Practice Management Member Conversations

I would explain to the client the pros and cons of each approach and clarify that you will charge 20% of the MEP design fee for coordination purposes. Regardless of whether you proceed with option (1) or (2), coordination and redesign will still be necessary to accommodate the MEP systems. If the subcontractor performs and provides drawings on time, that's fine-though, in my experience, that rarely happens. They often propose cheaper systems that compromise the design intent; I've had to push back before when bulky fan coil units were placed awkwardly in the middle of rooms.

If you have leverage with the client, I'd recommend going with option (3). Otherwise, proceed with option (1) plus the coordination fee.

------------------------------
Youssef Matta
Principal
Impact Architects, LLC
Gilbert, AZ
------------------------------

When I had my own firm, 1. almost exclusively, unless it was a larger project and then I retained my MEP consultants.  My proposal, drawing notes and specifications all listed MEP "by owner/contractor".  My proposals detailed my scope of work and had an exhaustive list of what is "extra services", including MEP coordination of owner-supplied consultants. 

Alternate MEP.

I would have the Owner enter with a Construction Manager then you will still be the architect of record just without all the risk. Similar to what you implied in your choice for sole responsibility. Might actually save the Owner some cost. Hope this helps. May be a good chance to try BIM with new folks. Remember small projects can still bite back. Dean Tidwell AIA NCARB

There are some good thoughts in some of the comments, but I don't think that you should pick the option to pursue - the Owner should. Develop a proposal that outlines all 3 options, describing your role, approach, and limitations of liability for each one, and the associated fee. There is a value to your coordination skills, so you should put a price on those skills based on how much time it will take you to to complete the work. If you think it will be less effort on your part to coordinate your own MEPFP team, your **** should reflect that, and may make that option the most cost effective. This is as simple as it sounds: frame the proposal as Option 1, 2, 3, describe what you will do and what the Owner (and Owner's separate contractors) are responsible for, and the associated fee for each option. I don't know the Owner's priorities as well as you, but you can tailor a multi-option proposal to suit their needs and make sure that you get paid appropriately for each option and that your risk is mitigated accordingly. 

While I agree with Youssef Matta's opening statement that you should explain the pros and cons of each approach, I would not blindly recommend any percentage of MEP design fee for your services. You may have no control or knowledge of the quality of their deliverables and/or what fee value is going to be presented to you. 20% is a shot in the dark. Ideally you could just charge a straight hourly rate + reimbursables for this service, but if you are going to be held to a fixed fee, you need to protect yourself with a conservative fee. Oddly enough, this could be the opportunity to explain risk protection to the Owner and let them know that if you don't know what you're getting into AND you need to submit a lump-sum fee, it will necessarily be high. 

These can be hard conversations to have with Owners, but I've found that that the "three options" fee proposal opens the door to talk about what the Owner is getting in each scenario and can help introduce transparency into your fee structure as well as give you the chance to speak to your skills and the value you bring. Sometimes the one fee-one description with disclaimers can feel oppositional to an Owner.