May 2017 Communique
Throughout the changes in the design process, the architect prompted the client to seek advice from a QS; the reply was always that the costs were within expectations. Much later the client said they did not understand what a QS was and had not understood that their design changes had significantly affected project costs.Designer initially proposed a relatively modest alteration to a large complex house, but the well-heeled client pushed a design brief where “cost was no object”. Designer proceeded in good faith until the QS estimate revealed the difference between reality and dreams. The design fees were disputed on the basis that the designer had created an unnecessarily extravagant and expensive design.High profile site and client intended one house for themselves and one to sell at profit. Initial cost estimates thwarted by resource consent issues, subsoil conditions, and changes in client briefing and priorities. The design measures required to bring the second unit within the total budget impact on its saleability, and the project is abandoned with fees outstanding.Developer is too miserable to pay the designer a decent fee, and gets minimum documentation as a result. Builder finds lots of reasons to claim variations for items not fully (or properly) documented. Developer looks to the designer to offset the apparent extra costs. (Of course, if the proper fees and documentation had been in place to start with, the overall costs may have been less!)Developer – in taking control of costs and financial results – relies on the designer’s area calculations prepared for a completely different purpose. Designer is kept “out of the loop” on cost issues until they approach crisis level: the blame is pinned on the designer, and the developer’s mistake only becomes apparent after some dispute.The client dispensed with the architect’s services during the construction phase, and then proceeded to issue numerous directions to the builder. When the builder tried to claim for the additional costs, the client looked to the architect for cost recovery on the basis that the design documentation was deficient.