Is this a normal thing to be charged for by an architect?

September 27, 2014 2:02 AM

I feel like we're paying for our architects' professional development... which might be ok if they had given us a little more notice, but it came up suddenly and without much warning.

We love our architects and they've done great design work so far. Their billing strikes me as a little odd, though, so I'd like a better sense of what is standard in the industry.

The situation: We were considering building our house with an uncommon feature that's just being accepted into local building codes. When we talked to the city's building code folks, they told us it wouldn't be allowed. We passed this on to the architect, and told them that while we would have like said feature, it seemed unfeasible and not worth pursuing. In spite of this, the architects then inquired with some of their contacts, and found that we might be able to do it after all. We were thrilled! We had some more research to do on our end, and said we'd get back to them when we knew more. Meanwhile, without notifying us, they looked into the topic further and passed the results on to us. Now they've informed us that the extra research put them over their estimated hours for the month, and they'll probably be charging us extra.

Note also that we are on a much tighter budget than most of their clients, and they seem to have a hard time wrapping their minds around the fact that another $1000 here and there could actually be a problem for us.

On the one hand, I understand that they've put time into something that benefits us, and they need to get paid. On the other hand, they're likely to use this information again later, as this feature, while uncommon, is relevant to their specialty.

My perspective as a bike mechanic is: I would never charge a customer for time spent on research. I'm the mechanic; I should know what I need for the job; professional development costs are on me or my employer, not the customer. But then, unlike an architect, I'd also never charge a customer for advice or consultation or anything other than actually working on the bike, because that's the standard in my industry.

So, the questions:
1) Is it normal for an architect to charge us for this sort of research?
2) How much of a fuss should we make about the fact that they charged us without informing us in advance, especially given we initially asked them to ignore it?
3) What do you think would be the best way to frame these concerns?
4) How might we help them understand the tightness of our budget?

posted by sibilatorix to Home & Garden (13 answers total)

IDK.

I think I would start with, "We specifically asked you to ignore that detail. We are confused why you did the work, anyway." Period.

Then, wait for their answer.

This is a business arrangement, governed by law and contractual norms.

Perhaps they misunderstood your instructions?

Otherwise, I would sever my relationship with them immediately, paying whatever was appropriate to end the relationship.
posted by jbenben at 2:17 AM on September 27, 2014 [3 favorites]

Response by poster: jbenben - Thanks for the reply, but we're not planing to sever the relationship. They're good at what they do, well respected, and have connections in the local green building community that will be useful to us. We'd like to maintain a positive relationship with them.

Also, they're well-intentioned: They've made efforts to be upfront about other costs and give us choices. They just didn't do a good job of it in this particular instance.
posted by sibilatorix at 2:30 AM on September 27, 2014

1. Yes, in my field, if explicitly requested.
2. A fair bit of a fuss, but in a loving way.
3. Hey architects we love. We have a problem with this charge. We did not explicitly ask you to research this option, and in fact we said to drop it after we heard from the city. It's great you discovered it could be done and we are happy to know that. But as you know we had to do more research on our end before deciding wether to go ahead with feature. We did not realize that you planned more research on our account.
4. As you know, we are on a tight budget. In our budgeting we expected to pay fairly for your knowledge and time. We cannot afford to pay for time spent in research that was not specifically requested.
5. Can you please re-evaluate this bill. We love you lots. sibilatorix.
posted by salad at 2:47 AM on September 27, 2014 [31 favorites]

As to how you do it, do it by your most common form of communication and do it promptly. Do it without expectation of conflict and with a generous mindset. Think about their budget too in context of all the other ways they may be paying attention to your budget. Weigh up all things before assuming a position. Ask them If this is normal.
posted by salad at 2:57 AM on September 27, 2014 [1 favorite]

In my country, an architect would be in breach of their professional code of conduct if they charged for work which had not been agreed beforehand. I can't see an exact equivalent clause in this American code, but it does refer to not changing the scope of the project, and not undertaking work beyond the architect's expertise.

If your architect is in breach of the spirit or letter of their professional standards (you should check what is actually the appropriate code), you may want to bear that in mind when dealing with them.
posted by wilko at 4:00 AM on September 27, 2014

Seconding salad's suggestion. In my field clients sometimes have issues like this, and salad's approach seems likely to get you a revision of the bill.

I feel like we're paying for our architects' professional development ... they're likely to use this information again later, as this feature, while uncommon, is relevant to their specialty.... I would never charge a customer for time spent on research.

It's not clear from your story why you see the architects' inquiries as benefitting them personally. You say they were checking with the city and investigating the building codes in order to get your project permitted and completed. That's what professionals do in every case.
posted by JimN2TAW at 5:02 AM on September 27, 2014 [4 favorites]

I would expect any professional to have the knowledge they need to do their job, or be able to access it quickly. It sounds like they are doing research to develop their own knowledge and want you to pay for it. Particularly if this is a new or emerging situation, it's almost certain they'll use that knowledge for other clients. Unless the matter is so narrow that it relates only to your specific situation and won't ever apply elsewhere, they shouldn't really charge you for it (or not for all of it, at least). I think salad puts forward a good way to approach this - it may be as simple as them automatically billing for work done on your case without whoever does the billing realising that this should not have been charged to you.
posted by dg at 5:21 AM on September 27, 2014

It's not standard in any field to go ahead with something after the client says "no" or "wait," unless there's a life threatening emergency. If you were clear with them that you did not want them to start their research until after you finished yours, then you can be confident they should take this off your bill.

But that part is a little vague in how you phrased it in your ask, and is contrary to what I'd expect--I'd think you and they would research at the same time so that they'd be ready to move forward the moment you said yes.

You might want to emphasize that you are willing to accept time delays, compared to how they typically work with other clients, in order to save money, because you don't want them doing prep or background work until you say so. Be crystal clear about each component: "don't do any work on X or not-X until we confirm whether or not we want X." (And then be prepared for that to create delays in your project.)
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 5:34 AM on September 27, 2014

Going forward with new work without explicit approval and/or a change-order from you is not cool and you should very much push back on that billing (though as described above, you should do so in a way that brings out cooperation rather than conflict).

But contracting for research into a new thing (new technology, new regulations, etc) is a routine task for architectural, design, and engineering companies and is often a core competency -- I could easily imagine contracting with them just for that research, with a future design contract pending on the results: "I need you to research how the new zoning and building code regulations would affect our plan for a green roof with a chicken coop and artisanal plum jam factory, and if it's positive let's talk about going forward with the design," say.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:51 AM on September 27, 2014

As an engineer, we encounter this sort of situation often on a costs-recoverable job. The scope of work is supposed to be clearly defined, so that we know what limits we're to work in. If the client (you) wants something done that wasn't in the initial scope, standard practice is to cover our butts with a trend notice (change order) - a short document defining the change and quantifying the amount of work expected to be done, and the client signs off on it asap. Because it is pretty darn hard to make someone pay for additional work they didn't expressly agree to. And in some cases the client can argue that this kind of work should have been covered under the original scope, not warranting extra hours, so if we needed that extra time for it, it's on our own dime. It can get dicey.

Frequently we will also address design problems for the client, which entails performing a study to define the situation and provide recommendations on how to proceed. This too is something that must be signed off on. Even if it's just ten hours' work.

I recommend you email the architects with your response about the situation. A "paper trail" is a must, just to cover your butt.
posted by lizbunny at 6:52 AM on September 27, 2014 [1 favorite]

This would be more outrageous if you didn't get 'feature x' and were charged for research into the topic.

I'd suggest thinking about the financial consequences if this design had to change to accommodate the elimination of this feature. I am an architect and I notice clients often don't see the far reaching effects eliminating/adding something can be to a design. There is a good possibility that this research ultimately saved your project future expenses and/or time.

That being said, I would listen to advice from the folks above and have a talk with the architects about your budgetary concerns and how to avoid sudden additional service costs in the future.

It seems that the architect has been your design advocate and has your project's best interest at heart. Congrats on getting approval for 'feature x'!
posted by KMoney at 6:54 AM on September 27, 2014 [1 favorite]

I'd like to expand on this point, because it may be pretty critical:

I'd suggest thinking about the financial consequences if this design had to change to accommodate the elimination of this feature. I am an architect and I notice clients often don't see the far reaching effects eliminating/adding something can be to a design. There is a good possibility that this research ultimately saved your project future expenses and/or time.

How much this all costs really depends on where you are in the process, but changes made to the design of a project will incur costs (in the form of changing drawings and just normal research to make sure things are still OK code-wise) whenever they happen, but the costs increase exponentially as a project moves forward. If feature x was eliminated after the second schematic design meeting, it would be basically nothing, but if it's eliminated right before submittal to the building department, then there's tons of design elements that have to change, and the changes could affect other people working on the project beyond just the architect (structural and mechanical engineers, contractor bids, etc.), to say nothing of trying to make a change while you're in construction.

We passed this on to the architect, and told them that while we would have like said feature, it seemed unfeasible and not worth pursuing.

I don't know if this is exactly how you phrased your request to the architect, but it seems to me like this could be interpreted as an invitation for them to prove that it's feasible and worth pursuing. I don't think anyone would be more adept at doing so than an architect, although it would sort of depend on their competence.

I would expect any professional to have the knowledge they need to do their job, or be able to access it quickly. It sounds like they are doing research to develop their own knowledge and want you to pay for it. Particularly if this is a new or emerging situation, it's almost certain they'll use that knowledge for other clients. Unless the matter is so narrow that it relates only to your specific situation and won't ever apply elsewhere, they shouldn't really charge you for it (or not for all of it, at least).

I think this is mostly the gist of it. If this is something exotic like a geothermal heat pump or recycled greywater irrigation, then there may not be too much of an expectation on the part of the architect that they'll be able to amortize their research costs over the course of other projects. Any project will require some amount of research for code compliance or product research, and you'll definitely get charged for that, but you're right that this is a bit of a different situation. It's certainly worth a discussion with them to clarify that while it's great that you're able to have feature x, your intention was to remove it from the project and moving ahead with it threatens your budget.
posted by LionIndex at 11:02 AM on September 27, 2014

I'm pretty sure the firm will work with you to reduce/eliminate the costs of this work in favour of the overall business they're getting from you. It really doesn't pay to irritate your clients. Express your concerns in a "i'm sure there was simply a misunderstanding" way and let them respond.
posted by lizbunny at 8:58 AM on September 28, 2014