Design expertise is a core component of the services provided by architects. The knowledge, experience, critical thinking and creativity required to develop a design is what sets the profession apart and enables architects to provide value to the client, end users and community through our work.
Good design requires detailed understanding of the people, place and program specific to the project, as well as the client’s culture and aspirations, budget and timeframe for delivery. This can be encapsulated in the brief, but on starting many projects architects either have not been provided with a detailed brief or come to realise that the client brief is constrained by assumptions, pre-conceptions and lack of knowledge.
The first step for these projects is to prepare a return brief, which provides a clear understanding of the project requirements, as well as establishing effective communication and trust between client and the architect. It provides time for the architect to understand the context and environment in which the project will be realised and to consider how the design can respond to First Nations, public realm and regenerative design perspectives.
So how does this play out when the client asks for a design as part of the submission process? What are the risks to the client and the architect?
From the architect’s perspective, the request for a free design poses the following risks.
- Devaluation of the expertise required to develop a design. If this service can be given away, why should design changes throughout the project be an issue or result in additional fees? And why should the client pay for concept design on subsequent projects?
- May raise unrealistic expectations by presenting a design based on limited information that the client may love but not be able to afford.
- Impacts the financial viability of the practice.
- Can result in copyright and moral rights issues. The practice may be required to sign over the copyright for the concept design which may then be used without employing the practice, or which might be combined with other submissions to form a hybrid solution.
- Does not reduce the standard of service required of the practice or the level of legal responsibility.
- May be a first indication that the client is going to be challenging to work with.
From a client perspective, there are risks associated with making decisions based on a concept design prepared with limited information and in a constrained time frame. Where this information is used to inform preparation of a business case or funding submission or as part of an end user consultation, marketing program or media release, the potential for unintended outcomes is significant. It is also unreasonable for the client to expect that the architect is going to produce their most innovative work in this competitive environment. This may result in the final project outcome being more conservative that that resulting from a best practice procurement process where the architect is engaged to work closely with the client.
In addition to these risks, requesting free design services contravenes AS4121-1994 Code of ethics and procedures for the selection of consultants, which defines best practice in the procurement of consultant services. The code states that the Principal shall not require work without payment. Does this align with the client’s ethics and culture? Will a request for free services damage their reputation?
So, why are we writing about issues relating to free design services when there is a request for pro-bono services for Oz Harvest in the E-news? Pro-bono work is acceptable where the organisation legitimately warrants support. It results in a relationship between the client and architect that more closely reflects a traditional engagement model and therefore reduces the risks associated with a request for free design services in a tender. Further information regarding pro-bono work is available in ACUMEN.
The Institute’s Guidelines for EOI and RFT for Architectural Services provides information for architects and clients about best practice procurement of architectural services. Requests for design responses are discussed on Page 9.
The Institute is committed to improving methodology for procuring architectural services, which will result in significantly better outcomes for all parties. We also refer you to the on line CPD Pricing Design Services & Writing Fee Proposals, which explains why offering free services when there is no defined benefit to the client, is unlikely to result in any benefit to the architect. It has a lot of other relevant information regarding maximising your fees too.
At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of each practice to decide how to respond to requests for free design services. However, these decisions impact the whole profession, in terms of reputation and financial viability. We urge all practices to consider this carefully.
