Contract's with Architects 1

[BRGENG]

We all know that Architect’s like percent based Contracts. Especially when tax dollars are paying for the projects. We all know that most States require the selection of the architects and engineers to be based on qualification then after selection you can discuss fees. Yet Architects will then look for the low bidder for Structural and MEP services to maximize their profits. Unfortunately we all have to compete with the Local Engineer working out of his basement that bids low doesn’t run calc’s, oversizes everything and runs the project cost up witch the Architect likes because it generates higher fees for him.

My question is, How can we stop Architects from selecting engineers on public projects based on fees and not qualification?

Just for fun, we recently had a project where a site condition caused some wells to be moved. No design changes were required but the cost for the change order was approximately $200,000. For this project the Architect will receive an additional $14,000 for this Change Order, yet they argue that the change was a CA matter and we should not get any additional fees.

We are seeing MEP’s going to percent based contracts. Are you doing this with Architects? If a project comes in $1 Million over budget why should only the Architect get the extra fee.

Structural engineers have more liability then ever before, we have codes that change every time we wake up. Yet, Architects think are fees should be decreasing. We have done a poor job educating the public of our services and why we should be paid for them. How can we change this?

Let me just say, I would never recommend a percent based contract to a client. What incentive do I have to save you money if my fee is based on Construction costs.

 

[csd72]

BRGENG,

Sorry, that is a different matter then. Parents have a right to expect that the buildings their children are educated in have a high level of safety. Such buildings should have a level of redundancy to ensure this. I finf it a real worry that this is not the case. How do they justify the fire rating on these things?

Anyway back to the OP. The engineer should not be treated as a subcontractor to the architect but should be chosen by the same qualifactions basis as them and should be employed directly by the client. This eliminates any conflict of interest on the part of the architect/engineer and ensures that the engineer is the best one for the job.

 

[msquared48]

You know, over the years, metal buildings have moved from farm and out buildings with less of a chance of loss of life, to manufacturing and now to homes, churches and, as mentioned, schools. It seems that $$$ is driving the decision of the clients to use these structures. Personally, in tornado alley, I think that these structures should not be used for any use other than agricultural.

Should not an importance factor be included in their design, or some other structural restriction, where the chance for the loss of life is greater than an agricultural structure. That seems only reasonable to me based on your experiences BRGENG.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[csd72]

msquared48,

There is in ASCE7-05

For school building >250 people capacity I = 1.15
Otherwise I = 1.00

Farm buildings I=0.77

Possibly the schools are limiting capacity to less than 250 to avoid the 15% additional load.