master plans are usually meeting intensive with several public/ charette meetings. a lot of times theres significant travel. i would put a quantity to those that are expected and a value to any additional meetings. since this document is mostly written with diagramatic illustrations, it's hard to gauge until you've done a few. in my experience, the big unknowns are the number and length of meetings; the software needed to achieve the desired results; and the amount of time to research and write the document. fees forthis type of project are based in experience.

Two methods I've worked under a flat weekly fee + materials used, or a lump sum contract. Doesn't seem to matter what sort of project or size. I recall one project (private academy) that we used $40k/week a few years back for 12 weeks. While all the international MP stuff I've been recently playing with seem to get a lump$400k contract (these range from resorts/housing schemes up to 4000 acres+, urban amusement parks, to new cities/industrial developments) all the same fee.

But if you're competing on fee, your doomed.

unless your contract is clear on the scope of mp, t+m might be the best way to go as master plan's tend to have scope creep, and most times meetings and city/regional approvals are more frequent than expected.

also clients tend to 'go shopping' with master plans. they might not have a real good idea of what they want, or even what is feasible for the site. if you're not careful you can loose your shirt--especially if you're banking on fee for the entire job by lowballing the master plan. clients have been known to walk away after a master plan and have a cheaper firm 'implement'.

We typically will spell out as exact a scope of work as we can ( mostly for the client's understanding of what we do ) and then still base our fees on an hourly rate.

you may civil engineers, ecologists, traffic planners, zoning analysts, et cetera. so get firm estimates from possible consultants before negotiating the contract...

you may NEED...

thanks all -

most of the projects we've been able to spell out very carefully what our scope is (if it's not already defined) and exactly what they will get via deliverables, #meetings, etc. so, determining time and material has been pretty easy (now, managing scope creep...)

what i'm really interested in, though, is if there are any ways to provide a kind of benchmark check against. for a building, for example, you can run out t&m, get a number, and then see where that is as a percentage of the construction cost. if you're at 30% for a typical classroom building, you know something is (very) wrong. is there a way to do this kind of analysis for masterplanning or is the genre simply too varied and different to generate any such comparisons?

main reason i'm asking is that we're putting together our first bid for a governmental masterplan and the fee will be a consideration (although not the main one).

my hunch is, yes, it's way too varied to ever really know.

Last one we prepared a proposal for was based on our internal burn rate in the office. Two staff ( one senior and one junior ) working 50% of our time and based the monthly retainer on what it cost and then billed them the bottom number. It wasn't exactly specific but it assumed we would do just about anything the approving authorities needed ( master plan and rezoning ) Its a good contract for us and will keep us flush for the next couple years.

whistler,

What does this mean? ". . .based the monthly retainer on what it cost and then billed them the bottom number."

Bottom number of what? Also, if you are billing based on a monthly fee, don't you have to give the client an idea of the number of months you anticipate?

The reason I ask is that we are competing for a project that is outside our circle of experience and my greatest anxiety is that which I don't know (ie. how much is appropriate to bill, how long it would take, etc).

Thanks.

Sorry Tyvek,

We aren't held to a fixed amount, our budget proposal was based on what we did over a month hence the definition of a pretty tight scope of work and that's how we established our monthly rate. The project has an expected planning period of approx. 8 month at which point the scope of work is to be reviewed (the project will continue its just that we need to inform the client group with an updated scope of work, schedule and status )

Ultimately its a hourly fee the "burn rate" is what the total fee is expected to total up to on a monthly basis. We establish a very tight scope of work based on what we expect to have to deliver, discussions with the approving authority and past experience. Then when the invoice is presented we can denote exactly what has been done and what is beyond the original scope of work. Your scope of work and schedule should help you establish a fee budget, even though no schedule is defined you should establish your own. If you get the contract the work should be invoiced on at hourly rate and then keep your client well informed of the schedule and the ultimate goal of the "Master Plan" ie what's it going to be used for, is it a simple phased plan or a long term planning policy that defines future projects.

Master Plans are historically poor planning documents because they are out of date as soon as you print. But they are a great way to build client ties and establish a long term income stream though. Couldn't even imagine trying to write a contract on a fixed amount. So I would work to get the job and if it means having a fixed fee then be very specific about what your doing and not doing, but always look at the longer role that you could work into..... get your toe in the door !