe, probably only in the sense of checking whether you choose one of the colleagues he recommended (and which one); for his commission. For quality in phase 8, it is best if the person responsible was already involved in phase 5 (and ideally also in phase 3).
Note: any division of work where the responsible party changes between design phases 5 and 8 is suspicious, unless the distance between the planning location and the construction site is the reason!
gregman22 schrieb:
11ant – I tried to read your HOAI guide. The link to part 3 didn’t work. Araknis schrieb:
The link only doesn’t work when accessed from part 2, it can be found via the post list. Maybe @11ant could fix that 🙂 Thanks to both of you for pointing that out, I will fix it later. It should have worked until the day before yesterday, but I must have introduced the error during the menu structure relaunch :-)
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
G
gregman2226 May 2022 11:4811ant schrieb:
No, the more significant gap isn’t the time between design phases 5 and 8, but rather the gap between phases 6 and 7, which occurs if the process stops at design phase 5 and then only the site manager (phase 8) comes in afterwards.
Hehe, it’s more about whether you choose the colleague he suggested (and which one); for his commission calculation. For the quality of work in phase 8, it’s best if the person responsible was already involved in design phase 5 (and ideally also in phase 3).
Note: any division of work where the responsible party changes between phases 5 and 8 is suspicious—unless the distance between the design location and the construction site is the reason!
Thank you both for the hint, I will fix it later. It should have worked until the day before yesterday; I must have introduced the error during the relaunch of the menu structure 🙂Thank you for the explanations.
Let me put this in my own words:
Fundamentally, it’s not unusual or suspicious to work with one design firm up to design phase 5, especially if you have a good rapport with the architect. However, in this case, it is very important that the future site manager is involved earlier. Ideally, during design phases 3 and 5, but at least in phase 5.
What does such involvement look like? Would I basically need to engage both parties simultaneously, or does the site manager have a strong interest in being informed early during phases 3 and 5?
When hiring an architect, there is no standard case at all, as every client considers a different scope of services appropriate. I already explained this in my post to @Araknis, in which I described when it makes sense to commission, for example, only “Phase A + Pause + Phase 3” instead of my standard recommendation “Phase A + Pause + Phases B + C”; choosing the overall scope “Phases 1 to 5” is definitely a wiser decision than saving at the worst possible point by stopping at “Phases 1 to 4.” However, once the scope has been defined, the normal case should be that one planner handles the entire scope (although, in my opinion, it is best done in several stages, like “Module A” plus options for extension).
Only in the special case of “construction site different from planning location” do I consider it legitimate to pass the baton within the triad of “concept design / detailed design / construction supervision.” If the initiative for such a split comes from the contractor responsible for the design phases, then unfortunately the likelihood is high that you are dealing with a show-off / cherry-picker / construction-phobic (and the warning light linked to @Gerddieter should flash: “Warning: cost calculation failure!”).
A key responsibility of construction management is the comparison of actual versus planned progress, which naturally is best performed by the planner: no one can direct the work more faithfully than the composer. Since the planning in Phase 5 is derived from plans developed in Phase 3, the service provider responsible for Phase 8 should have been involved at least as a backup during Phase 5 (better yet, already in Phase 3). Being involved in the project as an “employee of the planning office” is probably the most suitable form of this participation. You do not need to worry about the exact form of the contractual relationship; this does not in the least constitute double commissioning. Organizing this cooperation is only your responsibility as the client if you are also the initiator of the splitting.
Counter-question: may I assume that you would never organize the scope of services into the modules “planner up to Phase 5” + “pedal boat driver who loves one-way missions” + “construction manager”? Because that would be – at least with a planner about whom even the mother of @Gerddieter would have warned – the surest way to exceed the budget. By the way, the construction manager needs to have Phases 6 and 7 in their files just as much as Phase 5.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Only in the special case of “construction site different from planning location” do I consider it legitimate to pass the baton within the triad of “concept design / detailed design / construction supervision.” If the initiative for such a split comes from the contractor responsible for the design phases, then unfortunately the likelihood is high that you are dealing with a show-off / cherry-picker / construction-phobic (and the warning light linked to @Gerddieter should flash: “Warning: cost calculation failure!”).
A key responsibility of construction management is the comparison of actual versus planned progress, which naturally is best performed by the planner: no one can direct the work more faithfully than the composer. Since the planning in Phase 5 is derived from plans developed in Phase 3, the service provider responsible for Phase 8 should have been involved at least as a backup during Phase 5 (better yet, already in Phase 3). Being involved in the project as an “employee of the planning office” is probably the most suitable form of this participation. You do not need to worry about the exact form of the contractual relationship; this does not in the least constitute double commissioning. Organizing this cooperation is only your responsibility as the client if you are also the initiator of the splitting.
Counter-question: may I assume that you would never organize the scope of services into the modules “planner up to Phase 5” + “pedal boat driver who loves one-way missions” + “construction manager”? Because that would be – at least with a planner about whom even the mother of @Gerddieter would have warned – the surest way to exceed the budget. By the way, the construction manager needs to have Phases 6 and 7 in their files just as much as Phase 5.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
G
gregman2227 May 2022 07:3011ant schrieb:
When hiring an architect, there really is no standard case, as every client has a different opinion on what scope of services makes sense. I already explained this in my post to @Araknis, describing when it might make sense to commission, deviating from my standard recommendation "Phase A + pause + B + C," for example only "A + pause + Design Phase 3"; choosing the full scope "Phases 1 to 5" is always noticeably wiser than cutting costs at the worst possible point by stopping at "Phases 1 to 4". Once the scope is defined, the normal case should be that one planner handles the entire package (although in my opinion best divided into several parts ("Module A" + options for extension).
Only in the special case of the construction site being different from the planning office location do I consider it legitimate to pass the baton within the triad of "concept design / detailed design / construction supervision". If the contractor performing the planning phases initiates such a split, the likelihood is unfortunately high that they are an artist / cherry-picker / construction site phobic (and the warning light from @Gerddieter should flash: "Warning: calculation failure!").
The main task of construction management is to compare actual progress with the planned schedule, which is naturally best done by the planner: no one can direct execution more faithfully than the composer. Since the design work in Phase 5 is derived from the plans developed in Phase 3, the contractor responsible for Phase 8 should have at least been involved provisionally as early as Phase 5 (better: already Phase 3). Being involved in the project as a "staff member of the planning office" is probably the most suitable form of this involvement. You don’t need to worry about the exact form of the employment relationship here; this does not at all imply double commissioning. Organizing this cooperation is only your responsibility as the client if you are also the initiator of the split.
Counter question: May I assume that you will never ever organize the scope of services into the modules "planner up to Phase 5" + "pedal boat captain loves suicide missions" + "construction manager"? (This would be—theoretically with at least one planner whom even @Gerddieter’s mother would have warned against—the surest way to exceed the budget, and besides, the construction manager needs Phases 6 and 7 in their files just as much as Phase 5). 11ant, this is exactly how I am currently planning it as well. The planning firm will handle Phases 1 to 5. I will try to select the later construction manager (external) early on and involve them in Phases 3 and 5. I’m not yet sure how to motivate them to engage with Phases 3 and 5 without financial incentives, but I suppose that will become clear. Then, from Phases 6 through 8, the new construction manager will take over exclusively, with the architect remaining involved peripherally. At the moment, I don’t see another solution except continuing to look for an architect who offers all the phases.
Similar topics