Project Delivery

 View Only
Back to discussion forums
Expand all | Collapse all

Substitutions, Submitalls and Contractors vs. Architects (and Engineers)

  • 1.  Substitutions, Submitalls and Contractors vs. Architects (and Engineers)

    Posted 05-03-2011 12:14 PM
    This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Practice Management Member Conversations and Project Delivery .
    -------------------------------------------

    A more significant issue relevant to this forum is that of professional ethics, and apparently this is the issue that I seem to have struck a cord with in my previous post.

    The statement was simply that Architect/Engineers have a counter incentive when it comes to increasing value (by decreasing cost) for the Owner.  There is nothing in this statement accusing anyone of acting unethically.  The fact remains, however, that even in the absence of a "cost of construction" based fee, there remains a conflict in the fact that margins are increased for the A/E if they can reduce time spent on a project.  This alone creates incentive to limit reviews of submitalls, and in fact to limit any aspect of service at all.

    This conflict is common in every consulting and service industry and is known as the "principal agent problem."  The conflict arises when the consultant is faced with decisions in which their personal interest is in direct conflict with their clien'ts interest.

    The legal manner that this issue is addressed, when a case arises, is to look to the "standard of care" typical for the region.

    Processes and procedures, whether intentionally, or intuitively carried through, are based on the profitability of any organization, and the incentives which drive that profitability.  Eventually, the standard of care will deteriorate, gravitating toward profit, driven by incentive, and despite even the most ethical of practitioners best efforts to resist it.  Competition will dictate this phenomenon.  It is the natural order of democracy and capitalism, and there has been no better way created to date, to my knowledge, than capitalism.


    -------------------------------------------
    Alan Burcope AIA, MBA, LEED AP
    VP Project Development
    HBE Corporation
    Saint Louis MO
    -------------------------------------------


  • 2.  RE:Substitutions, Submitalls and Contractors vs. Architects (and Engineers)

    Posted 05-05-2011 11:30 AM
    I must take issue with several of the points raised by Mr. Burcope in the snippet copied below. While the time required to respond to submittals may be difficult to predict and budget, it is a necessary part of the process. On the other hand dealing with substitutions is not at all necessary if the original products specified were well researched and approved by the owner. I am happy that most (but not all) contractors and clients I have had the pleasure to work with do not suffer the delusion that reduced first cost equates to increased value. Nor do they look at substitutions as a profit center. There's plenty of real work to do.

    In regard to the issue of financial incentives, well that depends on the contract doesn't it? If the A/E team have an hourly agreement the argument goes out the window. 

    -------------------------------------------
    Geoff Briggs Assoc. AIA, CSBA
    I & I Design
    Seattle WA
    -------------------------------------------


    -------------------------------------------
    Original Message:
    From: Alan Burcope

    ...The statement was simply that Architect/Engineers have a counter incentive when it comes to increasing value (by decreasing cost) for the Owner.  There is nothing in this statement accusing anyone of acting unethically.  The fact remains, however, that even in the absence of a "cost of construction" based fee, there remains a conflict in the fact that margins are increased for the A/E if they can reduce time spent on a project.  This alone creates incentive to limit reviews of submitalls, and in fact to limit any aspect of service at all....