Building design and construction fees

The calculation of fees is a complicated and controversial subject. If you disagree with the contents of this article, tell us what you think by clicking on the submit comment button at the bottom of the page, or by adding your thoughts to the discussion page, or by emailing [email protected].

Contents 1 Introduction 2 Variability of fees 3 Historic fee scales 4 Fee calculations 4.1 Core consultant fees 4.2 Other fees on an £80m office 4.2.1 Acquisition fees 4.2.2 TOTAL 4.2.3 £775,000 4.2.4 Specialist fees 4.2.5 TOTAL 4.2.6 £1,368,400 4.2.7 Letting fees 5 Quantum meruit (time charging) 6 Competitive tendering and value 7 NRM1 8 Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki

[edit] Introduction

The term ‘fees’ generally refers to payments made by the client to consultants for services under the terms of an agreement. They are generally paid in instalments based on regular dates or at pre-defined stages of completed work. The core consultant team for most building projects will include:

• Architect (see Architect's fees).
• Structural engineer.
• Services engineer.

Larger projects may need additional consultants for management and cost control, including:

• Project manager.
• Cost consultant (see 'quantity surveyor’s fees').
• A contractor on management fee contracts.

In addition, specialists may be required depending on the nature of the project, such as legal adviser, landscape designer, interior designer, environmental consultant, access consultant, planning consultant and fire engineer. Other fees will also be payable on most projects, including planning fees and building regulations fees.

[edit] Variability of fees

Fees are entirely dependent on the nature of the project and the circumstances of the appointment. Large new-build projects may attract lower percentage fees than small works to existing buildings, commercial work may attract lower fees than private residential work, and works to historic or listed buildings may attract higher fees.

Fees charged by consultants vary according to:

• Size of project.
• Type and complexity of project.
• Scope of services. For example, full design and site inspection will attract a higher fee than concept design that is then developed by the contractor.
• Anticipated repeat and/or bespoke elements of the design.
• Location of site and other consultant practices.
• Reputation of practice. For example, a signature architect might charge more than one that is newly qualified.
• Client organisation and track record. This will affect how much support is required and the risk perceived by consultants.
• Conditions of engagement. For example, the requirement for collateral warranties and partnering arrangements.
• Anticipated programme and resources. The outputs in a short or long programme are the same, However, a longer programme prolongs administrative resources required such as attending meetings and responding to requests for information. Thus percentage fees for a longer period will tend to be higher.
• Economic climate of supply and demand. Fees may be lower during recessions and higher during booms.
• Consultant workload.
• Assessment of the competencies of other consultants.

[edit] Historic fee scales

Professional institutes used to publish recommended fee scales expressed as a percentage of construction costs for a range of different building types. However, legislation aimed at preventing anti-competitive behaviour forced the institutes to abolish these scales, leaving fee negotiation to market forces.

Consequently, bidding for consultancy work has become a free-for-all in a highly competitive market. Some commentators argue that this has driven down fees, however, it has also been suggested that it has driven down standards and led to much design work being transferred from consultants to specialist contractors and suppliers who include design costs in their building agreements. The design co-ordination issues this has caused has had far reaching consequences and supplied the legal profession with a constant flow of disputes about responsibility for disruption and delays.

[edit] Fee calculations

Despite the demise of fee scales, developers are still inclined to use percentages of building costs for early calculation of the likely fees associated with construction. However, they will then generally negotiate fixed price lump-sums, with each consultant wrapping up any early work in the conceptual stages previously paid for on agreed hourly rates. Interim payment of fees is then related to pre-defined stages reached or related to time, for example, monthly payments against a payment schedule based on anticipated resources.

The table below is a very approximate guide based on commercial office developments in the London area, where the fees of the core team of consultants are expressed as percentages against construction costs (excluding contingency allowances and VAT). Clearly, fees on actual projects will vary considerably depending on the nature of the building required, the site, state of the economy and other factors as discussed above.

[edit] Core consultant fees

Construction cost (excl contingencies and VAT)	Under £1.5m	£1.5 - £3m	£3m - £10m	£10m - £25m	£25m - £50m	£50m+
Architect	9%	8%	7%	6%	5%	4%
Cost consultant	2%	2%	1.5%	1.5%	1%	1%
Services engineer	2%	2%	1.5%	1.5%	1%	1%
Structural engineer	2%	2%	1.8%	1.5%	1%	1%
Project manager	n/a	n/a	2%	1.5%	1.25%	1%

[edit] Other fees on an £80m office

It is likely that other, more variable fees will also be incurred. These are much more difficult to predict without a detailed understanding of the nature of the project. However, to give a sense of the type of fee that might be payable, indicative figures are presented below based on actual records of costs incurred on an £80m office block development in the City of London.

[edit] Acquisition fees

Legal (for developer)	£600,000
Agent (for developer)	£45,000
Legal (for vendor)	£120,000
Agent (for vendor)	£10,000
[edit] TOTAL	[edit] £775,000

[edit] Specialist fees

Survey	£30,000
Party wall	£228,000
Acoustics	£62,400
Site inspector	£358,000
Soil investigation	£67,000
Landscape design	£30,000
Traffic engineer	£28,000
Programmer	£35,000
Interior designer	£200,000
Right of light	£100,000
Archaeology	£40,000
Building regulations	£100,000
CDM co-ordinator	£50,000
Planning fees	£40,000
[edit] TOTAL	[edit] £1,368,400

[edit] Letting fees

Agents	£2,800,000
Promotion costs	£3,000,000
Legal (for developer)	£400,000
TOTAL	£6,200,000

[edit] Quantum meruit (time charging)

Occasionally, scope cannot be determined or a project involves significant uncertainty. Consultants may then be employed on pre-agreed hourly rates for different categories of staff. Generally, the hourly rate will reflect 2.5 x payroll cost based on a 1,500 working hour year.

[edit] Competitive tendering and value

Attempting to save money by driving fees down can be a mistake. Fees represent a small part of the whole-life costs of a project, but poor design can have a long lasting and expensive impact.

The relative cost of a typical project is sometimes illustrated using the ratios shown below:

• 0.1 to 0.15 for design costs (ref. OGC Achieving Excellence Guide 7 - Whole-Life costing).
• 1 for construction costs.
• 5 for maintenance and building operating costs during the lifetime of the building.
• 200 for the cost of operating the business during the lifetime of the building.

(Ref. Report of the Royal Academy of Engineering on The long term costs of owning and using buildings (1998)).

However, this has been criticised as misleading, not least because the construction industry accounts for around 7% of GDP, implying a much more significant proportion of business costs than the ratio suggests. Other ratios of construction costs to operational costs to business costs have suggested figures as low as 1:0.6:6 for some types of buildings. However, the usefulness of these ratios is questionable, other than if they are calculated based on actual figures for specific businesses.

[edit] NRM1

NRM1: NRM 1 provides guidance on the quantification of building works for the purpose of preparing cost estimates and cost plans. Order of cost estimating and cost planning for capital building work defines the project/design team fee(s) as '...project team and design team consultants’ fees for pre-construction, construction and post-construction related services, other consultants’ fees, fees and charges for intrusive site investigations, specialist support consultants’ fees and main contractor’s fees for the provision of pre-construction services.

See Group element 11: Project/design team fees for an indicative list of project/design team fees.

It suggests that project/design team fees estimate means '...the total estimated cost of all project/design team fees at the estimate base date (i.e. excluding tender inflation and construction inflation).'

[edit] Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki

• Appointing consultants.
• Architects fees.
• Base date.
• Charge-out rate.
• Compensation.
• Consideration.
• Construction organisations and strategy.
• Consultant team.
• Contractual obligation.
• Design team.
• Disbursement.
• Hourly rate.
• Invoice.
• Letter of appointment.
• Planning fees.
• Quantity surveyor’s fees.
• Rates.
• Schedule of services.
• Search fees.
• Sub-consultant.
• Winning work.

Comments

The use of the ratio 1: 5: 200 for the relationship between capital cost, whole-life cost and business costs was discredited many years ago. The example was drawn from an extreme case (merchant bank with very high salaries) and 5 figure was for rent as well as opex. The later suggested ratios of 1: 3: 30 (Be Valuable, published by Constructing Excellence 2005 and edited by me) was based on Capex to Opex to Business costs (mainly salaries). The value created by the occupier business must however exceed costs to be viable, so a further ratio term is needed. The ratio between fees for design and outcome value created can be 0.1 to say 40, or 400 times. Initial concept thinking (less than 10% of fees) adds most value, with a ratio between fees and outcome of up to 4000 times. Economising on thought before action is clearly false economy.