which part? I'm thinking the whole "contract templates for design services for unlicensed offices" indicates the op is running a drafting service, not a licensed practice.

I sure hope architects aren't approaching work based soley on what they know how to do. It's called a "practice" of a reason. You should be always learning as an architect.

My point exactly. I could give you a fish, if that'll make you happy.

You sound like you’re only good at contracts.

You sound like you're not good at much of anything but being a drafter, or doing lumion.

You talking to this person like this is an example of everything wrong with architecture.

It’s also true that clients are unimpressed with their architects and seek creative direction and lateral thinking. How doe
s your winning work relate to the topic of the thread?

because we get work from people after they go the cheaper way and hire non-licensed folks thinking they can save a few bucks. We can do creative just as well as anyone else. That's the easy part.

It’s not about cheaper. You don’t know what you’re talking about. And if creative is simply a line item to you then therein highlights the problem.

I actually do know a thing or two (or three) about this. I see lots of projects go to shit because people pick cheap unlicensed folks who then produce unusable docs because of their lack of experience. I don't mind it, more work for me. Picked up 2 projects like this earlier today (not kidding here either) but we're likely to turn those away. Too busy.

NS, don't you just love when people come here with questions, and then proceed to know evvvvvverything, but the answer to their own question?

yes Sir.

What I love most is the absurd attitude from the clearly disenchanted. Totally zombie architects angry from a place of judgement and top down linear thinking.

Listen Muppet, no disenchantment here, just laughing at the clearly millennial sense of entitlement that asks for real professionals to parachute into a problem that you're clearly not capable of managing yourself.

This is fantastic.

I appreciate critical comments but this post is not about your subjectivity and generational politics. You have no knowledge of my experience or my capabilities. We don't need trolling. If your opinion is that designers should not engage in commissioned work unless are licensed then just state that and move on. Be an example of that sophistication and professionalism you are unsuccessfully trying to enforce and don't call people names.

Born on third base, thinks they hit a triple. Reminds me of those Ivy kids, that worked at SOM, and got caught cheating on the ARE.

The OP’s lack of experience is evident in the title of this thread. Not to mention his posts.

AIA provides standard contracts... they're not free. If you aren't familiar with bridging contracts between firms and/or AoR contracts with their consultants, I'd start there.
As a "not-architect" I'd assume you'll want to be considered a consultant.
Further note, yes, consultants produce drawings that eventually go into the CD set, including engineers, interior design, kitchen consultants, etc, all of which, legally, have been coordinated by the architect of record.

Then why are you needed then?

NS, information that would've been helpful to know from the start, but what do I know, I've only been doing this fur twenty years.

Process and philosophy behind a task. Architecture is not your contractors permit requirement.

I know what those words mean, but I don’t think you do.

Rick, I'm pretty sure that as a Licensed Architect in NYS, I know more about practice law than you do.

ok good, glad someone else also brought up AIA docs and standard procedure with consultants

Only if the owner of the firm is
licensed.

We are not using the title architect. We are not architects.

Thank you. This is Very helpful. We will consult accordingly with the owners chosen AOR.

Rick... people in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks... you're calling yourself a "building designer". In my book, that's walking a fine line...

and I don't care what the law says- let me ask you: who else designs buildings? Architects and Engineers- right? You're neither, so to call yourself a building designer is really pushin' it.

Its not a protected title, but it sure as hell would make one believe you are either an architect or an engineer, and THAT is illegal...

Rick, do what you gotta do man. I just have no idea how you find clients...

I mean I can only imagine: you get some bottom of the barrel client, who is clueless, and you

you are the cheepest and most willing around.

Any legitimate owner would invest in a real and licensed architect and engineer, regardless if the building is exempt or not. No wonder your fees are so low.

LOL Rick-

Im just curious: why would anyone who is willing to invest upwards of a half a million dollars NOT go with a licensed architect? Your pricing has everything to do with having a contract in the first place.

what was your highest contract?

what was your biggest construction budget?

RickyB, how many half-million dollar building design projects do you handle per year?

7307 does not limit the services of interior designers. It's "Special Provisions" governing what types of projects can be undertaken by joint partnerships. There is no dollar limit or project size limit on interior design projects. As long as they don't make structural changes they are not architectural services, and none of the statutes pertaining to architects and architectural services apply.

New York specifically allows interior designers to provide these services, on projects of any size and budget: 

• layouts and planning of interior construction
• furnishings and fixtures
• cabinetry, lighting and finishes
• schematic design and development
• space planning
• complete interior design specifications
• working drawings
• project monitoring and post-occupancy review
• other aspects of interior construction not materially related to the main structural building components or systems

Point of Order, your standard CA responsibilities should include receiving and reviewing the O/C contract, reviewing just for coordination of dates, etc. One could go to the first OAC meeting and just assume the schedule and schedule of values and other documents were all made in accordance with the contracts... but I'd argue that wouldn't be best practice.

@archinine How did you become so jaded?

Most residential projects on Park Avenue that are led by and interior designer exceed 10,000,000.

10K in NYC gets you what? A couple door knobs?

Rick is fundamentally confusing statutes regarding pass-through of services, with rules regarding what services interior designers may provide.

There is no $ limit on projects that an unlicensed person can do, if they involve only interior design and not "construction materially related to the main structural building components or systems".

These are tasks that NYS explicitly states can be provided by an interior designer on any project, of any size:

• layouts and planning of interior construction
• furnishings and fixtures
• cabinetry, lighting and finishes
• schematic design and development
• space planning
• complete interior design specifications
• working drawings
• project monitoring and post-occupancy review
• other aspects of interior construction not materially related to the main structural building components or systems

The OP hasn't described anything that doesn't fit into this list.

As for the OP's original question: I would recommend ASID's commercial contracts.

The OP is (or hopes to be) “working with a certified interior design office”. I wasn’t aware that there was a level below that.

Certification and registration of interior designers is voluntary in NY. A "certified interior designer" and an uncertified/unregistered interior designer are both allowed to work on interior design projects of any budget and size. The difference between "certified interior designer" and uncertified interior designer is that the latter is registered with the state by submitting minimum education and training documentation, so is allowed to call themselves certified.  It's supposed to help the public in selecting a well-qualified designer.

Rick's statement that "interior design is under the scope of architectural services in New York when the project exceeds $10K in NYC or $20K outside NYC" is incorrect. Interior design is not under the scope of architectural services in New York. The thing he keeps quoting is a dollar threshold that governs types of architectural corporations, and architects' involvement in pass-through services. It's not a limitation on what interior designers (certified or not) are allowed to do.

"Interior design is not under the scope of architectural services in New York". Wrong:

http://www.op.nysed.gov/prof/arch/archguide-b2.htm While an architect may retain an interior designer as a consultant, or have an interior designer on staff, and pass on those services to the client, an interior designer or firm may not pass on architectural or engineering services to the client. There is nothing to prevent an interior design firm from having an architect on staff to participate or assist in the provision of interior design services, however, even if the architect has ownership in the interior design firm, the firm itself is still not authorized to provide architectural services.

That has to do with pass-through services between architects and interior designers.  Interior designers can't practice architecture, but the practice of interior design is a separately defined profession in NY.  The tasks I posted above are directly pasted from the statutes governing the practice of interior design.

Yeah, because they illegally get their drawings rubber stamped by a willing licensed architect.

No, their drawings don't need to be stamped unless they contain structural modifications.

Not if you're in NYC. Alterations require Licensed Architects or Engineers. Condo Boards often require it too.

It's been a few years since I worked in NYC, but my recollection is for most things you needed an RA who was registered with the DOB to file, but what they were signing was the application, not necessarily stamping interior designers' drawings. Interior designers did sets all the time that were filed as part of applications signed by RAs and PEs, but that didn't mean the licensed professional was stamping the drawings of the interior designer, they were just part of the filed application. The only drawings that needed to be stamped were those that affected life-safety, utilities, and structure. Has that changed?

Bloopox: there are plenty of interior designers who "pass-on" architectural services. What I am saying is that regardless of who produces the permit set, yes- interior elevations and details are never filed at the DOB. However, interior designers often do the permit drawings and have them rubber stamped...

I know. They told me that when I reported you.

I just ignore him as obviously he has some issues!

If you try to correct him he does respond with lots of words - but you can see in his post history that he tends to do that in just one or two threads at a time. When a thread gets Ricked it's unfortunate for that thread, but then people heroically take turns engaging with him in those one or two threads at a time for as long as they can, because it usually keeps him out of all the others. The best diverters can keep him going for days and sometimes even weeks at a time in just one or two threads, for the good of the whole forum.

^ Someone has to fall on a grenade occasionally so that others may live.

Shut-up.... don't tell him our secret.

He seems pretty well occupied today in the one about TOEFL scores in GSAPP applications - things about which he's even less familiar than interior design regulations in New York.

He probably got spooked when he got called out on illegal practice of law.

If that was the case, would we not see daily nuking of his posts?

People don't threaten to report him every day. Maybe they should start.

There is a difference between experienced folks offering design services and non-experience folks offering design services. Given the nature of the OP's question, it was assumed that this fell in the latter category, hence the shitting. If I was a betting man, I would bet that the OP got the design gig via friends and family and is likely offering their work at a fraction of the cost of a licensed professional thinking someone else will just review and stamp.

This can work, but only when both parties know their roles.  Don't think this is the case here.  I've mentioned it here and several times before in the forum, we get tonnes of work from our client's tenants because they (the tenants) cheap out and hire other designers who in turn can't legally get them permit docs.  We always charge full fees when they come back unable to move forward with their work.

Anyways, perhaps something worth it's own discussion one day.

Even your office manager busy designing?

"We work on many large projects around the country as unlicensed architects..."

You just committed a misdemeanor in almost every state you have ever designed a project in, and a felony in some.

What's this "tonne" BS?   ;o]

It's not BS, just means I'm better than you. Sorry

I think the "dumping on" is generally coming from that attitude that architects who know how to get things built are just licensed CAD monkeys. What they don't realize or have to deal with is the usual sizable effort that must be undertaken when a "designer" who never bothers with the constructability details pops out a "design package." Schedule delays and unforeseen costs are usually the impacts far outweighing the paltry few thousand "saved" on a commission fee. Seeing owners get sucked into this is confusing at best, frustrating for those taxed with fixing.
Anyone with access to some basic software can be a "designer." Getting things done efficiently is another matter.

"We work on many large projects around the country as unlicensed architects..." means that we have executive architects in all these states who do the difficult work on getting stuff built. Does not make what we do illegal.

What I am trying to say is that you are equating good design to licensure. This is just not true, unless of course "design" is just a line item in the services you provide.

I've been an AOR and assisted a highly respected, young design firm, not only did they not know the first thing about code, contracts, or contract documents, they knew even less about what it takes to be an architect. That's the point. Good design, exists on the paper; build it, with all the fucking tools, not just the ones that get you in the fucking periodicals.

Not sure it is so black-and -white, Beta. For example, in our firm here, there are quite a few people with over 15-20 years of experience and have worked on built projects, but are not licensed. So yes, we do look at code, zoning etc but not to a level that is expected of Executive architects. On a more "starchitect" level, this happens all the time - the Broad Museum in DTLA was "designed" by DSR, but the executive architect is Gensler. Turned out pretty good, I think...

Same, of course, but perhaps no one in DSR is licensed in CA, and they need an architect to execute their design, but we're not talking about that here. I couldn't even represent myself as an architect in CA. We seem to be discussing what are the requisite skills necessary to be a responsible semi-pro, and to not fully articulate all the particulars, or even have the basic skills to "design" a coherent contract. 7000 sf is a modest scale for an office, but no less challenging, so I'll wait for the publication of this very important project, by this very important design firm.

Why don't you ask your friend? In the end, you're looking to have your buddy AoR accept legal liability. This should be explained to your clients so they know what your professional limitations are based on the local laws where the project is being constructed.

What is this assumption that I lied to my client? In the first meeting with them I made it clear that I am not licensed and explained that I cannot stamp the drawings.

That being said, I got all the answers I needed from a mentor of mine. Once again, the internet has failed to be helpful.

I never said anything about lying. .

Most of the architectural work in a firm is done by unliscensed architects under the supervision of a liscensed member of the firm. How is that any different than an unliscensed architect, not an employee of a firm, having his work supervised and signed off by a registered architect?

Interesting question. I'd say in your example the difference is what is considered direct supervision. Is it having a licensed architect review your work at key points in the various project phases? Or is it having the licensed architect guide the entire design process from concept through CD's?

Volunteer, the client hires the firm, which is licensed. In your example, the client hires an unlicensed entity who then relies on a 3rd party for a stamp, who is not under contract by the client.

This is my first time at the rodeo, so I'm learning a lot about the complexities of liability. Since I'd like to guide the design process, I've reached out to a renovation contractor that could take on liability for the CA process, then my friend could take on liability for the actual drawings. Thanks for the input!

Alternatively, I've also explore getting insurance for myself, so I could sign the contract(essentially taking on liability for the CA process).

Have a lawyer review your contracts before signing them. I've very happy the arrangement you explain is not permitted in my area.

I'm working with people I trust and discussing liability with all parties involved, so as far as I'm concerned, I'm doing my professional due-diligence.

^mistake no.1. Contracts are for when shit eventually hits the fan. Trust means nothing when lawyers are involved.

Are you suggesting then that I have no place trying to learn about the process that I aspire to someday master as a licensed professional? If so, then I'll tell the client right now that I'm just an inexperienced nobody and send them your number. Problem solved!

Incorrect. What I said is that trust only works when you get along which is a very temporary thing when construction is involved. This shows your inexperience and you'll thank yourself to have vetted your agreements with a (paid) lawyer before engaging in practice. People like to sue for all sorts of nonsense and "friends" will turn on you when money is involved.

I got on the defensive, I apologize. The heat of the other posters is getting to my head. 'Trust' can be a temporary concept. I'll take your advice and run it by a lawyer. And trust me, only 4 years in the field has already taught me to never trust anyone. haha. Thanks!