Report comment

The RIBA fee scales were a good thing (not random as suggested above) but constructed over years from practice feedback to RIBA, based on resources required, time required and profit levels. In the past, even after the scale was made optional, then withdrawn I would carry out two analyses to establish a realistic fee - the first being a check with the fee scale to establish the 'standard fee', then a calculation based on actual resources/time/profit. After that it's about realistic judgement of the two and clear appointment documents. It's a lot for any client to expect something of commercial value to them to be designed for a nil fee, or with front loaded risk (i.e no planning consent, no A-C fee). I'd certainly be in favour of a 'base' fee guide, below which no practice should work. This might actually have the added benefit of extending the quality of work gaining consent and being built - as the selection procedure won't necessarily be based largely on a fee, or lack thereof. Taking the emphasis away from the fee early on in the design process also frees the design team so that they can focus on giving their best as architects. In this particular case, it seems like an RSL is potentially acting like a wholly commercial developer. Most architects (I know) are committed to the principle of affordable housing but that isn't a reason to expect a free service and socially committed clients should be able to recognise the contradiction in expecting such. In fact, all clients should.