How relevant is Traditional Education for an Architect?

There was a big debate about the quality of education in Uganda today, following the recently released national examinations.  As results from each of the three different tiers of our formal education were released, the decibels from this debate went a notch higher.  I don’t intend to reignite that debate here.  What was very clear to me is that there seemed to be some consensus that our quality of education had deteriorated over the years.  A friend of mine ingenuously said that the quality of a graduate from Uganda’s education system gets poorer, the younger they are.  Surely this can’t be true, I argued, but I had no evidence to prop up my disagreement.  This is when I decided to examine the field that I am more conversant with.  Once or twice over my 25-year career, some clients have had the audacity to tell me that we college graduates are useless because ‘we can’t build things’ or that those we call technicians/draftsmen actually do a better job in design than the majority of us with a college degree.  On the other hand, I have learnt that there some fresh architecture graduates from the two leading universities in Uganda who have made it very clear that they don’t need to be examined about their experience in construction (and eventually get registered) because they got enough knowledge and design skills from school. 

I asked myself, is a bachelor’s degree all you need to work perfectly in construction or is it really necessary to have one at all?  I am sure many of my readers will have encountered builders who claim to have put up some of Kampala’s magnificent buildings and homes, but at the same time these lovely people do not seem not be able to tell the difference between feet and metres or if they do, they will insist that as a standard the ring beam should always be 7 feet high.    These are builders who either started in the business by recommendation when they were younger, people who had to work early and support themselves or their families as porters on sites or just have generally been around and working in the industry for yso long.  There are street-smart people.  They do not have a college degree or diploma in construction but they know their ways around putting up a building.  Some clients argue that we college graduates do not get the time in school to experience "real life construction” and as soon as we are in the field, we are bosses backing orders.  That these are the real people who matter, the ones who know how it is done.  That college graduates have no experience of ‘how’ it is done.  My argument has been that we may not know the full ‘how’ (we know some of it) but we fully know and understand the ‘why’, which unfortunately our colleagues are not equipped with.

There are 2 sides (or, rather, 2 levels of depth) of what is commonly referred to as "knowledge" in construction or most professional fields that are science based.  Firstly, it is important to know how things are done, but even more important one needs to understand why they are done the way they are done and not any other way, and what may happen if one tries to do it differently.  The ‘why’ is the theory and the science behind the way things are done.
 A builder or technician (especially a smart one), does not need to know why things are done the way they are done as long as they can give a properly finished product.  Experience will always afford you the knowledge and perfection of things – the ‘how’ and this in many situations is enough. If you keep doing things the way you have always done them for the last 20 years what can go wrong?  Probably nothing until you find yourself in the situation that you have never been before - and in this case your experience becomes useless, what you need is the knowledge of the science behind the processes that you have been working with all along so that so that you can analyze the situation and come up with the correct solution.  Make a wrong decision and your product will no longer be perfect and this is where you need education, and to a certain level.  It is true that a bachelor's degree is not the measure of one's brain efficiency, and there is no proof that it has ever added gray matter to anyone's brain. A good quality education helps you to recognize situations and come up with solutions because of your knowledge of the ‘why’.  There are times I have been faced with situations in my job and then remember that if I use the Pythagoras theorem or tangent of an angle, I can actually get the missing dimension on a drawing. Can one achieve the same without actually attending school - sure, you can, and some do however, the likelihood of somebody without formal education or having learned as much as someone with the degree to be able to come up with solutions for problems they have never encountered is very low, which is why employers understand the value of a good degree.



Going back to the experience - of course, a college degree does not replace experience and having one without the experience is also useless. One still needs to get his / her boots and hands dirty in order to become a well-rounded professional. The degree just helps explain the ‘why’, help you extrapolate the knowledge gained in class and apply it in a real life situation. This helps you make the correct decision in that situation as well.  Just as I believe that all architects should spend at least two years in the field to see first hand what is involved in a real working project, and not a project at a desk or in a classroom, I believe that builders and/or technicians without the relevant education are not fit to build or design buildings on their own without supervision.

How much should an Architect charge?

Many clients claim that a simple question to an architect like ‘how much do you charge?’ is usually met with a long winding story, sounding at best confusing and at worst evasive.   The truth is that determining architectural fees is a mystery to most people including architects themselves.

Most clients expect an answer like the one they would get from a shop selling sugar, bananas or clothing, which frankly is a bit unfair on the architect.   The reason architects give such elusive answers is because they fear to commit themselves without brief or clearly written terms of reference.  Even where briefs are properly written, architects are the worst people when it comes to keeping a grip on the scope of services – partly due to a constant desire to have the best design and in part due to changes initiated by the clients.  It is not unusual for a client to change their mind about the design and ask for modification after sign off or completion of design.  Unless, the architect and client are friends, ordinarily the architect should charge for these changes.  Yet many wont and some will – depending on the relationship between the client and architect.  All the above factors help to perpetuate the myth that architects are expensive and many start avoiding them.

There are many different ways architects charge for their professional services; hourly, percentage of construction, some combination of the two, or a cost per square metre of construction.  It does not make things easier when you learn that a mixture of these can easily be used on a single assignment. Indeed the Architects Registration (Conditions of Engagement and Scale of Fees) Bye-Laws of 2009 recommend an hourly rate for stages A to B and a percentage of construction for stages C to F.  Charging fees as a percentage of construction costs is usually met with a lot of opposition from clients and very few architects or clients understand how it works. In my office, we typically use the hourly rate for determining fees and I cannot recall a single job that we have signed a contract or billed using percentage of construction method.  For us, this is the best way we can determine how much our service is worth but also it is easier for a client to understand.  Did I just say clear to understand?  Well, the truth is that many times there are complications and misunderstandings in this method also.  One of the things that seems to always cause confusion and argument is the number of hours spent on an assignment.  Then there is the issue of additional services – some clients believe that what we categorise as additional services like planning application and approval, should actually be part of our normal services.  If you are going to engage an architect – especially for a residential house, be sure to confirm what services he is charging you for.  It is better than being surprised with a bill you did not plan for.

Hourly Rates

Probably the clearest way of charging, we have an hourly rates for different level positions (administration, drafting, project architect, partner, etc.) and these are charged for the different stages (preliminary design, schematic design, design development, construction documentation, bidding and negotiation, and construction supervision or civil works contract administration).  Through some experience, we have an idea, for instance, how much each of the personnel will spend on each stage of assignment to produce drawings for a residential house.  We generally use this format when the scope of the work is not very comprehensive, unknown, or if a client specifically asks for it.  Again through experience, we are aware that most clients don’t like being charged an hourly rate mainly because they want to have the freedom to change designs and general scope without the fees heading north.  As a result although, we charge an hourly rate, for most small works (e.g residences and other small buildings), we cap the fees using the square metre rule.  A 3 Bedroom residential house (approx 120-150 sq.m) will cost less in fees than a 5 bedroom one (160-200 sq.m). There are some significant advantages to using this billing method, chief of which is giving a client assurance that the fees will not change as a result of changes in design or scope.  In order to protect yourself from the famous client who never makes up their mind on final design, you must include a clause in the contract to protect you from endlessly designing.  The Architects’ Registration (Conditions of Engagement and Scale of Fees) Bye Laws of 2009 give guide lines on what is to be charged per hour.

Percentage of Construction Costs

These percentages vary by practice. The Architects’ Registration (Conditions of Engagement and Scale of Fees) Bye Laws of 2009 guides what percentage to use according to the class of buildings. According these byelaws the percentage should vary from 3% for simple buildings like warehouses and sheds to 7% for the more complex buildings like hotels, private residences, hospitals, theatres etc. Although most architects prefer this method of determining fees, clients hate it and most will avoid it. This billing method has run into problems and many clients/developers are increasingly against it.

There is an understandable concern that the architect will specify expensive materials and drive the cost of construction up so that consequently his fees (which are a percentage) are also unnecessarily high.  One way of dealing with these fears as a client is to state your budget in advance so that the fees are fixed as a percentage of that budget.  If the architect comes up with an expensive design that does not fit within the budget earlier stated, you as a client may choose to revise the budget without revising the fees or ask the architect to redesign so that the cost is within the budget earlier stated.  The most amazing thing is that almost invariably it is the clients that keep revising their needs (program of requirements), which inevitably lead to a cost higher than the original budget.  This is where serious arguments and misunderstandings may come up.

There are arguments that charging a percentage guided by law, the architects are in essence a cartel taking advantage of the client(s). In some markets like the European Union, percentage of construction costs guided by mandatory scale of fees has been totally banned.  It has been argued here in Uganda that this method of billing directly contradicts the PPDA guidelines on procurement where architects are usually selected using the Quality Based Selection method or 2-Envelope bidding.  In many cases, the Architect’s fees are not anywhere within percentages recommended and it gets worse if the architect is not the lead consultant.

CONSTRUCTION SITE DISASTERS; FIX THE SYSTEM BEFORE THE PROBLEM

A few years ago I wrote about construction safety in Uganda and particularly emphasized there is a need to rethink construction in Uganda with a particular focus on safety on sites.  I highlighted then that construction site accidents are not new and that studies show that site accidents tend to increase as the economy expands.   I noted that we were fortunate that we could learn from others who have gone through this period and how they solved this problem.  United Kingdom, Japan, USA, Malaysia and most recently China have all experienced this problem and there is ample literature on how this was tackled.  Since that article, there have been more accidents on construction sites especially in Kampala – we don’t seem to have reports on site accidents elsewhere if they do happen.

I have noted on several occasions that as soon as a building collapses, finger pointing begins which usually culminates into an inquiry.  I must admit that I have only read a few of the reports from such inquiries and I don’t remember if there were any concrete recommendations on how this problem that is now blighting the industry should be tackled.  Usually the reports satisfy the curiosity of the public opinion by apportioning blame as to who was responsible for the accident and that’s where everything ends.  Many times the inquests have concluded that there was no competent person in-charge of the works, never mind that drawings for most of these projects are produced by registered architects and engineers.

Conventionally construction site safety lies with all people involved in the project.  The developer is obliged to appoint qualified professionals to handle the entire project. The architect and engineer at design stage must ensure that the works can be executed safely.  The contractor must make certain that the materials (by extension involving the suppliers) and execution methods comply with the safety and health standards in place.  The local authority after approving the drawings and issuing a building permit must periodically inspect the works to make certain that they are executed as per drawings and specifications submitted.  In brief every player in the industry must be involved in order to have a project safely completed.  However, that is only true in an ideal situation, not in the Uganda of today where everything seems to have long collapsed before the buildings themselves started collapsing.

Many people talk about collapse of buildings forgetting that much of the industry collapsed first before the structures themselves started collapsing.  Very few developers appoint qualified architects and engineers to handle their development projects and even those who do, usually appoint them for the design stage and simply because the local authorities will not accept the designs/drawings if they are not stamped (yes stamped not necessarily designed) by qualified professionals.  If you have noted this where the collapse in the system that I have alluded to begins.  To the uninitiated, this may not be obvious and I will try to clarify it. 

The developer is not appointing a qualified professional because of their ability and experience but because their stamp will see the drawings receive a nod of approval from the local authority – which in many cases they get unless the authority has concerns with other things like land ownership.  The professionals have not actually designed or overseen the design and production of these drawings but have merely ‘stamped’ them because that’s all they could be paid for - after all they wont be responsible for supervising the project.   In the end everybody is happy, the developer who has paid a tenth (many times less) of what he should have paid to qualified professionals, the unqualified person who has pocketed the biggest chunk of the paltry fees, the qualified professional who has been paid handsomely for a 5 minute job (how long can pressing an inked embossment over blue prints take) and the local authority who have pocketed their building fees without having really subjecting the project proposal to the scrutiny it deserves merely because it was stamped by a registered or qualified professional.  As you can see the whole system collapsed as soon as the developer started cutting corners. The checks and balances that were wisely put in place by those who came before us have been compromised because by people in those positions (registered professionals and local authority officials) because their pockets are lined and responsibility does not squarely lie with them.  The qualified architect/engineer has taken money for ‘stamping drawings’ because he/she knows they wont be the ones to supervise the project and should those drawings have a problem or indeed should the building collapse, they cannot be held liable.  The local authority has abdicated it’s responsibility by accepting and approving the drawings without carrying out the necessary inspections simply because they were submitted by a registered architect/engineer – who as you remember knows that he will not be responsible for the construction. Once the local authorities have approved the drawings, developers are free to do what they want and the first thing they do is to avoid registered architects and engineers for the supervision of construction.  If they were engaged at the design stage, they are promptly sacked and the developer appoints his trusted ‘contractor’ who in many cases may not have the capacity to handle works of that magnitude. The local authority further compounds matters by not carrying out the mandatory periodic site inspections, although to be fair to most councils, they argue that the hearts and minds are willing but their bodies are not facilitated to carry out these inspections.  The end result of all this is a collapsed building and that’s when the wheels of the blame game set into motion. 

What happens next?  The relevant authorities set up a commission of inquiry to quell the disquiet among the public and soon the press stops making a fuss of the whole thing.  If we are lucky, the inquiry is completed in about 6 months and a report is submitted, end of.  No lessons learnt, no recommendations made and I am almost certain no body has been charged and convicted for professional negligence as a result of a collapsed building – not the architects, engineers, developers or their accomplices at the local authorities. I am appalled that every two years we have a building accident and we go through the same routine without an effort to learn from the past.  It is my opinion that the collapse in the building industry must be addressed first before we can think of addressing the collapse of the structures.

After the old Kampala City Council worked with the associations of building professionals to ensure that all drawings submitted for planning approval are handled by registered architects and engineers, most developers had no alternative but to engage registered professionals, although some developers still find a way around this unfortunately with the connivance of some unscrupulous professionals.  It is a well known fact that before this effort developers avoided registered architects and engineers and that is how we ended up with 5-8 storey buildings in the heart of the city without lifts or ample parking space.  That not withstanding, a step in the right direction was made. We should now look at a way of working together to encourage the same developers to follow the rules in hiring competent contractors and professionals during the actual construction.

Most of the reports from the inquiries into previous accidents indicate that almost all accidents are not the consequence of poor design but rather unsafe site conditions, unsafe actions by operatives and lack of management control.  The laws that are required in place now should be mainly to do with management of construction sites and the responsibility of developers and contractors for the safety of the public and operatives.  The professionals associations and registration boards should stop handling ‘stampers’ with kids gloves and deal with them determinedly. Heavy punishments should be meted out to those who indulge in this dissipated behaviour and only then shall we claim to be tackling the problem.  The councils should require all developers to submit the names of the registered professionals supervising their developments and mandatory stage inspections must be diligently carried out, if this means raising the building approval fees, so be it.  There is a need to register all contractors nationally in categories, so that different categories of contractors handle different magnitudes of works.  This business of ‘muzimbi wange azimba bulungi’ when all he has ever done is oversee the construction of your double storied house must be brought to an end. 

Who is Responsible for Construction Safety in Uganda

About a year ago, I wrote about construction safety in Uganda in an article that was published in The Monitor newspaper. I particularly emphasised there is a need to rethink construction in Uganda with a particular focus on safety on sites. I highlighted then that construction site accidents are not new and that studies show that site accidents tend increase as the economy expands. In passing, I mentioned that we were fortunate that we could learn from others who have gone through this period and how they solved this problem. United Kingdom, Japan, USA, Malaysia and most recently China have all experienced this problem and there is ample literature on how this was tackled. Since that article, which was written after two accidents on construction sites in Kampala, there have been 4 more accidents which have claimed the lives of over 10 people.

That is not the reason however, why I return to this subject, but the question that has been on the minds of many Ugandans lately. Who is responsible for construction safety? Is it the architect, engineers, contractor, developer or the local authority’s building inspection unit?

Conventionally site safety lies with all people involved in the project. The architect and engineer at design stage to ensure that the works can be executed safely, the developer and contractors who must make certain that the execution methods comply with the safety and health standards in place. However, that is only true in an ideal situation where the sites have an architect and engineer appointed by the developer to handle the development project through its course. In Uganda, most developers want to cut corners and avoid what they call unnecessary cost by appointing architects and engineers for design only, and this is mainly to obtain approval for their planned development from the local authority. After Kampala City Council worked with the associations bringing together these professionals to ensure that all drawings submitted for planning approval are handled by registered architects and engineers, most developers had no alternative but to engage registered engineers and architects. It is a well known fact that before this effort developers avoided registered architects and engineers and that is how we ended up with 5-8 storey buildings in the heart of the city without lifts or ample parking space. That not withstanding, a step in the right direction was made and I am positive that the majority of recent developments in Kampala are designed by registered architects and engineers. Unfortunately, that is where the success story ends. Once these drawings have been approved by KCC, developers are free to do what they want and the first thing they do is to do away with registered architects and engineers for the supervision of construction of these buildings, as a means of cutting costs. The situation is further compounded by the appointment of inexperienced contractors on one hand and the failure by KCC to carry out the stage inspections as stipulated by law on the other. This in effect leads to a more complex situation in which no body is responsible for safety on site.

Traditionally design of a building is the responsibility of the architects and engineers and it’s construction is the responsibility of the contractor supervised by the architects and engineers. Once the design architects and engineers are no longer part of the project as is normally the case in Kampala, responsibility for site safety lies squarely with the contractor. Unfortunately this is not explicitly stated by law and as we have learnt from the investigation reports for some of the accidents, contractors usually on the instructions of developers have routinely abandoned plans and executed works that are different from what was designed. Other project participants who should be culpable would be the developer and/or KCC, but I am aware that there is no law that would make either of them criminally responsible. In fact the Building Rules currently in use under the Public Health Act of 1969 specifically state in rule No. 18 that ‘The approval of any plans of any building or structure shall not in anyway impose or imply acceptance of responsibility on the part of the local authority for the stability of any building or structure’.

In the absence of a law that makes any one responsible for safety on site, it is a far cry to expect the trend of events to change for the better. Most of the reports from these sites indicate that almost all accidents are not the consequence of poor design but rather unsafe site conditions, unsafe actions by operatives and lack of management control. The laws that are required in place now should be mainly to do with management of construction sites and the responsibility of developers and contractors for the safety of the public and operatives. At the moment neither of the laws (Occupation Health and Safety Act of 2006 and Public Health Act of 1964) expressly make any body responsible for health and safety on site.

Why you need an architect

Unless your companion or relative is an architect, or unless you're a corporate facilities manager, you probably haven't had many occasions to work with one. A few who have not had an opportunity to work with an architect but have an idea who architects are, often confuse them with engineers. To the contrary an architect is not an engineer and neither is the reverse true and unless one has both qualifications, one is not qualified to do the job of the other.

As with engineers, architects are responsible for preparing construction drawings and specifications, and certifying them for code compliance and safety. In most cases, the architect is the lead for a new design and construction project. An architect is an essential element in the construction industry, trained and thus obliged to design safe and usable structures. In the broadest sense an architect is a person who translates the user’s needs into a physical built solution. Therefore, they need to be familiar with all the engineering trades as well as the general construction trades. Architects must understand the various methods available to the builder to achieve the client’s desired results within explicit cost and time boundaries.

You probably have heard that the licensing exam for architecture is considered the most difficult of any of the licensed professions. Architects must frequently make building design and planning decisions that affect the safety and well being of the general public. Who would you blame if a building was inadequately designed, and it failed and injured or killed people? It is the responsibility of an architect to ensure that the built environment is safe and habitable.

In Uganda, law restricts practicing under the name style or title “architect” to those registered by the Architects’ Registration Board. It is therefore a crime use the title “architect" unless you are licensed. It usually takes seven years to obtain the necessary qualifications and experience for registration. Those wishing to become registered must first study at a recognized university, obtaining a B. Arch., B.A or Bsc degree in architecture. On completion of a minimum of 2 years of post graduate experience, such candidates are then eligible to sit ARB licensing exams.

Throughout the world and for many centuries, the architect was historically known as the master builder. The architect's training and experience in all aspects of the planning, design and the construction process make him or her best suited to lead design and construction efforts. This has been true from the time of the great pyramids to a simple house addition.

In Uganda today, most people, even though they don't know the specific responsibilities, accept the architect as the lead role for large commercial or institutional projects, but not houses. In many countries, residential construction is initiated and supervised by an architect. Due to a shortage of architects in this country in the early years of development, especially before 1995, many developers especially for residential houses employed draftsmen or technicians to “draw plans”. Technicians handled this immense job before them as far as their training could take them and in most cases developers took over the specification and supervision of construction. Over time the gap between what an architect knows about residential construction materials and what the average citizen knows has narrowed.

This has made the understanding of when an architect should be involved more confusing, especially for residential construction. After all, how many of us haven't hammered a nail, selected wall material or roof covering for our house? When it comes to houses, all of us seem to have some experience with the basic layout. But an architect can help you integrate your ideas into creative design solutions, even while utilizing commonly available materials. The use of an architect will save you money and space. Architects are trained to pay attention to the use of space and to the economics of the budget for a particular.

I bring this last point because it is very much the centre of not commissioning an architect – that architects are very expensive. First and foremost architects in Uganda are the cheapest in the region and probably all over the world. Architects in most countries are paid 8-10% of the total construction budget of the project. An average 3 bedroom house would cost about Ush. 120-150m to complete, using the previous percentages that would translate to about Ugx 10-15 million. It is on record that there architects in this country who do not charge even 50% of that. Secondly, to avoid using an architect is like avoiding to going to school, you don’t realize the implications of your decision until a later time in life. I have encountered developers who cannot move furniture into their houses, or who have maintenance problems countless times and many times when you try to find out, you discover that an architect wasn’t involved.

Finding an architect is not that hard. Try the Uganda Society of Architects or the Architects Registration Board who have a list of nearly 200 architects licensed to practice in Uganda. Your area municipal building department receives drawings submitted by licensed architects on a daily basis. They can tell you who has completed work in your area or for a project similar to yours.

Should Ugandan Architects accept Competitive Tendering

Introduction

The construction industry all over the world has been under going a period of introspection. Changes in the production and procurement processes that have been witnessed in other sectors as a result of globalisation and technology advancement have not been adopted by the industry at the same pace and level as others like manufacturing. Production in the industry is still labour intensive and the procurement process continues to be adversarial and conflict ridden due to lack of cooperation (Egan 1998; Smith and Love, 2001). Demands for change and greater efficiency particularly in the UK started to appear as result of the numerous government reports on the construction industry (Latham, 1994; Egan 1998). These reports were hugely critical of the low levels of productivity and efficiency and stressed the need for change, greater efficiency and stronger client focus. Among changes suggested was the shift from the traditional methods of procurement were the design team led by the architect decided the design and construction process for the client. This recommendation came at a time when most institutions representing construction professionals were yielding to UK government pressure and removing the use of fee scale (Hoxley, 1998)[1] Although there were suggestions in 1997, that the UK government would drop Compulsory Competitive Tendering in favour of ‘best value’, Hoxley (1998) observed that the appointment of construction professional by competitive fee tendering had taken root and was likely to remain the principal method for appointment of construction professionals.

The two-envelope method is one of the methods in which price is considered for consultant selection (competitive fee tendering). The two envelope method which is based on the evaluation of bids for both cost and quality, effectively ended the use of mandatory scale of fees as recommended by the professional bodies of most property and construction professionals. This method of procuring services is the most popular method of allocating work to quantity surveyors in the UK and Hong Kong (Drew et al, 2001). The two envelope method requires consultants to submit two envelopes; one containing the fee (usually a lump sum) also known as ‘the financial proposal’ and another about the capacity of the firm otherwise known as the ‘technical proposal.’ The quality envelope or technical proposal envelope normally includes the personnel proposed for the job, the methodology to be used and proposed duration for the assignment. The evaluation starts with opening the technical proposal and then the financial proposal for all those bidders who may have attained the required pass mark for the technical proposal. After evaluation of the financial proposal, the score for both is aggregated to decide the most suited bidder for the job. However, the quality and cost based approach of procuring services, has not been without critics who insist that it has led to deterioration in the quality of service offered. This paper seeks to critically analyse the shift to competitive fee tendering, especially the two-envelope method and why it is necessary for the Uganda Society of Architects to accept and adopt the new method.

“The good old days”

A little history will help us to understand why we are no longer in the ‘good old days’ and how we got here. The architect’s profession just like the engineer’s profession emerged in 19^th century as result of an attempt to separate people who designed buildings from the craftsmen who built them legally, functionally and organizationally (Thomsen, 2006). Thomsen further observes that as architects and engineers acquired education and degrees, they sought professional status by lobbying for laws and forming professional bodies like those of lawyers, doctors and accountants. It is through these laws and institutions that the practice of architecture was regulated. Thomsen observes that in the following 100 years, architects became so famous in America that in 1950 the Fortune Magazine reported that architects were the most respected and best paid among all professions. In addition to improved designs, the mergence of the architecture and engineering profession meant that drawings showing how buildings could be put together and the materials that would be required could be quantified by a contractor who would name a price for carrying out the job before hand. According to Thomsen (2006), this was the emergency of the design-bid-build procurement method also known as the traditional method. Owing to this newly acquired status, architects were constantly the first point of contact for most contracts and in this position, architects invariably did not only decide the design of the building, but also decided who to work with and the procurement method to be used. The architect with the team he led were the experts of the construction industry and in addition to designing had the responsibility to represent the client’s interests and make sure that work was done right. In project organisation the architect clearly became dominant. Various architect’s professional bodies came up with what was called the mandatory scale of fees, which by virtue of their membership to these professional bodies (RIBA, AIA, USA etc) architects were bound by the code of conduct to adhere to. The scale of fees for most of the architects’ services were based on a percentage of the construction cost of the buildings designed and erected under the architects supervision, although sometimes the charge could be assessed on the basis of the time devoted to the work at a minimum hourly rate for those involved with the work (RIBA, 1967). Although this always raised question marks, architects through their professional bodies argued that the requirement to observe a fee scale was based on the principle that competition between architects should be restricted to the merits of the services offered. In 2006, while arguing against the abolition of scale of fees, nine professional bodies in the property industry in Malaysia argued that “professional services are intellectual and creative products, and not commodities and, therefore, the primary purpose of fee scales is to set a benchmark to establish a reasonable level of remuneration, commensurate with the provision of professional services of an acceptable and recognised standard”. The memorandum signed by all nine in part read:

“In a free market situation, it is often too tempting for consumers requiring professional services to seek out the cheapest, sidelining the issue of quality of service, in particular when such quality is not immediately or easily discernible. This “shopping around” or "marketing for cheaper fees" will lead to an unhealthy widespread undercutting of professional fees. When fees are uneconomic and do not commensurate with the level of the services that ought to be provided, it is not uncommon for the quality of professional services rendered to be compromised. Hence, scale fees will not only benefit, but will also protect, the consumers; since with scale fees professionals will then have to compete with one another on the quality of professional services, and not on pricing.

(The Malaysian Bar, 20 Jan 2006)

In his presentation to the Uganda Society of Architects, Kamya (2008, pp7) says that ‘the practice of negotiating fees or tendering for jobs on a fee basis undermines the morale of professionals and eventually has a negative impact on the standard of projects conceived’ because he goes on ‘consultants are not motivated to excel due to low financial rewards’.

Despite these arguments, scale of fees as recommended and enforced by many professional member bodies are not short of critics. Most critics argue that professional bodies are acting like potential cartels operating only in the interests of their members. Although the scale of fees worked admirably well, the increasing changes in market driven economies and the continuing scrutiny of the construction industry, made their justification increasingly futile and by the end of the 20^th century, they had all but gone from most of the developed economies[2].

Changes in Construction Industry

As earlier stated, there has been a continuous call for change in the construction industry over the last 10-15 years and the procurement process is one of those areas that were identified for change. For instance, part of recommendation No. 13.5 of the Latham report (1994, pp47) was “to choose and then endorse a specific quality and price assessment mechanism for the engagement of professional consultants”. In addition to these recommendations, changes in legislation caused by being part of bigger market unions have made the use of a scale of fees untenable. Smith and Love (2001) observe that procurement processes in the construction industry are changing as a result of the economic, social, financial and political/legislative environments. In a European Commission press release of 2004, the Commission ruled that recommended minimum fees by the Belgian Architects Association were in breach of European Union competition rules. The commission further ruled that like fixed prices, recommended prices reduce competition because they can facilitate price coordination. In the UK, abolition of the mandatory scale of fees was first mooted in 1982 as a result of the report of the Monopoly and Mergers Commission of 1977. Although the fears then were that the quality of service may deteriorate as a result of this move, Hoxley (2007) argues that the quality and standard of service did not fall as result of competitive tendering. In a subtle way that dispels the concerns about quality, Hoxley (2007) says “that while there was no envidence to prove that there was a deterioration in service since the abolition of mandatory fee scales, it is evident that fee levels have fallen, an indicator that surveyors, architects, engineers have become more efficient in order to survive in these competitive times”. In his report (Latham, 1994 pp 43), Sir Michael Latham points out that ‘it is now widely – if in some quarters reluctantly – accepted among consultants that competitive fees are a permanent feature of their work. Paradoxically, there are some who believe that fee scales did not even serve the profession well in the first place and that they are no longer relevant in the new environment were clients demand a lot more than before:

“I do not believe fee scales served the profession well in the past. Fee scales can only reflect averages for typical projects. The design demands of a project, the procurement routes and the services required by clients are becoming increasingly varied. Therefore the average fee scale for that mythical “typical” job is far less relevant and useful”. Richard Brindley, RIBA Director of Practice, 2007)

Facing reality

Over the past few months there has been a campaign by leading and reputable members of the Uganda Society of Architects to fight against competitive fee tendering especially the two-envelope bidding (Kamya, 2008). While this is expected and not only peculiar to Ugandan architects – a similar war is still being fought in Malaysia (Malaysian Bar, 2006) – it is obvious that the war is bound to be lost. The primary reason for the changes in construction was the need to be more efficient and bring about greater competition (Smith and Love, 2001), there is envidence that clients are achieving this without necessarily compromising the quality of service offered (Hoxley, 2007). It is highly unlikely that there will be a U- turn on competitive fee tendering. It should be noted these changes are geared towards a stronger focus on the client and as Smith and Love (2001) assert, it is important that the industry professionals recognise the supremacy of the client. In Uganda, like many other countries, the public sector is the single largest client that the construction industry has. Because of this, the government is introducing measures (mainly through best practices and benchmarking) and setting rules for procurement. The introduction of PPDA in 2003 and its guidelines on procurement for services is one of those measures. The PPDA is as a result of an act of Parliament and all government departments are obliged to follow the law. If by enforcing this law, the PPDA is contravening another law like the Architect’s statute of 1996, it was an oversight that should be corrected by the relevant people. Additionally, it is worth noting that infrastructure development projects in Uganda are mainly funded by loans and grants obtained from the bigger economies, which loans and grants inevitably include these conditions on procurement. The fact that most construction projects are funded by European countries whose union already espouses competitive bidding and frowns upon the notion of fee scales leaves the fight for the maintenance of a fee scale in a parlous state. Despite the fact that the fee tendering appears to be on the decline in the UK (Hoxley, 2007), it is highly unlikely that the newly espoused methods of procurement like partnering will be accepted or even perceived to be fair because of the huge potential for corruption, bribery and favoritism in developing economies like Uganda.

Way forward

In today’s competitive environment fuelled by globalisation and free trade, it is hard to fathom how the Uganda Society of Architects or the Ugandan construction industry in general will insulate itself from these changes. It can be safely argued that rather than fight against the tide, the society and its membership should come up with ways that make our selves more relevant and secure. In its ruling against the Belgian Architects in 2004, the European Communication added that it ‘encourages the national legislators and professional bodies to revise and amend their restrictive rules and practices to enable the professions to better contribute to growth and economic welfare in the EU’. There is need for the Society to recognise that there is a strong wind of change and the earlier we revise our rules the better for all of us. Due to client pressures there is already a change in the way professional consultancy services are offered in the construction industry. We need to be aware of these changes and be prepared to adapt in this volatile and demanding environment short of which our very own survival is threatened. The rise of project management, the increasing use of design and build and increased use of information technology are big changes that we must be aware of and be prepared to adapt to. In his conclusion, Hoxley (2007) attributes the enhanced efficiency in professional firms to the shift to multi-professional organisations. It is not uncommon these days to see architectural firms working as sub-consultants for engineering firms in a job that would typically be awarded to an architectural firm in the past. We need to re-assert our positions as the leaders of the professional team in-charge of constructing buildings by retraining and refocusing the training of architecture. As we re-orient ourselves, we should also take the government and its departments to task to play the game by the rules. While it is well known that successful 2-envelope bidding depends on adequate specification of the service required, careful pre-selection of tenderers and an open, fair and adequate evaluation process, rarely do we get to know the evaluation criteria before hand. Statements like ‘Technical evaluation will carry 80% and financial evaluation 20%’ should be dismissed with the contempt they deserve. Details of what will be evaluated technically should be availed to all tenderers to dispel rumours of some tenderers having had inside information of what exactly was required. There is no reason why one tenderer should be given more marks for having an architect with a post graduate degree on their team when this was not explicitly stated as a requirement in the first place.

Conclusion

The author is aware that much of the envidence provided in this paper is from Europe and it may as well be that the standard and quality of service offered by professionals in the construction industry in Uganda was compromised as a result of the introduction of the 2-envelope bidding. However, in the absence of a research we can only draw on the similarities of the industry and what has been experienced elsewhere. It is recommended that in future the USA should fund research into such areas so that some statements can be made with absolute certainty about the Ugandan construction industry. That not withstanding, the author considers it a useful exercise to think about the changes in the construction industry internationally and what that they mean for us locally. This paper if anything emphasises the fact that the industry the world over is changing into a market driven one responding to the demands being imposed by the clients. While this paper has restricted itself to the changes in the procurement of professional services, changes in project delivery methods especially from design-bid-build to design and build are also worth investigating.

---

[1] In the early 1990s, the UK government introduced compulsory competitive tendering (CCT) for a range of local and central government services.

[2] The RIBA’s mandatory fee scales were abolished in 1982 and replaced by recommended fee scales. These were withdrawn in 1992 and then indicative Fee Scales which were withdrawn in 2003.

Safety on Construction Sites in Uganda - what needs to be done

I have noted that most of the articles published recently about the collapse of buildings in Kampala concentrated on giving reasons why buildings collapse and who is responsible for the accidents, rather than what we can do to alleviate the situation. Collapse of buildings is not new to Uganda and neither is it only peculiar to Uganda, we should therefore be able to learn from how others have tackled this problem. Construction especially that of buildings is very important to any economy. While some multi-storey buildings like the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur may be constructed to fulfill man’s insatiable ego, others and the biggest number are constructed for commercial reasons. It is therefore unlikely that we will stop the construction of multi-storey buildings but neither do we want to continue losing lives.

First and foremost, the construction industry should be given the attention it deserves. Most developed countries do realise the importance of construction and are actively involved in devising ways and formulating policies that would make the industry better. Figures from the Uganda Bureau of Statistics website indicate that the contribution to the GDP by the construction industry has steadily grown in the previous years from 7.2% to 9.1%. In the UK, the construction industry contributes almost 8% to the GDP and according to the figures by the Department of Trade and Industry; through its products the construction industry is the single largest contributor to gross domestic fixed capital formation. The similarity between the figures of the two industries is quite obvious, yet the two governments don’t seem to accord the industry the same amount of attention. In the last 15 years, the UK government has commissioned three studies and managed to implement reforms and enact laws recommended by these studies. Construction procurement methods like ‘Partnering’ that is now being espoused internationally were introduced as a result of these studies. It has been reported that by implementing most of the reforms recommended by the Egan Report of 1998, the UK construction productivity has improved by close to 30% in the last 8 years. In Singapore and Malaysia, both governments realised at an early stage of their development curve that the construction industry was important for continued growth. Throughout the 1970s and up to now both governments have consistently enacted laws to improve the performance of the construction industry as one of the tools for economic development. When the construction industry started suffering from the strict laws relating to foreign employment, the government in Singapore, moved fast to amend the laws so that the industry could continue to grow.

Secondly, laws relating to construction have to be revised as a matter of urgency. Authors of some of articles published in the previous weeks rightly pointed out that the local authorities have the responsibility of approving and inspecting buildings. What most of them did not point out that most local authorities are using the Town and Country Planning Act of 1969 which is increasingly becoming irrelevant to today’s situation. The local authorities are required by these bye-laws to inspect the construction of these buildings stage by stage and issue certificates for every stage that is successfully completed. Most of these local authorities don’t have Building Inspectors and where they exist like in Kampala City Council, they cannot carry out stage by stage inspection due to lack of logistics. I hope the impending Building Control Bill will address some of these problems and others like health and safety on sites.

Thirdly and most importantly, the population has to be sensitised about using properly qualified consultants and contractors for the construction of their structures. I have argued before that I can prove to most people that did not use qualified personnel that they actually spent more money than they would have spent if they engaged qualified people. Professional associations notably the Uganda Society of Architect have embarked on a crusade to sensitise the population about the importance of using qualified personnel but this is a job that is too enormous to be left to the hardly 200 member association alone. The government through the Ministry of Works should step in and help with the sensitisation of the masses. We can draw experiences from Sir Egan’s Rethinking Construction Report to the UK Government in which it was recommended as a priority to have private developers on board if improvements in construction productivity was to be achieved.