28 Government Agreement with Architects.

belong to the C. Or if they proceed only with a part of the works the A. shall be entitled to a proportionate part of the remuneration mentioned in (11) in addition to a proportionate part of the sum mentioned in this article in respect to the works abandoned.

13. The A. shall be entitled to nothing more excep for alterations and additions made by the written authority of the C.

14. In that case he shall be entitled to such increased remuneration as may be agreed on, or determined by arbitration. (The latter mode will probably cost more than the sum in dispute and is a very bad one, even with 16, which is inapplicable generally.)

15. If the A. becomes incapacitated or dies he or his representatives shall hand over to the C. all plans and papers relating to the works, and shall be entitled to such equitable proportion of the unpaid part of the said remuneration as may be agreed on.

16. Disputes to be settled by an arbitrator appointed by the Treasury.

17. No rules of the R.I.B.A. or any other society to be held binding on the C. (This is ex abundanti,' since the whole agreement is opposed to the whole principle of those rules.)

Travelling Expenses.-After this complete abandonment of their own code it is out of the question for architects to profess to be bound by professional etiquette or otherwise to follow it; and at any rate I advise every employer to reject it utterly as a mere foundation for disputes and lawsuits, if it is sent to him. Some of the clauses in the Government form are however not the best, and it is in some respects imperfect, though the basis of it is right. It contains no provision about travelling expenses, which are not an unfrequent

Travelling, and Alterations.

29

Of course

subject of dispute with some architects. actual travelling expenses should be paid, and it would be very unwise to deter the architect from coming often enough by not agreeing to pay them. On the other hand I have the highest authority among architects for saying that no more than the actual expenses should be charged; first because it is unwise for the architects themselves to weight the difference of distance with more than is absolutely necessary, and secondly because they are not paid by time but by percentage, or by a fixed sum, in which they can take the distance into account if they like. Yet I have known a charge amounting to nearly 1 per cent. more than the 5 attempted on a large job, under the pretence of payment for time in addition to the cost of the journeys. I advise everybody therefore to have a distinct agreement that the payment for superintendence, whatever it may be, is to include everything except actual travelling expenses.

Alterations. Another frequent subject of dispute is. alterations, for which all sorts of charges are sometimes made. This also should be guarded against beforehand; and inasmuch as alterations always mean additions in some form or other, it is unreasonable to charge, as they sometimes do, first for the things omitted and afterwards for those substituted, especially as the architect need not undertake any large alteration without stipulating for a further payment, according to §§ 13, 14 of the Government form, though (as I said) I warn everybody against arbitrations, and there is no occasion for it there. I myself see no harm in agreeing to pay 5 per cent. on the amount paid to the contractor beyond the contract sum for any further works designed and superintended by the architect, at the request of the employer, and in accordance with the provision of

30

Death or Discharge of Architect.

the builder's contract for alterations which I shall give afterwards. On the other hand it is true that in every large work there are sure to be alterations, and they ought to be reckoned on as almost certain incidents from the first, and whatever sum is agreed on beforehand ought to carry them, unless they reach an unusual magnitude, and then the architect has only to require a special agreement for them; so that there need be no injustice or disappointment to either side.

§ 15 of the Government form is insufficient, and I recommend a more definite stipulation such as this: If the architect dies or becomes incapacitated or ceases to be employed, he shall be entitled to whatever sum has been agreed on for the working drawings in case the work had been abandoned, and also to 2 per cent. on the value of the work executed under his superintendence, and certified by him.' I have myself made an agreement in that way. Even then you would probably find it difficult to get the work carried on by a new architect for the difference between the total sum originally agreed on and what would thus have to be paid to the outgoing architect or his executors; but that is a fatality which cannot be prevented. I have seen a contract with the builder prepared by one of the most popular ecclesiastical architects, I suppose in his usual form, which actually made it impossible to get rid of him by anything short of that fatality which no man can resist. For the contractor was to do, and the employer was to pay for, everything the architect might order on that work during his life. And this, involving thousands of pounds, had been signed by a clergyman who would not have signed a lease of a house without legal advice, on the authority of the architect himself.

Bills of Quantities.

31

As a final proof of the necessity for a distinct agreement with the architect (besides a proper one with the contractor) I have known one case myself and have been told of others, where architects charged their percentage not only on the cost of the work designed and superintended by them, but on a quantity of other things of the nature of furniture which they had nothing to do with. It is true that in the case I know of myself the charge was not paid, but in others I believe it has been from unwillingness to engage in lawsuits. Not that such attempts are common: but it is evidently prudent to make them impossible.

Quantities. Before we consider the tenders and the contract there is another intermediate element or document, which in modern times has assumed great importance, though the employer generally knows nothing of it, nor (be it remembered) is it any part of the contract legally, and nothing but confusion arises from recognising it as such, though it may sometimes be referred to for information. That is the bill of quantities, of every kind of work throughout the building. Formerly contractors used to tender from such rough estimates as their own experience enabled them to make: and I don't know that they were wider apart than they sometimes are now with the quantities found for them. The vagueness of the old contracts which have been preserved, for King's College Chapel for instance and some others, would alarm an architect or a contractor now. And yet we see how their work was done. But now, under the keenness of competition, they have every inch of section of mouldings measured from the plans: the contractor wants to know exactly how many bricks will be required, even when they are reckoned by millions; and an eighth of an inch thickness in a

board is claimed as an extra if it has not been specified; and the architect or his quantity-taker will be blamed, and somehow or other an attempt will be made to get it out of the employer if the contractor finds he has had too little quantities given him for anything, even though he may have had too much for others. That is no imaginary case, for I once had a dispute of that kind referred to me. The architect satisfied me that the contractor's claim was unfounded. For that reason I advise employers not to let the quantities be taken by anyone who can be made out to be their agent, nor to recognise them in any way, except as after-mentioned with reference to a schedule of prices for extras. In some cases quantities are given avowedly excessive, to enable the architect to make additions: which is wrong.

The usual practice is for the quantities to be taken either by the architect himself, if he is not above it, or one of his clerks acting independently, or by some still more independent measurer agreed on by the builders who wish to contract; and the one whose tender is accepted pays him, all of them of course having added the charge to their tenders, which is usually 1 per cent. on the lowest tender; but each man must treat it as or on his own as he does not know the others. I believe architects generally take care not to guarantee the accuracy of their quantities. The first edition of the R.I.B.A code in 1862 actually prohibited them from taking out quantities, but they were obliged to give that up, especially in the country: and the later one of 1872 expressly sanctioned it, but with the very objectionable addition of bringing in the responsibility of the employer, by suggesting that he should pay the architect directly for it, instead of paying through the contractor indirectly as above. It should