Print Page   |   Contact Us   |   Sign In   |   Register
Your view on guideline fee scales

View Fill-in-the-Blank Responses

Question:

What is your suggestion on the issue of fees?
Refer below.
The promulgated fee scales are overinflated and NOT sustainable in any commercial project - unless a substantial discount is passed on by the professionals.
It appears that Government is the only institution that gives consideration to these inflated fee scales - is this sustainable? I don't think so.
The activities as set out in each stage should be weighted. This will provide a clear basis for negotiating fees.
The combined scales should have proposed minimum and maximum percentages to ensure we do not provide inferior services to clients
I am of the opinion that all BEP professionals should be charging fees on a Time & Cost basis - no more % based fees. That would force competing professionals to give serious thought to how many man-hours are actually required to successfully administer any given project and any fee proposals that are clearly too low compared to the other proposals received, because insufficient hours are budgeted for, should be set aside and not considered.
As per the arcticle written a Client cannot pay 35% to professional fees and this in itself explains the problems we are experiencing with Clients not wanting to pay certain services and it looks like the QS is the first service they want to cuta s it is quite difficult to prove / show a client where we add actual value to the project. A full project service should NEVER cost a client more than 16%. In my own opinion its should not exceed 12%.
I believe we should either use the fee scale or time and cost gazette rates. the government departments should not use fee guidelines as they are not gazetted, we discount on document that has not been approved and outdated.
Up until we have gazetted fees I don't think is correct to us the fee guidelines for tendering while we have gazetted rates, I other words departments should estimate time required for the project based on the estimated value or budget then we all price time and cost. this will reduce the discounting of fees, and will improve the quality of services we offer.
A recommended combined fee scale for all professionals should be produced.
Simplify the fees!!!
Every profession is increasing their fees structure and the developers are paying less and less. The average fee allowance in the market is currently between 8 and 10% fee allowance in total which equates to a between 40 and 55% discount on fees.
Their must be one tariff calculated based on a percentage for the different disciplines for instance Arch = 5% ; QS 3,5%, etc
It should be a fixed percentage for the professional team
There should be a set minimum fee to charge, rather than a maximum as per the fee scale.
A guideline on hourly rates (for all professionals) would be more realistic, with indicative hours required to complete projects based on their value
I agree that the total percentage of fees should be economically viable to clients. The current fee scales are ridiculous and only an attempt by the various organisations to ensure their part of the allowable fees for projects. A single framework may be the answer
Make sure the client understands what they are getting for what they are paying and don't deviate from it.
They are becoming disconnected in relation to the market / economic conditions.
if a fee combined fee is adopted then all participating professionals must proportionally reduce fees to accommodate. Architects minimal discount not to carry out principal agency is unacceptably low considering seldom do they provide a service that fulfils the different stages of fees. PM fee are well over the top considering their service is generally one of administration.
They should be a guide, the final cost to the client will take place on an adhoc basis.
I’m a Valuer. Our fees date back to 2010 when last updated. No-one is able to even charge those outdated fees, as there are so many inexperienced “valuers” (including estate agents, candidate valuers) who are desparate for work and charge low rates for work that is often sub-standard. I can only charge a fair fee, based on the outdated gazetted tariff, if a valuation becomes the subject of a dispute and I can present a valuation to a court or arbitration hearing.
The only way out is for the professional bodies (the SACPVP in my case) to rise up above the mere collection of member’s annual subscriptions and to engage with those members about standards, fees, how to invoice, etc.
Any fee should include an ad valorem element but also an hourly tariff - some job hav a relatively low value but involve many hours of work (especially where litigation is involved).
It is necessary to have a guideline. If you feel that you as an individual or as a practice can negotiate those guideline fees, then you should be allowed to do so. The guidelines should be for each individual profession and the main reason for them should be to five clients a reasonable idea of what their costs will be. If as an individual of a practice feel that the client is negotiating the fees too far below the guidelines you have the option to withdraw or not.
FEES MUST RELATE TO SCOPE OF SERVICE, RISK AND RESPONSIBILITY - SOME CONSULTANTS (PM'S IN PARTICULAR) REDUCE THEIR SCOPE BY DELEGATING TO ARCHITECT AND QS IN PARTICULAR. ARCHITECTS PRODUCE LESS DETAIL ESPECIALLY PRE-CONTRACT. THE QS ENDS UP WITH MORE RISK.THE ENGINEERING PROFESSION STARTED THE 'SCRAMBLE' AND EVERYONE HAS BEEN FORCED TO FOLLOW SUIT.
I would suggest Fee Discounts should be formally categorised and if a certain percentage discount on fees is needed to make the feasibility of a project work ... clients should then be formally advised that the professional services should be reduced accordingly. eg, the greater the discount on the fees, the lessor the scope for the professionals (partial service)

Category A: Scale fee less 30%
B: Scale fee less 45%
C. Scale fee less 55%

If a corporate client wants a full service but requires a 32% discount then ..category A fee partial service to apply.. ..then Category B ... lessor service being a partial service eg... not attending project meetings or and Category C only designs ..

the Category type should depend on the clients budget - but these partial services clarifications/ definitions to be added to the fee scales so that this is known upfront

The crazy discounts are causing problems in the industry .. one cant provide a full service at a 60% discount off the Fee Scale - which clients expect, this always backfires
Each consultant to provide a list of duties against their anticipated hours to be spent and estimated cost. A percentage profit to be added which is the same for all the consultants.....this to be declared to client and he can negotiate on this basis. A long process but then all parties are clear as to their responsibilities and will not be out of pocket
That a call is made by the other BEP organisations that:
(a) the 2010/2011 fee scales form the basis for the determination of fees for consulting teams
(b) Councils refrain from hiking fees in response to the SACPCMP
(c) an interdisciplinary task team is formed to work towards a single recommended guideline for the determination of fees where no clear scope is available at time for asking bids or proposals.
That we must rather use resource based fees