My mother, now a wise octogenarian, had a saying that struck me as pertinent to today’s challenging environment for professional service providers. ‘Something for nothing is usually worth nothing,’ has relevance when hearing that in a low bid environment, potential clients are opting for service fees that are bid so low that they represent levels below cost. Few are exempt from this situation, which is a serious problem when trying to survive as a viable business. Of particular concern is the quality of the buildings that are subject to this extreme low bid trends.
Low bids historically beget change orders, which beget team friction and tedious, problem-riddled projects. Unusual ‘deals’ on construction prices can disguise the questionable quality factors that would only be noticeable if one ‘reads between the lines.’ Design-build projects are prone to be more ‘build-design’ when cost-cutting extends to the consulting architect and engineer. If clients didn’t understand the value of an architect or engineer prior to this recession, then they certainly will not want to invest in one now. Owners, landlords, tenants be wary. You still get what you pay for – or not. Some believe that trained consultants, registered architects, and engineers, are of less value than the builder who ‘gets it done’ faster, for less. Why involve consultants who charge a fee for services when the bottom line is money and getting something built?
Our firm had a recent experience with a design-build project involving a fairly large amount of square footage. In the pre-design phase, when the client evaluated overall budget costs for building a new facility, he received preliminary estimates from a large and reputable local construction manager based upon that group’s experience relative to commercial-standards for Class-A construction. Ultimately, the owner found a group that priced the job to different standards, marginally warehouse construction and barely code compliant. Not realizing the differences, the owner was thrilled that he was getting his building for 30% below the estimate of the first CM. Less than one year after the client occupied the completed facility, the building was settling, cracking and leaking. Without realizing it, the owner had purchased a building that, within a year, was subject to fungal growth, material deterioration and potential long-term issues.
The costs associated with correcting and remediating problems in buildings add up fast. The costs for appropriate planning and documentation of detail are much less. In fact, a thoughtfully-selected professional consulting team will save time, money and problems, with a relatively low percentage value-added cost at the start of the project.
What does this mean for the future of buildings constructed with such critically low standards and cost levels? Read between the lines of that cost sheet. There will be fewer buildings that can stand the test of time; ironic in an age when sustainability is such a buzz word. In addition, there will be more stop-gap measures, more band-aids, more deterioration in buildings because money is just not made available.
You definitely get what you pay for in a service industry. A builder, an architect, or an engineer that does not communicate what they bring to the table in support of your business strategies, relative to their first costs, mid-term and long-term objectives, is not worth the money. When I am called, I anticipate those questions, providing an owner a good reason for utilizing the experience of myself and my team, as trained professionals, to provide cost benefit and value, while also providing a building that will function as intended long after completion.