During the course of site development within our profession, there is required a basic level of involvement on the part of the design office during the construction phase to insure that the original design intent is carried out and clearly evident in the end product. First and foremost, this is the objective of each and every landscape architect. Negotiating and estimating fees for this service is possibly the biggest gamble we take during the course of the project. Construction administration fees can mean a ?EUR??,,????'??boom or bust” in terms of final project profitability due to the nature of variables in the design and construction industry.

A specific level of services for contract administration should be included in every contract, but clearly separated from design services. Identifying these basic services is relatively easy, while negotiating equitable fees for same often becomes extremely burdensome Owners must be convinced, and the the end feel, that the cost of these services are inherent in the industry, much the same as the construction contract includes monies for supervising and coordinating the project and fees for permits allow municipal inspectors the opportunity to inspect the project and protect the, owner. The design professional should be allowed to provide the guiding influence relative to quality control, fit, finish and aesthetics. He or she alone knows the end product everyone is working to achieve.

This service is closely beneficial to all parties involved.

Well-defined contract documents are a major part of the process, but the actual onsite observation has no substitute. Landscape site development is much more difficult to describe with drawing than the other design professions. In the landscape, the subtleties of contour grading, stream and pond design, plant massings and pathway layouts are clearly field determinations in the end. Changes in actual field conditions further complicate matters. The flexibility to modify or alter the design ever-so-slightly during construction must be maintained with appropriate site supervision.

Estimating fees must begin with the basic services contract. Historically, construction administration fees have been a percentage of the basic design fee which, in turn, is based on a percentage of the probable cost of construction. Time and time again, we find that this does not accurately cover services for both design and construction administration if a quality project is desired. This imbalance in fees is more often than not, directly attributed to the unknown end product of the design process and the level of complexity required to construct the element(s) critical to the final design. Prior to the schematic design, contracts are signed based on estimated budgets. As the design proceeds, certain elements mysteriously appear?EUR??,,????'??+fountains, pools, structures, graphics?EUR??,,????'??+which directly result in extensive shop drawing and product submittal reviews, consultant coordination and fees for their field services and increased site observation time for the prime landscape architect as “designer of record”. Therefore, contracts should allow for the renegotiation of fees for contract documents as well as construction administration at the conclusion of the design development phase. It is only at this juncture that the final elements and projected scope of contract documents and field services can be determined. The contract though should already contain time and fees for those services common to most projects and whose time can be accurately estimated and justified to the client.

Figure One identifies the most commonly utilized tasks associated with construction administration and whether the time allotted for each can be identified prior to design. The remaining items are highly variable and cannot effectively be estimated without a complete understanding of the final design and subsequent time duration of the construction process.

The most volatile of these involves field observation?EUR??,,????'??+not only by the landscape architect, but his sub-consultants as well. Typically, projects allow for a minimum of one trip per week over the construction period. This amount is usually justifiable to the client. Hidden costs though, relative to travel time and expenses (especially out-of-town projects) for each trip, can surprise the client. More complex projects including higher percentages of hardscape development may need as many as three trips per week to local job sites at critical points in the construction process. The final number or frequency of field observation visits can never actually be predetermined without the contractor’s construction schedule to identify these critical points, and even then, it is an estimate until project completion. The design professional can only attempt to estimate these based on the project complexity, schedule and historical experience and convince the owner that trips and time associated with each visit will be as efficiently utilized and managed as possible.

Second only to field visits is the time associated with sample reviews, product data submittals and shop drawings. Sample reviews can vary from simple plant material selections to multiple color samples of paving, brick, tile, even metal finishes Submittals can become ever-burdening as more contractors and material suppliers become competitive through “or equal’’ substitutions which require extensive time to compare strengths and weaknesses of multiple products. Finally, shop drawings of stonework, metal fabrications and fountain mechanical and electrical systems require sub-consultants’ time and energy as well as our administration of the required paper trail.

The profession’s advancement from landscape planting and irrigation to extended responsibilities for complete site development have placed a great strain on our abilities to monitor costs and manpower for construction observation. The few firms with historical data on past experiences are years ahead of the remaining industry, but even they are struggling to understand the complexity required for complete construction administration services. We have only begun to understand cost implications of open bidding for public projects, owner construction representation, and the true meaning of field observation under the law. Until then, we must make do and continue to learn.

NOTE: Bruce Hazzard is a Registered Landscape Architect. He is an active member in the ASLA and CSI and has recently joined the SWA Group in their Laguna Beach office. He will be responsible for contract administration services and quality control.