We will be acting as designers on an interior tenant build out for a food and beverage project. The tenant brought us in, the project is out of state. We will work through DD and then AoR will produce CD's, specs, & handle CA. We are a consultant to the AoR, and they want us to carry full liability in terms of insurance for the full construction contract.
They've also removed our preferred limitation of liability clause and removed no duty to defend, which they say is due to the developer client removing it in their contract. This is new territory for us, and we are generally curious about how these agreements between AoR & Designer typically breakdown liability. We balked at our liability in the contract because we have zero control over any construction contract documents or administration. Our fee breakdown is reflective of this as we are getting about 1/10 of the total arch/s/mep fees while the AoR is getting more than half.
Any insight or past experience as either designer or AoR is appreciated.
Non Sequitur
Sep 10, 18 6:00 pm
I’ve never understood the need for tenant design consultants. We get dozens of these types of fit ups per year and every single time, the tenant’s designer drawings is utter garbage.
llbb
Sep 10, 18 7:42 pm
Not all designer's drawings are utter garbage. We are architects is well, just not in that jurisdiction. The AoR is unfamiliar with this typology, so we are actually leading the MEP conversations in addition to expertise in interior detailing.
Non Sequitur
Sep 10, 18 7:58 pm
I'll believe that when I see it. Quality design consultant docs is not reflective of what I see.
curtkram
Sep 10, 18 9:19 pm
it's pretty common for national corporations to have an interiors company they work with to keep branding consistent. also, it's not uncommon to bring in some sort of trusted friend as the designer, rather than a local architect the client isn't familiar with.
Non Sequitur
Sep 10, 18 10:12 pm
I get that Curt. It's just we see some clients bring in their designers who expects their docs to be inserted as is into our permit & CD set without modifications... and are always shocked that it does not work that way
curtkram
Sep 10, 18 10:21 pm
i'm just kind of getting my toes into that now. i'd rather have their documents in ours though, same as mep or structure, so we keep coordinated. it's more work, but i think it's a better building in the end. actually, this could be one of those lessons i'm about to learn. i suppose we'll see.
Steeplechase
Sep 11, 18 12:05 am
Anyone else every have interior design documents that are entirely Photoshop? Those are real fun to coordinate into a set.
llbb
Sep 13, 18 9:04 am
I've seen that before. It's almost funny. We've worked with a few 'owner's consultant' type of designers with no formal education and unlicensed. Generally had really good experience working with actual licensed interior designers though.
Non Sequitur
Sep 13, 18 9:10 am
we get quite a bit of work from clients who, after trying the cheap route with int-des, turn to us to save the day.
thisisnotmyname
Sep 10, 18 6:19 pm
My firm is AOR on many kinds of projects.
In general, the terms of subconsultant contracts such as yours have to be in line with the prime agreement between the owner and AOR. So, if the AOR has no limitation of liability protection from the owner, they are not going to extend it to you. Also, a prudent AOR should never hire subconsultants who have no liability insurance. It's no surprise to me that they need you to be insured.
Your fee sounds a little low. I suggest in the future that you contract directly with the owner as an "owner's consultant" who agrees to work with the owner's AOR, but not under that AOR's direct control. That's how I've seen most hospitality designers do it.
llbb
Sep 10, 18 7:46 pm
Thanks. We were initially supposed to be the 'owner's consultant' but basically the tenant / LL agreement changed to a build-to-suit, and they saw a way out of having to pay our fees so we got pushed into the team. We carry as much insurance as they are requiring anyway, so actually carrying it wasn't the issue; we were just concerned about that liability coming up on the execution of something we may call for in the design (say polished concrete) though we have absolutely no involvement in the documentation or overseeing of construction. I guess we've just gotten ourselves into the situation by agreeing to go into the project team.
llbb
Sep 10, 18 8:50 pm
What is an escape clause? Or rather, is there a place I might find a sample? We've never used one or had reason to put that in a contract.
thisisnotmyname
Sep 11, 18 11:12 am
+1 it is smart to amend the AIA standard contracts so that you can quit the project if you need to.
thisisnotmyname
Sep 11, 18 11:18 am
@llbb: So, to save money, your client pushed you into teaming with an AOR that is working for the landlord? That's an asshole move.
llbb
Sep 13, 18 9:06 am
We typically do have termination clauses, sorry escape clause sounded fancier. Yeah, it is an asshole move, but they really did not understand the implications (and still don't really) of the arrangement and liability. We are conveying that if we are professionally liable our fee structure should be different, which seems to get through!
thisisnotmyname
Sep 13, 18 11:32 am
Also, if both you and the AOR are being paid by the landlord, the client has no design professional representing their interests in the design and construction of the build-out.
llbb
Sep 13, 18 1:11 pm
Yeah, we have explained that to *our* client as well because it just works out to sort of be a conflict of interest sometimes.
Hi Community-
We will be acting as designers on an interior tenant build out for a food and beverage project. The tenant brought us in, the project is out of state. We will work through DD and then AoR will produce CD's, specs, & handle CA. We are a consultant to the AoR, and they want us to carry full liability in terms of insurance for the full construction contract.
They've also removed our preferred limitation of liability clause and removed no duty to defend, which they say is due to the developer client removing it in their contract. This is new territory for us, and we are generally curious about how these agreements between AoR & Designer typically breakdown liability. We balked at our liability in the contract because we have zero control over any construction contract documents or administration. Our fee breakdown is reflective of this as we are getting about 1/10 of the total arch/s/mep fees while the AoR is getting more than half.
Any insight or past experience as either designer or AoR is appreciated.
I’ve never understood the need for tenant design consultants. We get dozens of these types of fit ups per year and every single time, the tenant’s designer drawings is utter garbage.
Not all designer's drawings are utter garbage. We are architects is well, just not in that jurisdiction. The AoR is unfamiliar with this typology, so we are actually leading the MEP conversations in addition to expertise in interior detailing.
I'll believe that when I see it. Quality design consultant docs is not reflective of what I see.
it's pretty common for national corporations to have an interiors company they work with to keep branding consistent. also, it's not uncommon to bring in some sort of trusted friend as the designer, rather than a local architect the client isn't familiar with.
I get that Curt. It's just we see some clients bring in their designers who expects their docs to be inserted as is into our permit & CD set without modifications... and are always shocked that it does not work that way
i'm just kind of getting my toes into that now. i'd rather have their documents in ours though, same as mep or structure, so we keep coordinated. it's more work, but i think it's a better building in the end. actually, this could be one of those lessons i'm about to learn. i suppose we'll see.
Anyone else every have interior design documents that are entirely Photoshop? Those are real fun to coordinate into a set.
I've seen that before. It's almost funny. We've worked with a few 'owner's consultant' type of designers with no formal education and unlicensed. Generally had really good experience working with actual licensed interior designers though.
we get quite a bit of work from clients who, after trying the cheap route with int-des, turn to us to save the day.
My firm is AOR on many kinds of projects.
In general, the terms of subconsultant contracts such as yours have to be in line with the prime agreement between the owner and AOR. So, if the AOR has no limitation of liability protection from the owner, they are not going to extend it to you. Also, a prudent AOR should never hire subconsultants who have no liability insurance. It's no surprise to me that they need you to be insured.
Your fee sounds a little low. I suggest in the future that you contract directly with the owner as an "owner's consultant" who agrees to work with the owner's AOR, but not under that AOR's direct control. That's how I've seen most hospitality designers do it.
Thanks. We were initially supposed to be the 'owner's consultant' but basically the tenant / LL agreement changed to a build-to-suit, and they saw a way out of having to pay our fees so we got pushed into the team. We carry as much insurance as they are requiring anyway, so actually carrying it wasn't the issue; we were just concerned about that liability coming up on the execution of something we may call for in the design (say polished concrete) though we have absolutely no involvement in the documentation or overseeing of construction. I guess we've just gotten ourselves into the situation by agreeing to go into the project team.
What is an escape clause? Or rather, is there a place I might find a sample? We've never used one or had reason to put that in a contract.
+1 it is smart to amend the AIA standard contracts so that you can quit the project if you need to.
@llbb: So, to save money, your client pushed you into teaming with an AOR that is working for the landlord? That's an asshole move.
We typically do have termination clauses, sorry escape clause sounded fancier. Yeah, it is an asshole move, but they really did not understand the implications (and still don't really) of the arrangement and liability. We are conveying that if we are professionally liable our fee structure should be different, which seems to get through!
Also, if both you and the AOR are being paid by the landlord, the client has no design professional representing their interests in the design and construction of the build-out.
Yeah, we have explained that to *our* client as well because it just works out to sort of be a conflict of interest sometimes.