| Author |
Message |
Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 803
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 08, 2009 - 05:52 pm: |    |
I just had to get this off my chest...
I just finished a second revision of my proposal for writing specifications as part of a design/build team for a city project. The proposal requires a breakdown of hours for each job description. As I am the only person in my company, I listed "Principal" with the number of hours at my standard hourly rate.
The comment from the city contracting officer was "we pay per the job being done, not the title of the person; i.e. clerical tasks get paid at a clerical rate even if being done by an executive." The D/B contacted the city to explain the situation--no success.
So, I added an "administrative assistant" position to my company and revised the spreadsheet using their standard "clerical" rate. After submitting that, the D/B was concerned that my number of hours had tripled and that the city would object. Well, duh, what did they expect--that I was going to reduce my fee?
So now, I've introduced another employee to my firm, the "Project Manager." Still an increase in hours but not quite as conspicuous.
So, the employees of my company--me, myself, and I--are awaiting the results of this latest attempt. Cross our fingers...
The project is a small series of renovations, so my fee isn't a significant number in the entire scheme of things. So, the funny thing about this is that between myself, the architect, the design/builder, and the city contracting person, the total cost of time spent on these proposal revisions probably exceeded my fee. How's that for efficiency?
Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA
Senior Member
Username: don_harris
Post Number: 232
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 10:58 am: | |
I feel your pain. I can only recommend reading the following, if you haven't already.
THE DEATH OF COMMON SENSE How Law Is Suffocating America By Philip K. Howard.
At least you'll know you're not alone. |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 448
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 12:21 pm: | |
What about listing yourself as "technical writer" and keeping your usual hourly fee? |
Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 805
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 12:53 pm: | |
John:
We didn't offer that particular title, but "specfier" was suggested to the city by the D/B after the first comment was received; however, it was not approved. They want to see common job descriptions.
Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: redseca2
Post Number: 200
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 01:14 pm: | |
I think I mentioned it in a discussion here long ago, but a city once insisted to us that we needed to provide competitive bidders for the plan review and permitting of the project. Listing the State of California (this was a hospital) as sole source for building permits was not acceptable. |
Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski
Post Number: 944
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 01:41 pm: | |
Thanks much for the good belly laugh! The tears are running down my face! |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 911
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 03:25 pm: | |
some years ago, I had a state auditor (my consulting firm was being listed as a state consultant) come into my office and they wanted to see a "direct correlation" between project type and fee. They didn't understand why I could charge $250 for a residential specification for a women's shelter (my pro-bono work, more or less) and $15,000 for a spec for a $10 million dollar house. (answer: because the project would support that fee). They didn't understand lump sum contracts at all and said they were not "auditable". Considering that I was (as many independents are) word processor, principal, errand-runner, and caterer, (as well as bookkeeper, legal assistant, and janitor) lump sum is the only method that makes any sense. |
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 04:04 pm: | |
Anne, maybe I'm reading your post wrong, but I have to admit I'm a little dismayed by the "because the project would support that fee" comment... I was raised to charge what the work is worth. In other words, if I feel my time is worth (and I can earn a reasonable profit from) $100/hour and it's going to to take me 10 hours to do a project including all the errands and overhead, then I should charge $1,000 for that project regardless of how loaded the client is. Over time and as experience grows my rate is likely to rise, but it should always be evenly charged to clients.
Lump sum fees makes sense, but I don't see how the state auditor is off base. Sure an independent business owner has a lot to do, but all those tasks you mentioned are part of what larger firms have to cover as well, and the costs are part of what any business has to determine to decide how to charge.
Clearly pro-bono work should not be considered, but I don't understand how the auditor is off-base in desiring some reasonable correlation between the services you're providing for him and how you bill the state. We work on lump sum contracts all the time, but they price is normally based on some estimation of the amount of work involved. |
Alan Mays, AIA
Senior Member
Username: amays
Post Number: 56
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 04:39 pm: | |
The danger here is that the state auditor may consider most of your work as clerical. This harps back to the old way of doing things. You redlining a set of masters is the specifier's work at the higher rate. The word processing work is a typist/admin's work. Therefore you adjust your rates accordingly for each position. The problem is this is just a way for them to reduce your fee since they want to pay for each position at a certain set rate. Legal and accounting costs can be considered overhead. You see, you are not a sole practitioner anymore! Look at all the staff you should be hiring! LOL! |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 914
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 11:29 pm: | |
this changes the sort of discussion, but I used to have a business partner who was an estimator, and her fee was directly related to the cost of the project. Now, sometimes the cost of the project came from complexity, but other times the cost came from simply size. we know that specifications projects are not necessarily related to the cost of the project -- they are more related to the complexity of the project. a very large house may be pretty simple to specify, but in terms of phone calls, meetings and coordination with 15 consultants, it could take a fair amount of time. the state auditor in my instance wanted to see a correlation between the cost of the specifications and the cost of the construction, and there often isn't one in the same way that there is the correlation in the estimating side of the business. And... they never understood that. Everyone on this board knows that a $5 million dollar core and shell one-story office building is going to be a much different project than a $5 million residence with catering kitchen, underground garage for 10 cars (including a car elevator), music chamber with seating for 50, swimming pool and private workout room. |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 449
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 23, 2009 - 02:18 pm: | |
Perhaps an interpretive key is: "level of effort". For example, consider a built-up asphalt roofing spec. For the roof of a 5,000sf classroom building, the level of could be considered "average". For a 100,000sf distribution center, the level of effort could be considered "way above average" because every little detail must be carefully considered and specified; a few cents savings over 100,000sf can be very significant.
Also ... just between us girls ... there is a "hassle factor" that some specifiers apply in consideration of the client (architect), facility owner, bidding process and history. For example, if the specifier has substantial, successful history with the architect and the project is one of a string of similar projects, then the level of effort and, commensurately, the fee could be less than the situation with a difficult client (e.g., technically ignorant) or a difficult owner (e.g., one with unfamiliar or outdated construction standards that MUST be followed to the letter) or a project with a construction manager whose primary purpose is to justify their position by requiring the designers and constructors to justify every little thing they do. It's not something with factors that can be objectively applied. |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 1126
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Monday, October 26, 2009 - 12:23 pm: | |
To registered guest. I'm not an independent specifier, but I don't think pricing to the level of effort (ie hours) is really the right strategy whether you're talking about specifier's fees or designer's fees. One should be pricing to value--what is your skill and experience worth to the client? (I know certain government contracts do not work that way.) Otherwise, we'll never do better than "okay" financially. This is why Wall St. types can demand and get multi-million dollar fees. |
|
4specs.com Home Page