If you paid him that money you own those plans, no ? What is your contract?

Aside from that I agree its time to walk away from this architect. The situation sounds a bit fishy. #3 may routinely underbid. I know a lot of contractors who depend upon change orders to make up the difference once they get underway. It also sounds like he was steering you in a certain direction.

If you have more choices, an all-in-one would be better in this case from the details given.

Thanks Cabot. Or contract says that we can terminate but that it does not affect consideration of payment due (based on base project cost fee) - which is based on $225K. It also states that the architect retains copyright and all common statutory and other reserved rights.

I don't know if that means we have rights to the drawings. By our contract we owe him another $7500 I think - which is crazy. The contract says what happens to his fee if we reduce our budget and scope - we owe him based on $225K - but doesn't say what happens if he doesn't produce a useable plan or don't complete the project. It does state that they cannot guarantee cost of construction will line up with prelims or their estimate.

Of course we don't want to ask him what happens until we know what we are going to do. Feel like maybe we need a lawyer... I hate lawyering up as they usually make everything more difficult.

I'd tell him you are terminating your agreement. Can he sue? Probably, but I think that highly unlikely. First it's difficult and time consuming. Second, the last thing he wants is this type of publicity.

Thanks. I agree he doesn't want us posting on here or Angie's with an honest review. We don't trust his opinion anymore on what the project should cost which makes it difficult to agree to have him draw another design (next plan is no addition and no basement). I don't even think the bank would loan us the money under those circumstances.

Firing the architect and refusing to pay what the contract says you owe while continuing the project might not be the best strategy.

First, the fee seems high for such an unprofessional approach to bidding and cost control. Second, it is usually better to express your concerns to the architect and try to figure out a way to solve the problem. Just from the little you have reported it doesn't seem like the problem is entirely the design.

Unless you dislike the architect's design you should consider hiring a contractor by the hour (if possible) to review the project and make suggestions regarding the best way to meet your budget. You might also consider bidding competively with 3 contractors. What you are calling bidding is actually negotiating with one contractor at a time.

The last thing you want to do is get into a fight where everyone gets hurt. Try to negotiate first; you can always terminate the contract later.

I'm very sorry for your experience. Unfortunately, it's not unique. Architects don't build stuff so it's no wonder they can't accurately estimate construction costs. The exception is if they've designed a nearly identical project which was recently completed and there is zero inflation in material and labor costs since completion of the project (the combination of which, I submit, is unlikely.) Experiences like yours are what gave rise to the design/build project delivery method.

I believe your architect should bear the costs of redesigning your project as needed to get it in the budget range you provided as a design input. The total design fees should be capped at 10% of the $225K to $300K budget--not actual cost should they exceed the budget. In support of this objective, I would get a remodeling contractor on board as soon as possible. Pay the remodeling contractor for their professional input and cost estimating just as your architect gets paid for his/her work. You may be able to get the remodeler to credit the cost of their professional services against the contract price if you choose them to do the work.

Best wishes for a successful outcome.

Sorry for your unhappy experience. As others have recommended, I'd go to a construction/contracts lawyer first to see where you stand and then negotiate a termination based on his/her advice.

When you say "ideas" are you referring to concepts or parts of technical drawings? I can only go on what I do but for the former, since I do all my conceptual design with the client present and often in the client home, I leave all those with the owner so they are free to go to someone else if they wish. For the latter, unlike design concepts, there's liability involved so that becomes a "sticky wicket" (sorry for the use of a highly technical legal term!!).

All that aside, I don't understand why there was "bidding" but also then you had the "architects preferred GC". Why wasn't the "preferred GC" on the team from the beginning and have a negotiated price? That's the way I always work it.

Partly for you and partly for the lurkers out there let me copy and paste a post I made here just a few days ago regarding competitive vs. negotiated pricing:

"I would tend to agree with you and that is why I
never recommend a competitive bid approach for custom projects and always line
up the builder during the DESIGN stage as part of the team.

Well, with that approach the obvious question the
average owner is going to ask is "Then how do I know I'm not getting
screwed?".

Great question.

And the answer there lies in the fact we're not
building a 7-11 here, we're building a custom project, be it an addition or a
whole house, and by nature these projects are an emotional endeavor frought
with varying degrees of modifications, changes, additions, subtractions, etc.
each of which is going to have to be negotiated noncompetitively with the
builder.

The "negotiated" bridge is going to have
to be crossed sooner or later in most custom projects and when that happens an
owner better feel very comfortable with the builder and have a lot of trust in
him/her that they're being treated fairly in a noncompetitive situation. So why
not cross that bridge from the start, dispense with "competitive"
bids, sign on with a builder and use the builders knowledge to best advantage
from the very start?

Another reason to forgo competitive bidding is it's
very rare for all bids to be based on equal criteria, and I don't care how detailed
the drawings are. And of course, the more detailed the drawings, the higher the
design costs and more detail means more stuff that might change later which of
course means more noncompetitive negotiations).

And another big factor here is building a custom
project is more than about money. We're not buying a car where the interaction
with the salesman lasts an hour or two. We're in an endeavor that will last
several months, maybe a lot longer. The owner and the contractor will be joined
at the hip for the duration so the relationship with these two parties better
have a foundation that rests on more than just the dollar. A successful project
has ample amounts of trust and respect among all parties so why not start out
that way?

And BTW, working this way, I've had all my projects
in the last 15 years, with the exception of one, come within budget (and in the
one, against my advice, competitive bid, and as it turned out, labor was not "a
whole lot cheaper in West Virginia".)."

In any event, the best of luck in sorting this out.

A construction cost estimate is only as reliable as the data entered into the spreadsheet. There are no reliable way to guess at such things. For a custom home that information is not given to an architect like it is to a contractor in bid documents. That information is normally developed item by item in collaboration with the owners in the context of a design concept and the owners' desires and family lifestyle so it is difficult to know when the scope or quality of an individual design element should be reduced or omitted in order to stay within the overall budget. The architect would need to create a prototypical estimate, revise it every week and inform the owner that a choice must be made between an outdoor firepit and more energy efficient windows or the big semi-professional range

Obviously those trade offs can only be made by creating cost estimates at certain points in the latter stages of the design with many assumptions and allowances. This is not easy to do reliably even by experienced builders so it would be unrealistic to think an architect would be able to do it well. It is therefore wise to have a builder on board as a consultant as recommended by others.

And one of the most difficult factors to accurately evaluate is the effect on prices by market forces due to a scarcity of builders or subs; rising material prices; and the owner's choice of the contract type and builder selection process.

How would he know if you used his ideas anyway?

Sanford W:

Part of being an architect is keeping abreast of local construction costs. You know how much your last few year's projects bid for and you know that the economy is picking up. It ain't rocket science.

Thank you all for the advice and suggestions. We trusted that our architect had a handle on local renovation and addition costs as he does a lot of homes in the area per year. He felt confident that our second take on the project would be on budget. The GC (his preferred person) thought the bid would be good to go and we had been discussing start dates and timelines.

The second project bid seemed to shock everyone. There were some sub numbers that were way out of line (plumbing doubled despite similar scope of work, painting interior and exterior went up by 75% despite smaller house/project). It almost felt like multiple subs took a pay increase - if one had done it no one would have noticed. Since they all decided that 6 months later they were worth twice as much it was quite apparent in the bid.

We had been in contact with the GC throughout the design, but he hadn't reviewed decisions during the process. Our architect seemed to find the most expensive ways to accomplish things both times through. This was pointed out in the bid and subsequent reviews of the project. This may have resulted in a prettier finish, but wasn't cost effective.

We are still debating how to move forward. We have engaged a design / build grouo who would work with our architect. They have reviewed the 2 projects and feel the original plan is the more cost effective way to go (in price/sf). They aren't sure if they can get it in budget, but are willing to try.

We have a plan C that involves no addition and just a remodeling of our home. It isn't cheap, but we have it if all else fails. For now we are going to play this out and if the addition projects are dead we will have a contract lawyer figure out what we actually owe/don't owe.

Really is painful to think that after 9 months and $15K we would have nothing to show for it.

Let's not blame the subs now that the shoe is on the other proverbial foot. When the economy tanked, homeowners showed no compunction about beating them out of every last nickel. The smart ones left the trades and got computer jobs; now the marketplace has to pay the price to lure them back.

We are in EXACTLY the same boat, except we have paid our architect 30k already. She screwed up by designing a house triple the budget in contract. We had to redesign 1/3 of the house. Now, she wants to be paid the percentage of ACTUAL build costs.. 30k and nothing to show for it. We have spoken to our lawyer but who wants to go through all of that? I just want to build a house, not go to court. We may have to change some things, hire another architect (and pay them of course) and move on. Seems so unfair. Someone else said this is not unique. True and totally ridiculous that they get away with stuff like this. Architects are given a budget, they are expected to stay within that budget which requires knowledge of construction costs. Otherwise, what good is a budget? Do I own the plans? I certainly paid for them.

Katrina - I’m so sorry you are in this situation. We ended up firing our architect and hired a design-build group. At that point we had a very clear vision of what we wanted to do and had a pretty good handle on what the ‘most expensive’ pieces were so we altered our goals a bit. We were able to put a beautiful addition on and reworked the flow of our entire house. The design-build group was much easier to work with. We did not lawyer up but the $15K we spent definitely hurt since we essentially started from scratch with the new team. Good luck!!!

How can architects stay in business with reviews like this?

This is an old thread, but since it was resurrected, I consider it fair game to add a comment on architects' cost estimating abilities.

Typically, architect-designed homes are one-of-a kind custom homes. There isn't a cost database for similar homes on similar lots like a production builder that's cranking out lots of similar homes will have. Even if the architect designed a similar home, cost information would be dated. If costs are rapidly changing (e.g., tariffs, supply issues, lack of availability of trades, etc.) an estimate based on old cost data is a disservice to the client.

Remodeling projects that involve additions and changes to structure are even more challenging to estimate since they involve dealing with existing constraints and the marriage of old and new.

The best way to ensure the design you've fallen in love with can be built within your budget is to get your builder or remodeler involved as early in the design process as possible. They can provide real-world cost information to inform the design. This collaborative approach will get lots of push back from advocates of design-bid-build and architects who sell clients "protection" from big, bad builders and remodelers.

Insanity, it's been said, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

"How can architects stay in business with reviews like this?"

If you read enough review Joseph you will see every profession has many of the same. Your's is a blanket statement unfortunately and the same can be said for building contractors just the past week in some of the posts here on Houzz.

I do appreciate that prices/costs change. But you have to be able to work with your architect collaboratively toward the same goal. Our design is one of a kind but not sure that it's buildable even 3x our budget (even after many changes). Then to request to be paid based on the inflated amount seems unfair (not in contract, contract states "A percentage of total build). Our architect has been paid up to "construction document" phase but the construction documents are not complete and neither is the complete design. To get her to release what we have done so far may be a fight. We will have to hire another architect and pay them as well. Either way, we lose and why? We did nothing wrong. We were clear from the first phone interview that our budget was SUPER tight and gave specifics. I don't want to go to an attorney, I just want my design that I paid 30k for (so far!). Still looking at having to pay another professional to redraw and stamp (another 5-6k)..... What is to protect consumers from this? Seems like nothing.

Hi, Katrina,

I'm very sorry for your experience. I agree that an architect seeking to be paid an additional fee for a design that can't be built in the originally specified construction budget is like pouring salt in a wound.

Architects are licensed professionals. If you think yours has not met their obligation to you, you can speak with someone at the licensing board for architects in your state.

Best wishes for a successful outcome.

Thank you for that suggestion! I will look into the licensing board. Appreciate your feedback.