2 October 2018

The architectural profession is generally travelling well at the current time.  The level of activity in the South Australian construction sector is solid, our housing prices are continuing to rise and Government is committed to significant programs in education, health and corrections.  This is all good news.

However, there is also a need for the profession to proceed with caution.  Architects are great problem solvers and innovators and thrive on the challenges presented by their projects.  However, there is also a tendency to agree to do more for less, while at the same time striving for highly resolved project outcomes.  Professional pride and the desire to positively impact end users and the wider public predispose architects to strive for excellence within increasingly constrained project parameters, with new technologies and alternative procurement methodologies promising more efficiency.  When asked if they can absorb program cuts or reduce fees, architects frequently answer yes and then work longer hours to make the project a success.

Over time, and particularly during lean periods, this has tended to drive fee benchmarks down and to reduce project programs.  Simultaneously, risk aversion and risk transfer have been increasing.  These trends can clearly be seen in government procurement as well as the private sector.

At a recent meeting with DPTI, it was made clear that the profession is responsible for setting fee benchmarks.  DPTI do not sit in a room and decide what a reasonable fee should be from some idealised set of first principles.  Benchmarks are generated from the fees tendered for recent projects.

It was also pointed out that the DPTI selections are not based solely on the lowest fee.  Fees are weighted at 30% of the selection criteria for most projects.  However, while this provides significant weighting to the lowest fee, the fees are also assessed against the fee benchmark established for the project.  This should exclude unrealistically low fees from consideration.  However, if consistently low fees are tendered then the benchmark itself is lowered, making this criterium increasingly meaningless.

At the same meeting it was noted that a decline in documentation standards had been observed, with variations arising from errors and omissions increasing.  While there has been no hard evidence provided to support this claim, DPTI have responded to this perceived risk through the proposed amendments to AS4122.  The intent of these amendments is to attribute risk away from government, including the attribution of variation costs arising from documentation errors and omissions to the author.  This includes the cost of the construction work in addition to the cost of documentation of a solution to address the documentation issue.

The message to the profession is clear.  Submitting a low fee and agreeing to a compressed program does not reduce client expectations regarding the service to be provided.  In addition, it does not absolve an architect’s obligations under the registration act.  What it does do is drive unrealistic expectations of the profession and increases the risk that architects will experience extreme financial stress or, ultimately, bankruptcy.

I would add that doing the ‘impossible’ time and again has not increased the respect for architects or improved client or public perception of the value provided by architects.   There are no ‘wow’ moments where people exclaim about the marvels achieved for so little investment.  Rather, low fees are seen as evidence that architects provide minimal value.  This is compounded when mistakes occur on projects, with architects frequently perceived as the cause, regardless of the actual circumstances, which are invariably more complex.  As you are no doubt aware, this Catch 22 – of architects being at once of little real value while simultaneously responsible for all project decisions – is difficult to avoid and deeply rooted.

So what can be done to address this situation?

The SA Chapter of the Institute engages regularly with DPTI and other arms of government to advocate for best practice procurement and provide an architects’ perspective in relation to key issues.  Last week we wrote a joint letter with the ACA to voice concerns regarding the Whyalla Secondary School EOI.  We are continuing to review and comment on amendments to AS4122.  We will be supporting practices engaged in the projects formerly known as Building Better Schools (now relabelled the Department for Education Capital Works Program).  And while this is government focused, it does translate to and have relevance within the private sector.

We will also continue to make the profession aware of relevant factors that should be considered when submitting for government projects.  Architects have the ability to influence the marketplace and culture they work within.  Valuing what you do objectively and commercially is a professional responsibility, to both your own practice and the profession.  Communicating that value effectively is also the sole responsibility of the profession.  Continuing to blame ‘market forces’ for declining fees is, to some extent, disingenuous.

Changing public perception and the status of architects is a long term project.  The Institute is committed to supporting its members to achieve this goal.

Nicolette Di Lernia
SA Chapter Executive Director