How Architectural Relationships Fail Over the Fine-grained Elements of Process & Deliverables

PART 2

ARCHITECTURAL RELATIONSHIPS FAIL OVER THE FINE-GRAINED ELEMENTS OF PROCESS & DELIVERABLES: FIVE ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES

Disclaimer: Consult an attorney with expertise in architectural service agreements and experience in resolving contractual disputes. Their practical knowledge is invaluable.

Introduction

In my experience, even when owners, developers, and architects agree on the “big picture” scope and schedule, technical details will still derail projects. Whether it’s confusion over what qualifies as interior design, misaligned BIM and LOD expectations in early design phases, or an unclear plan for coordinating specialized systems, these seemingly “fine-grained” elements often create significant friction.

Below are five challenges you should address in your architectural services agreements to reduce risk and maintain a healthy working relationship.

1. Define the Scope of Interior Design Meticulously

Less experienced developers commonly assume the architect’s service covers every facet of design—from the building’s exterior shell to every interior finish. Conversely, some architects will view anything inside the building shell as “interior design,” and thus outside the base scope. Although it’s relatively easy to identify these differences, it’s the gray areas that tend to trip everyone up. For instance, fireproofing the interior side of an exterior bulkhead in a shopping center can spark disputes if not addressed up front. In your agreement, explicitly outline which interior components (such as fireproofing structural elements or base MEP) are included and which are excluded and which design elements require separate agreements or consultants.

2. Specify BIM Levels of Design (LOD) for Each Phase

Many projects now rely on Building Information Modeling (BIM), so it’s crucial to define Levels of Design (LOD) for each phase in the agreement. Clarify the level of detail and coordination you expect at each phase—Concept, Schematic, Detailed Design, Construction Documents (Permit, Bid, Construction, and “As Built”). For example, if you want a fully coordinated, clash-free BIM model at the Schematic stage (LOD 250), spell out those requirements. This avoids confusion over whether you’ll receive an advanced schematic design with significant detail to avoid coordination problems and redesign in later phases.

3. Use Real Penalties for Delays or Subpar Deliverables

Imposing contractual penalties for late or incomplete work might seem harsh, but it can motivate both parties to adhere to schedules and deliver the full design packages for each phase. Delays often result from mismanagement—perhaps the architect is overcommitted, the sub-consultants are not being managed, or both fail to deliver their work on time.

A well-crafted agreement:

• Identifies potential causes of delays (e.g., missing data, design outside of constraints, shifting design directions, owner’s failure to provide timely approvals).

• Outlines a process to mitigate or avoid conflicts (presentation of options, real time feedback, ongoing cost estimates, regular check-ins, unified comments, timely approvals).

• Establishes penalties only after a fair notice and cure period, ensuring no one is unfairly penalized without warning.

• Demands on-time payment to make sure the project is priority for both developer and architect.

4. Require Fully Coordinated Drawings

A hallmark of a well-executed project is the expectation that the lead architect coordinates all design disciplines—MEP, structural, interiors, IT, security, and specialty items (signage, fountains, decorative elements) —into a single, conflict-free set of drawings. Ensure the agreement obligates the architect (or a designated party) to deliver a fully integrated package at each design stage. Without explicit coordination requirements, each consultant may produce standalone documents, leading to costly conflicts discovered only during construction.

5. Clarify Exclusions and Developer-Supplied Items

Specialty systems—such as signage, fountains, advanced IT/telecom integration, and security/AV setups—are frequently excluded from the architect’s standard scope. The same goes for developer-provided items like site surveys or geotechnical data. Document these exclusions and responsibilities in a dedicated schedule so everyone knows who is providing them with what and when. This helps avert surprises, such as a missing geotechnical report or uncertainty over who designs the interior demising walls in a shopping center. Also note how fees and timelines may be adjusted if the developer fails to deliver certain information or make payments on time.

Summary

Technical details truly form the foundation of a successful architectural agreement. By meticulously defining areas such as the scope of interior design, clarifying BIM LOD requirements for each phase, introducing enforceable penalties for delays or subpar deliverables, mandating fully coordinated drawing packages, and spelling out exclusions and developer-supplied items, you create a clear framework that minimizes surprises and maintains trust between all parties.

Remember to work closely with an attorney when crafting or revising these clauses—especially if your project involves complex systems, high stakes, or numerous stakeholders. Ultimately, addressing these five technical challenges upfront empowers architects and developers to focus on what truly matters: delivering a successful, well-executed project.