The split really comes down to your ability to correctly estimate billable hours for each stage of the project. I assume you will be able to come up with the overall fee for the project. Work backwards from that.

Even in a single source design solution it is quite possible for a firm to lose money in the DD stage of the project only to come out on top in construction administration. Some complex designs have a simple technical execution. Some simple designs are painfully complex to detail. There is a huge difference between a great DD set and a great CD set. Your architect will have a good idea of what his scope of his work will be. Take his proposal and subtract 20% for a more accurate number :)

If you are designer in this project, I highly recommend you to sign a sole contract with the client, and treat the architect of record as your consultant. It will save you a world of hurt in case of any disputes. Everyone wants to be properly compensated for the work they have done, and in many cases that becomes impossible due to delays, changes, and acts of God.

I wish you all the best in the brave new world of contract negotiations!

Thanks for the response. We will have separate contracts with the client, but wanted to submit them as a joint design/architecture fee (as if we were a design team). All work will be interior (no facade or major structural) and the architectural set will be enough to obtain bids and permits. Wasnt sure if there was a rule of thumb as far as design/architecture splits. 50/50, 2/1, somewhere in between, etc.

If the scope of the project is fairly small, and partnership between the designer and the architect is strong (there are no trust issues), then I would say forgo the split at this time and make the best effort to correctly log your hours. Split the difference at the end...

I would value the contribution of each party to be equal (your hour of work=his hour of work). That dynamic may change in projects to follow, but you can use this experience as the reference point for future endeavors.

In the meantime, there is no magic formula, no pixie dust. Most architects are horribly bad at this. Lukewarm fees and salaries in architectural profession are reflection of this!

I have been involved in a couple of projects like this that worked out pretty well with a 35% design - 65% arch of record fee. I found it most useful, though to work it out on a phase by phase basis - we have had best results when both firms are involved in all phases - ie the one who is going to sign the dwgs has a say at the beginning and the designer has a look at submittals during CA for any issues.

I think steelstuds in on the right track - for a project of this size it should be possible to outline each task with hours and responsibility and let the split work itself out that way. Not so sure about subcontracting the arch. of record, though - if I were signing the dwgs I would want to also sign the contract with the owner.

Biggest issue I have has in similar situations is MEP coordination, since the engineers never seem to want to start work 'till the CD's are mostly done and then come up with a pipe where your don't want it.

Good advice from spruce. Although 35/65 split may be too one sided especially if your project doesn't require a project manual and architectural specs are embedded in the drawing set. Designer in a restaurant project may also be tasked with lots of hand holding with needy (and flighty - service industry is certified nuts) ownership MEP monster is always a potential waster of time. Again, it depends on the nature of design proposal...

@spruce: "Not so sure about subcontracting the arch. of record, though - if I were signing the dwgs I would want to also sign the contract with the owner."

In large projects that have a recognized name heading the design direction, there is almost always a no-name architecture firm lurking in the background and doing the heavy lifting (as well as stamping the drawings). The relationship of the latter with the owner depends on the nature of contract. In fact, I know of a number of projects that awarded the architect-of-record privilege to companies that offered to take no credit (and be omitted from mere mention of participation) for the overall design execution. Think starchitect. And now think of credits associated with their projects.

The typical percentage breakdown for fees by phase is:
Schematic Design: 15%
Design Development: 20%
Construction Documents: 40%
Bidding & Negotiation: 5%
Construction Administration: 20%

Given that, the 35% split mentioned above seems about right.

@Phillip: CA takes 20% and bidding another 5%. Neither of phases appear to be a service the designer or architect are offering in this case (or at least it was not stated by the original poster). Your breakdown is for a classic design-bid-build project of significant scale. A small fitout of a restaurant should not follow any pre-determined split since the overall scope of the project is really easy grasp by all parties.

Normally, I've been on projects where the arch-of-record holds the prime contract with the client, and the 'designer' is a consultant. For liability purposes, this makes life simpler.

I am supposed to prepare a fee proposal on a project where we are supposedly the local Architects in Nigeria. The drawings have been done by an Architect in California and they are still involved in the project.

We as the local architects are supposed to prepare the construction documents, this involves coordinating the engineers. We also get the building process and then we oversee the construction phase.

Is there any sample fee proposal where there are 2 architects in a project.