Practice Management Member Conversations

 View Only

  • 1.  Substitutions

    Posted 05-04-2011 12:59 PM


    Mr. Barcoupe's comments seem essentially correct - in theory.  The problem with theory is that it often does not square with reality.  To suggest that either the architect or contractor have no salient interest other than compensation is erroneous.  Each represents unique background, training, focus, and personal non-monetary interest.  Each may measure business success by their income; hopefully neither of them, nor the owner, measures accomplishment by that yardstick alone. 

     

    The bottom line, pardon the expression, is that different measurement systems are in play.  The architect intends that his or her conception, carefully worked out with the client in both practical and aesthetic detail, is accurately represented in the finished work.  The contractor wants in the main to produce a workmanlike and ideally defect-free building on budget and on time.  The architect views quality substitutions as legitimate where cost control is an issue in order to stay within an established budget, but resents as an unethical waste of time those which attempt to substitute inferior materials or systems as "equivalent" to shave contractor costs with no benefit to the building or the owner.  If the owner is seduced by this subterfuge, the architect's judgement is unreasonably called into question.  
     

     

    Once the budget has been met, additional savings passed on to the owner are not justification for diminishing the longevity, utility, nor appeal of the finished building, of which the architect is by definition the best arbiter.  There is clearly a difference of degree regarding these issues applicable to a city library versus a speculative office building, and architects are smart enough to accommodate that reality.   However, I think an exclusively "It's the money" model for practice tends over time to degrade professional dedication to craft and a passion for an excellent outcome in architectural terms - for all parties.
     

     

     

    -------------------------------------------
    Gary Collins AIA
    Principal
    Gary R. Collins, AIA
    Jacksonville OR
    -------------------------------------------


  • 2.  RE:Substitutions

    Posted 05-05-2011 03:17 PM

    Many different directions this conversation could take.  How about this one....

    Does the Architect have the right to assume that an unwritten condition of a project is the right to expect a certain amount of sef-expression such that the project be constructed in accordance with his/her artistic intonations?  Does an Owner understand that this is what they are contracting for, or do they expect it?  If they do, are they willing to pay for it if it means nothing to them otherwise in terms of added value?

    Besides issues of self expression, there are "bottom line" considerations in this subject as well for the architect.  It is assumed that all projects will be leveraged in marketing new work, and the aesthetic expression inherent in the work is usually the catalyst for that process, so there is a financial imperative as well.

    As far as "working on the Owner's behalf to decrease project cost once the budget is met;" this also is a financial consideration since the contract typically includes a budget that the architect has agreed to endeavor to meet, but it does not stipulate any further exhaustive efforts beyond this commitment.  If the budget is met, the architect has no further contractual obligation to consider substitutions, however, doing so remains in the client's interest nonetheless.

    Is it ethical to stick steadfast to literal interpretations of the contract when Owner's and Architects may bring into the project expectations and aspirations that may actually be in direct opposition to contract language?

    Ethics is a sticky subject.
    -------------------------------------------
    Alan Burcope AIA, MBA, LEED AP
    VP Project Development
    HBE Corporation
    Saint Louis MO
    -------------------------------------------








  • 3.  RE:Substitutions

    Posted 05-08-2011 04:53 AM
    Mr Burcope,

    Perhaps we've missed a thread in this conversation, but your message below is both confusing and takes an incredibly limited view of the nature of business among owners, architects, and contractors.   The following is written from an assumption that you are responding to what Gary Collins wrote, an assumption I freely admit may be entirely wrong. Working from the end of your commentary I'll start with your last paragraph first.
    • it's unethical to do anything other than stick  to literal word for word  interpretations of contract language and act accordingly.  Every contract between Owner and Architect should be a unique document which captures and explicitly defines the aspirations and expectations of each party to the contract. If it's not then both (all?) parties to this contract have failed in their responsibility to themselves and to each other. Assuming for the sake  of argument that either party, owner  or architect, decides that they have a different agenda from that defined in the contract (direct opposition seems a stretch, but...) then both parties have an obligation to renegotiate the contract. Sticky? Only if you're predisposed to behave unethically.
    • re substitution consideration, in your next to last paragraph, meeting budget is hardly the only contractual obligation to review substitutions.  The General and Special Conditions to the Contract, define how,when, and why substitutions are to be considered. It's possible, but not usually  likely, that no substitutions will be considered.  The reality in my  world is that owners insist on substitutions being considered, almost always for financial reasons, ie lower first cost.  No architect I've ever known has told an owner they won't review a substitution request because the've met their legal obligations to bring the  project  in on budget. The situation you hypothesize is incredibly simplistic and  ignores reality.
    • Your first paragraph (yes I've skipped the second one, I just don't get it) seems to imagine a world in which Architects have agendas regarding their artistic intent, and that they might act on getting this agenda  instituted or realized.  God, I hope so!  But you seem to live in a world where architects subversively work at cross purposes to an owner's agenda, providing the owner with a  project that either doesn't meet his/her needs or does so at needless expense for features that do not further the owner's agenda.  If you really know any owners this gullible, send them our way! (Just kidding!) Seriously, any project is a  give and take process between owner and architect. It's the sum of many different parties acting on behalf of their constituency, be it structure, plumbing, residents/occupants, or the building code. The fact that an architect approaches a project with an agenda is not a negative, it should be a positive and any successful owner will recognize that a good architect will increase the value of his/her project.  Taking the approach, as you seem to imply, that architects have only their own interests at heart, at the expense of others, is an incredibly negative view of our profession, and I'm someone generally regarded as a cynic's cynic! 

    -------------------------------------------
    Eugene Ely AIA
    HMC Architects
    San Jose CA
    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message