Page 22 —
COLORADO REAL ESTATE JOURNAL
— July 15-August 4, 2015
H
ow do you define the
“value” of design? Is
it simply the mone-
tary worth of the architectural
and engineering fees?
Lately, it seems we have been
talking a lot about the value
of design and design services.
With the rebounding economy,
design services seem to be in
a precarious juxtaposition of
necessity and luxury. Owners
need drawings that are signed
and sealed by licensed profes-
sionals in order to build their
buildings but sometimes feel
that design is a luxury that
their budget or timeframe can-
not afford. A valuable design is
not just one that brings in the
highest lease rate or sells for
the most money, but one that
also enhances the community
it serves and respects the con-
text around it, benefitting both
the occupants of the space and
the environment it operates in.
The other aspect of design
value is in the design team
itself: Who is actually design-
ing the building and what do
they contribute to the project?
Are they simply a group of
architects and engineers who
can provide
a stamped
drawing or
do they bring
more to the
table? Are
they experi-
enced in the
type of build-
ing being
designed?
Have they
worked with
the permit-
ting jurisdic-
tions before?
Have they worked with proj-
ects to get the most out of the
building for the owner, resi-
dent, tenant or occupant?
The qualifications the design
team brings to a project are
critical to the success of the
project, far more than their
fees or expeditious production
capabilities. Of course, a design
team that does not respect
an owner’s budget or project
needs clearly is not a good fit
for the project. That being
said, few, if any, firms enter
into a project with the inten-
tion of blowing the budget or
not delivering the drawings on
time. So, when everyone enters
the room with an understand-
ing of and appreciation for the
budget and schedule, why do
many project team selections
seem to hinge on the finite
parameters of the project,
rather than the intrinsic value
the design team can bring to
the project?
Qualifications-based selection
is a tried and true procurement
process that strives to ensure
the delivery of successful proj-
ects by honing in on the teams
qualified to deliver the most
value. QBS is mandated for all
federal projects by the Brooks
Act. Established in 1972, the
Brooks Act outlines policy for
procurement of architectural
and engineering services on
all federal projects. Colorado
passed the “Mini-Brooks Act”
to mirror the Brooks Act and
requires QBS for all federal-
and state-funded projects.
QBS removes fee from con-
sideration and rather focuses
on the firm’s or individual’s
qualifications. The process is
straightforward: establish a
short list of three to five quali-
fied firms through a request
for qualifications, interview,
evaluate and rank the short-
listed firms, then select the
most qualified firm. Only
once the firm is selected are
fees negotiated relative to the
agreed scope. If a fee or rela-
tionship cannot be formed,
then negotiations begin with
the next qualified firm. This
allows the owner to be in con-
trol of the process all the way
through the interview and
negotiation process to select
the most qualified team to fully
address the needs inherent in a
project within a specified bud-
get and schedule.
AIA Colorado is a strong sup-
porter of the QBS process. We
believe that all firms, regard-
less of funding sources, should
be hired based on their quali-
fications and the value they
contribute to the team, and not
be pitted against each other to
lower their fees to the point of
sacrificing creativity, innova-
tion and service.
s
Angela Van Do,
AIA
2015 president, AIA
Colorado
A valuable design
is not just one
that brings in the
highest lease rate
or sells for the most
money, but one
that also enhances
the community it
serves and respects
the context around
it, benefitting both
the occupants of
the space and the
environment it
operates in.
Construction, Design & Engineering
