Selecting an Architect

Preface
When you embark on a construction program, you are making a commitment to what may be a major investment in an unknown quantity. While it is possible to define the proposed facility broadly in terms of size and function, there are significant variables needing attention.

How well and how long will the facility serve its intended purpose? Will it be responsive to the needs of its users and the community? What will it say about the image of the occupants or Owner?

The Architect you select to design the facility will be a major determinant in answering these questions. His training and experience enable him to transform your ideas and functional needs into an architectural program; a conceptual design; and the working drawings and technical specifications from which the facility will be constructed under his administration and field review.

During the design and construction of your building, the Architect effectively becomes a major contributor to your organization serving as advisor, coordinator, and technical manager as well as creative artist. In a large measure he will determine the functional, esthetic and financial success of the project.

Obviously, selecting the right Architect should not be a casual or offhand process. You will want to find an Architect whose experience, interest and capabilities fits your requirements best.

How to Find an Architect
The following sources should enable you to prepare a list of potential firms:

a. Request a copy of the directory of firms in Saskatchewan from the SAA, or click here to use the Find an Architect database in this website. All Architects and architectural firms are required to be on the registers of the SAA.

b. From your own experience or that of your staff, designate firms that have served well in the past.

c. Ask for recommendations from other persons or organizations who may have had similar projects.

In any case keep the list to a manageable number. Two firms may be sufficient for a small project, while five or more may be appropriate for a large complicated assignment.

How to Select an Architect
Selecting an Architect is one of the most important decisions the Client makes when undertaking a building project. Three basic methods of selection are available to a Client seeking an Architect.

1. Direct Selection
This is most often used by an individual undertaking a relatively small project. The Client selects his Architect on the basis of reputation, personal acquaintance or the recommendation of a friend, former client or another Architect.

2. Comparative Selection
This is the most common method of selecting an Architect, particularly by committees representing institutions, corporations or public agencies. In essence, one Architect is compared with others and the Client makes a selection based upon his judgment of which firm is most qualified for the successful execution of his project. As this procedure is most commonly used, a detailed explanation of the Comparative Selection process is included a bit farther down this page.

3. Architectural Design Competitions
This method is sometimes used for important public projects and prestigious private buildings. As well, competitions are occasionally conducted to generate prototypical ideas. In this method, architectural firms submit solutions to a particular problem and are judged on the comparative excellence of their submissions as evidence of their skill. The successful Architect is then awarded the commission for the actual project.

If a client is considering conducting a design competition, he must seek the formal approval of the SAA, as architects may compete only when they are assured that the competition will be held in accordance with the recognized procedures which ensure equal treatment and anonymity of competitors. The SAA publishes rules of conduct for various types of competition. Without its formal sanction, architects are prohibited from competing on the basis of undertaking speculative services.

How Comparative Selection Works
Various levels of government, and many independent agencies, school boards, developers, and others in private industry currently rely upon architect selection procedures that have been formulated in the crucible of actual practice. While the details may vary, the process includes these basic steps:

a. Invite a number of firms to submit information concerning their experience, qualifications, specialized abilities, resumes of key personnel and similar data. This invitation includes such pertinent data as the scope of the work and budget to be rendered. It does not include a request for sketches, cost estimates, or the suggested compensation which the Architect would receive.

b. Evaluate these submissions to determine which firms appear best able to handle the proposed project. Evaluation criteria should include performance on previous projects, creativity, experience, availability of qualified personnel, access to supporting resources, capacity to complete work in the required time, as well as performance factor such as management, coordination, accuracy, completeness and cooperation.

c. Rank the top firms (usually three to five) in order of competence, their understanding of the project, and ability to meet your budgetary and schedule requirements.

d. Interview representatives of the firms you have ranked highest, to narrow the field to those most qualified for the project at hand. Usually three firms are short listed and interviewed.

e. Negotiate an agreement with the top ranked firm. The SAA has developed a recommended fee schedule for the purpose of developing an understanding of fair and equitable fees. Reimbursable expenses beyond this recommended schedule are not included in the base fee. These expenses are outlined in the Architect Client Agreement. If a fair and equitable agreement on the cost of the Architect's services cannot be reached with the first-ranked firm, negotiations are officially terminated, and the second-ranked firm is invited to enter into negotiations concerning schedule and compensation.

f. Debrief unsuccessful competitors advising them of the basis upon which the award was made and the reasons why their proposal was not accepted. The briefing may be in an oral or written form, but there should be a separate one for each competitor.

Why Not Select an Architect on a Competitive Bid Basis
Many prospective building Clients, experienced in the procurement of commodities, are accustomed to obtaining competitive bids for goods they purchase. They may sometimes wonder why the same procedure is not used to procure architectural services. The answer is simple. A Client is not a "customer" buying a product off the shelf. A Client engages advice on his own behalf. When one seeks the creative, technical and management skills of an Architect, competitive bidding for professional services is not in the best interests of the Client.

For a vendor of any type of goods, or for an agent providing services to bid competitively, there must be a detailed specification of what the purchaser requires. At the outset of an architectural project, a detailed prospectus cannot define the exact nature and scope of services to be performed, since not all professional services, such as technical knowledge, judgment, skills and decision-making can be foreseen. The Client and Architect define and delineate the scope of these services as part of their discussions, often as the project evolves. The Client may not know all the professional services he needs at the beginning. The Architect may in fact advise him that he does not need certain services, depending on the type of the project, the Client's own capabilities, and how much ground-work has already been done. Even if it were possible, competitive bidding does not permit the Architect to help the Client decide exactly what services he requires.

Many of the services necessarily provided by the building industry marketplace; performance of the builder, and interpretations by the authorities having jurisdiction are not under the Architect's control.

While the maxim that "you get what you pay for" is too simplistic to be a universal truth, Architects base their compensation on the value and amount of work to be performed, that is, the value and amount of time which will be spent in the design, development and construction of the project. A conscientious Architect will spend many hours developing, weighing and discarding possible design solutions in order to come up with the most workable and economical final designs.

If an Architect were to submit a competitive bid and, in his desire to be retained for the project, did not provide adequate allowance for careful study and design, the resultant design solution might not be as good or efficient as it should be to meet properly the Client's requirements. Similarly, the Architect might not be able to spend all the time needed to research the most economical materials and systems for the project, which would probably cost more as a result. Thus a dollar saved on professional services could easily result in many additional dollars on construction and this effect could be multiplied several times in increased maintenance costs over the useful life of the facility.

All this is not to say that Architects are opposed to competition. On the contrary, they understand it to be a basic principle of business activity. But they realize that to meet the needs of their Clients, they must compete on the basis of their ability to perform the required services.

Once a firm has been selected because of its demonstrated qualifications to perform the work, it is a relatively simple task for the Client to negotiate a fair fee with that firm.

Appropriate scales of professional compensation are established, maintained and published by the SAA to assist both Client and Architect in determining such a fair fee.

Copies of the SAA's "Recommended Fee Schedules" are available from the SAA office.

Your best interest, as the Client, is paramount. In selecting an Architect you will look for skill, experience, ability to perform on schedule and within a construction budget consistent with your needs.

Following sound selection procedures will make that process easier, and produce a facility which will properly serve your best interests both initially and throughout many years of use.

How to Engage an Architect

1. Obligations and Responsibilities
The services of an Architect are rendered most effectively when a definite understanding exists between Client and Architect regarding their respective obligations and responsibilities. It is essential that the Architect fully explain his role, responsibilities and ultimate liability in understanding the work as well as the expected involvement of the Client. This is accomplished best by a thorough review of the scope of the services to be completed by the Architect, the time period in which it is projected that he will accomplish this work and the method of compensating him for his services. A written contractual agreement should follow which includes all of the mutually agreed items. Agreements based on recognized standards are preferred and the use of the standard Form of Agreement Between Client and Architect (CCAC Document 6) is recommended. This agreement sets out the services to be provided by the Architect. It also recognizes the Client's responsibility for provision of information relating to his requirements for the project under consideration, as well as physical, legal and other site information. Copies of this agreement are available at cost through the SAA.

2. The Architect's Services
Basic architectural services broadly include design, preparation of construction documents and construction administration as described in Article 2 of CCAC Document 6. The work is usually carried out in easily defined phases during which time the Client has the opportunity to ensure the project is proceeding to his satisfaction. Whether the building type is easily executed or complex, the architectural service must be conceived and coordinated as an integrated whole, with strict attention paid to quality, time and cost. While the Basic Services provided by the Architect have remained fundamentally unchanged over the years, the requirements of contemporary planning and design suggest that the Client should give serious consideration to retaining the Architect for services on a wider basis than that set out in Article 2 of CCAC Document 6. The scope of these Additional Services will vary with the nature and complexity of the individual project and the Clients own planning and development capabilities. The Architect may provide such Additional Services before, during and after the Basic Services are undertaken. Additional Services may result from the particular requirements of a project; from circumstances not foreseen at the time of initial engagement; or from the investigation of alternatives.

3. The Consultant's Services
The continuing broad and public objective of the architectural profession is to produce a better physical and social environment. Consultants represent a valuable resource to apply towards this objective, to the extent that their specialized experience and knowledge supplement that of the Architect. The normal services of the Structural Engineer, Mechanical Engineer and Electrical Engineer are essential services, and the Architect will typically coordinate the work of these professionals as part of his Basic Service. Historically these three basic engineering consultants have been engaged directly by the Architect with the approval of the Client. When this occurs the Architect carries professional responsibility for the design of the entire project including work carried out by consultants in his employ. While this system is still favorably regarded, today's Client sometimes sees advantages in hiring the engineering professionals directly and he may wish to discuss the relationship with his Architect in further detail. In either case the Architect should have responsibility for the overall management of consultants throughout the entire project to enable him to discharge his responsibility for coordinating the design and related matters. Increasingly, the services of other specialist consultants may be desirable to advise on particular aspects of use of function of a range of building conditions. These services might include advice in such fields as cost control, energy budgets, acoustics, or food services. These fees of such specialist consultants, engaged with the approval of the Client, are not included in the Basic Services.

4. Determining the Architect's Compensation
Once agreement has been reached on the extent and nature of services to be provided for the project, the Architect's compensation (fees and reimbursable expenses) can be determined in several ways. For an examination of alternate methods of compensation, contact the SAA for a current edition of fee schedules.

Notes

1. An Architect, under the Architects Act of Saskatchewan, must be registered with the Saskatchewan Association of Architects.

2. An Architect's services may include the preparation of designs, plans, supporting documents and the provision of field services for the erection, addition or alteration to buildings for persons other than himself.

3. A registered professional Engineer may practise professional engineering as permitted under the Engineers Act of Saskatchewan, or, specifically, a chemical, civil, electrical, forest, geological, mechanical, metallurgical, mining or structural Engineer may design or supervise the erection, alteration or repair of a structure usually designed or supervised for these purposes by an Engineer.

4. "Building" shall be construed also to mean "parts of a building".