Colorado Real Estate Journal - July 15, 2015
How do you define the “value” of design? Is it simply the monetary 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 professionals in order to build their buildings but sometimes feel that design is a luxury that their budget or timeframe cannot 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 context 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 designing 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 experienced in the type of building being designed? Have they worked with the permitting jurisdictions before? Have they worked with projects to get the most out of the building for the owner, resident, 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 intention of blowing the budget or not delivering the drawings on time. So, when everyone enters the room with an understanding 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 projects 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 consideration and rather focuses on the firm’s or individual’s qualifications. The process is straightforward: establish a short list of three to five qualified firms through a request for qualifications, interview, evaluate and rank the shortlisted 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 relationship cannot be formed, then negotiations begin with the next qualified firm. This allows the owner to be in control 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 budget and schedule. AIA Colorado is a strong supporter of the QBS process. We believe that all firms, regardless of funding sources, should be hired based on their qualifications 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, innovation and service.