Selecting architects through tendering is a popular practice in our country.

Architects are supposed to quote their fees for projects they wish to undertake. The one who quotes the lowest fees is given the job irrespective of the quality of services offered.

While everyone agrees that this is archaic, illogical and non-productive, nobody seems to do anything about it. There are many reasons for scrapping the system.

To start with, the architect’s fees are around 5 per cent of the cost of construction while a contractor usually makes 15 to 20 per cent profit.

By reducing the fees to less than 3 per cent, as is done by many banks and public sector undertakings, the client creates a situation where he accepts only partial advice from the architect. The architect loses the incentive to work and is less efficient. and the client is the ultimate loser.

Second, by not receiving the fees prescribed by the Council of Architecture, the architect automatically absolves himself of most of the responsibilities without the client’s knowledge.

Third, and most important, by accepting the lowest offer, the client selects a design of poor quality by default.

Most people fail to understand that tenders can be called for an item or a project, which has been designed with the dimensions and specifications frozen. The client would get the same building with the same façade and same specifications no matter who builds it. Therefore, the client might wish to enquire among contractors for the lowest bid for construction.

Professional services should always be selected and not tendered. Architects should be chosen for their quality of service and not for what they charge. Doctors and lawyers are always selected for the quality of services offered and their professional reputation. The fees charged by them are of little consequence. Incidentally, vegetables may be purchased by haggling with the vendors.

Architects should ideally be picked through competitions. The client should mention the percentage of fees they are comfortable with. Architects should be asked to submit concept designs based on which the selection can be made by an independent panel of jury.

The fourth reason is that standardising the fees will reduce corruption. It is a known fact that architects who accept assignments at a low fee will eventually find ways to compensate for the loss.

The fifth reason is that the government loses out on income-tax and service tax if professionals are engaged at fees lower than that prescribed by the Council of Architecture. An example of good architecture produced by someone chosen for his lowest quote is yet to be seen.

Many people feel a change of thinking is in the offing as the corporate world and government departments are becoming quality conscious. However, others feel the change may come a trifle too late after all our cities are completely defaced by ugly buildings.