Emailed in by MBK from The Sunday Times readers' letters:
As architects, we can only get work with many of the housing associations if we take the risk of working for nothing up to the point when planning approval is granted for a scheme. Otherwise, there is no chance of getting on board a new project.
This procedure can cost thousands of pounds — all at risk — and in some cases it can take many months, if not years, to secure an approval. If the scheme is rejected by the planners, you get nothing. Furthermore, the client can change the brief and mess you around for as long as it likes at no cost to itself, or take a flyer on a problematic site.
This appalling business practice is driving some architects to the wall. Surely everyone should be paid in a proper manner at all times, rather than taking suicidal financial risks to secure work, especially when housing associations claim to practise ethical behaviour at all times.
Adrian Mitchell chartered architect Yelverton, Devon.
Housing Associations are dressed up as private/charitable organisations, but they are nearly all government owned and controlled. So that's a nice trough to get your snout into.
So to ensure that only large firms of architects, who can afford to pre-subsidise the work, get a look in, there's a nice barrier to entry for you right there.
(The whole of architecture is a closed-shop business, so they are all guilty of anti-competitive trade practices, but as per usual, the big ones are disproportionately worse.)
No wonder he's never around
1 hour ago
6 comments:
As contractors, we can only get work architectural practices if we take the risk of tendering for nothing up to the point when the tender is let. Otherwise, there is no chance of getting on the tender list.
This procedure can cost thousands of pounds — all at risk — and in some cases it can take many weeks, if not months, to produce a price. If the tender is not the lowest, you get nothing. Furthermore, the architect can change the spec and mess you around for as long as it likes at no cost to itself, or make you take a flyer on a problematic piece of work.
This appalling business practice is driving some contrctors to the wall. Surely everyone should be paid in a proper manner at all times, rather than taking suicidal financial risks to secure work, especially when architects claim to practise ethical behaviour at all times.
My heart bleeds for the poor architects.
B, for sure, it's a bit difficult drumming up sympathy for architects.
The point is how deep the HA trough must be if people are prepated to pay/risk that much to get their snouts in it.
Well, no. What the architects are complaining about is something they make contractors do all the time. If you don't do estimates for nothing, you don't get any work at all, no matter how shallow or deep the trough is. They even like to put clauses in their tender documents pointing out that there is absolutely no way that any of the expenses involved in preparing a tender will be reimbursed and that the client is not bound to accept any tender, even if it is the lowest. So please forgive me if I have no sympathy with their whining now that they are getting the same treatment meted out to them. Would that all clients were like the HAs. Perhaps architects would realise more what it is like for the contractors.
B, yes but we sort of knew that, and it wasn't my main point.
Chaps
Same for all tender situations (most of you know which industry I am in).
In my sututation the 'client' will also want you to work up a full spec (unpaid) and will then hawk it around the competition to get a lower price.
Oh and if you get the job you have to pay for all the artwork, repro, set up and audit charges up front (some of which are back charged by the client at a ludicrously over the top rate) before you go into production. These are to be amortized over the 'agreed' volume which almost never materializes.
So to all the architects and other 'professional service' firms out there.....I think the phrase is 'suck it up baby'.
Mark, I know and I know. Just taking the opportunity to air a big grievance of mine.
S, indeed.
Post a Comment