Page:The Building News and Engineering Journal, Volume 22, 1872.djvu/34

 18 THE BUILDING NEWS. Jan. 5, 1872. Tt may be stated that the substance of a portion of Mr. Eastlake’s book appeared in the form of a series of articles in the Burtp- 1nG News a few years since. ————— ON TAKING OUT QUANTITIES AND MZASURING WORKS.* By Jonn Herp. DESIRE to invite attention to one or two points in connection with professional charges and practice, which have not received sufficient recogni- tion from the Royal Institute of British Architects, as a body; and upon which it would, I think, be desirable to elicit the opinion of the Conference. I will commence with the subject of taking out quantities, for which no rate is provided by the Institute scale. I may be met with the objection that the Institute is an Institute of Architects, not an Institute of Surveyors, and that taking out quan- tities does not form any part of an architect’s prac tice. I would observe, however, that at the time when the Institute received its Charter of Incorpora- tion (in 1837), architects were in the habit of taking out the quantities not only of their own works but also for others, in fact every architect was at that time also a surveyor; and quantity-surveyors, as a separate class, were almost unknown. Taking out quantities, as well as measuring and valuing work, were looked upon as essential branches of a young architect’s education, who, if he had no opportunity of becoming properly acquainted with these subjects in the office where he was articled, was accustomed to enter some other on the completion of his appren- ticeship, in order that he might acquire the requisite knowledge. On the establishment of the Institute, the Fellows were precluded, by the terms of the declaration required to be signed by them, from undertaking the measurement, valuation, or estimation of work for others, although they were not forbidden to per- form these services with regard to their own works, nor were they prohibited from taking out quantities. In the 26th paragraph of the rules for professional practice and charges of architects, confirmed at the special general meetings of the Royal Institute of British Architects, held 13th and 27th January, 1862, which are stated to be the rules and charges “now usually and properly made,” it is affirmed that “it is not desirable that an architect should supply to builders quantities on which to form tenders for executing his design.” Tt is clear from the concluding portion of this 26th paragraph, which prescribes the mode of payment to the architect in case he should take out quanti- ties, that this rule is not meant to be prohibitory. Its effect, however, is to create a doubt as to the propriety of an architect taking out the quantities of his own works, and I think it most desirable, looking to the time that has elapsed since these regulations were framed, and the various changes that have taken place of late years in the position and in the practice of our profession, that this question shouid be reconsidered, and that some uniform line of con- duct should be agreed upon. Why should not an architect take out his own quantities? As matters stand at present, he may appoint anybody he thinks fit to take out the quan- tities for him—a clerk in his office, or an insolvent or incompetent person—without himself incurring censure or responsibility. The builder is supposed to look to the quantity-surveyor to reimburse him for any error in the quantities, and not to the archi- tect or fo the client. I am aware that by agreement between this Institute and the Builders’ Association it was lately determined that, unless the builders choose their own surveyor to take out the quantities, the architect should be required to guarantee their accuracy; but, as a rule, I believe this convention is not acted upon, and builders accept, without ques- tion, bills of quantities prepared by a survevor nominated by the architect. It is difficult to see what possible advantage can arise either to the builder or to the client from the substitution of a person who is possibly quite irresponsible for any mistake in the quantities, in place of the architect, who could, in the case of mistake, readily adjust dif- ferences without loss to the client or injury to the builder. The disadvantages, on the other hand, are great; setting aside the risk of incompetency in the surveyor, which may be guarded against by prudent selection. It is the practice of most surveyors to take out the quantities “full,” that is, rather in excess of the actual quantity of material; in other words. the client pays for more work than the con- tractor performs. This is not by any means an uncommon practice, and I have known buiklers com- out the quantities ‘too close,” that is, too near the accurate amount. Some builders refuse to tender upon certain surveyors’ quantities, and I think it is not too much to assume that such a refusal must arise from the measurements being too closely taken, and not from items being omitted altogether ; because any actual omission might be readily detected by reference to the drawings and specification, while it would be extremely difficult to check the accuracy of the whole of the surveyors’ dimensions, It is, I believe, a common practice for builders to take 5 or even 10 per cent. off the amounts of their bills when moneyed ont before sending in their tenders; this would seem to indicate that there is usually an excess in the quantities. The architect who has designed and thought out a building must certainly know his own intentions better than any- body else, and, if he took out his own quantities, he might frame them far more in accordance with his design than he could by leaving his meaning to be guessed at by the quantity-surveyor, who is not unfrequently incapable of appreciating or following out any originality of design or coustruc- tion. The quantity-surveyor sometimes supplies the builder with a copy of the dimensions upon which the bills of quantities are based. This is a very good practice, and, if universally adopted, it would prevent misunderstanding, and the trouble of refer- ence to the surveyor in cases of uncertainty as to what had or had not been taken. The surveyor’s dimensions should be annexed to the contract, and form part of it. This course of proceeding would be more just to the builder, who, under the present system, is bound not only by the bills of quantities but also by the drawings and specification as inter- preted by the architect, as well as more economical to the client, who is frequently called upon to pay not only for what has been actually contemplated by the architect, but also for what might possibly be exacted from the builder by a stringent enforcement of the terms of the contract. The mode of payment for taking out quantities at present adopted is not free from objection. It is, however, in harmony with the regulation of the Institute prohibiting the receipt by an architect of pecuniary consideration from a builder in respect of any work carried out under his superintendence, which is, no doubt, a salutary rule. But, although it is usually stipulated in specifications that the surveyor’s charges for the quantities shall be paid by the builder to the architect for the benefit of the surveyor out of the first instalment, as a matter of fact, the money rarely passes through the architect’s hands, but is paid directly to the surveyor. The surveyor is sometimes himself a practising architect, and thus the anomaly exists that the same man may receive payment from a builder, when acting in one capacity, whilst, by the rules of the In- stitute, he is forbidden to do so when acting in an- other. If there be any danger attending pecuniary trans- actions between builders and professional men, the danger might be avoided by the client paying for the quantities directly, either to the surveyor, or by the amount being included in the architect’s bill. The only objection to this course is, that the public generally have a fixed idea that 5 per cent. includes everything, and a client might possibly object to pay for taking out the quantities at all if presented to him in a separate account, unless he were pre- viously apprised of his liability. If, however, the architect, before undertaking any work, clearly explained to his client what charges he would have to pay, much misunderstanding might be avoided. Ilalf the disputes as to accounts arise from ignorance on the part of the public of the practice of the profession ; and, seeing that we cannot ourselves agree as to charges, it is not a matter of surprise that much uncertainty should exist among the public at large as to what are proper and legal professional expenses. The usual charge in London for taking out quan- tities is a commission of 1} per cent. for new works ; for alterations and special works, such as decorations, of 2 per cent. upon the amount of contract, exclusive of the costs of lithographing and expenses out of pocket. A commission of 1} per cent. is charged upon credits or omissions, and also upon the value of old materials if re-used. In the ease of large Government works, a much smaller commission is usually charged, but in the case of the new Post Office, now erecting in the City, practising architect in preparing the design, the quantities were, I believe, taken out at the usual! rate of commission. The time and trouble expended in taking out quantities vary very much, according to the nature of the work, and the addition of 4 per cent. commis- sion appears a yery small amount to compensate for the increased care and labour required for dif- ficult works. It is, however, I believe, generally admitted that quantity surveyors are very well paid at the present rates of remuneration; some, indeed, advertise to take out quantities and to guarantee their accuracy for 4 per cent. com- mission. The remarks made with regard to taking out quantities apply also to measuring and valuing extras and omissions, now seldom done by the archi- tect. The usual charge for this work in London is a commission of 1} per cent. upon the amount of the extras and omissions respectively. This charge includes measuring, valuing, adjusting the accounts with the builder, and furnishing an abstract. It is sometimes the practice to charge only 1 per cent. for such extras as are day accounts. On uu occasion like the present, if gentlemen, par- ticularly country architects, would give us the benefit of their experience, and information as to the usual practice and charges for taking out quan- tities and measuring, it would be useful in guiding us to the adoption of a uniform and consistent system; and if there exists (as I believe there does exist) a tolerably unanimous agreement as to the amount of commission, there would be little difficulty or objection in embodying it in the paper issued by the Institute for the regulation of professional charges. The discussion having been opened by the Chair- man, Mr. Warernouse, V.P., who expressed his opinion as to the advantage of architects taking out their own quantities after making a design, Mr. Sraruam protested, as a country architect, against the assumption that country architects uni- versally take out quantities themselyes. He con- sidered it not the business of the architect, whose duty is to prepare plans, from which the builder may say for how much a building can be carried out, and for that purpose estimates the amount of materials that will be employed in the building. The attention of the architect employed upon taking ont quantities is taken away from the important occupation of plan- ning and designing, and the division of labour is much better ensured by leaving the quantities to the builder. He had always adopted the practice in Liverpool of suggesting to the builders that they should take out the quantities. They generally made no objection, but the responsibility was left upon their hands, they accepting the surveyor named by the architect. This worked well. The builders never expected him to give the quantities, or that he should be respon- sible for them. As the architect is exempt from dispute or litigation, while free from responsibility as to the quantities, he felt unconvinced by the argu- ments used in favour of architects undertaking to prepare bills of quantities. Mr. Tuomas Ciarke (Liverpool) differed from the last speaker. He had practised for twenty- five years in Liverpool, where many of his princi- pals insist upon his taking out the quantities for their own information. His usual charge is 2 per cent., which they see in the bill of details. in a recent instance, the principal (a lawyer) took the plans and the qnantities and made the contract with the builder, adding the commission on the quanti- ties, which will be paid by the builder. If any error should occur he should consider himself liable, but he found taking out the quantities of great use in correcting and elucidating the specification, in which notwithstanding the greatest care and the most practical knowledge, omissions may be made. He had formerly taken out the quantities for other architects and often found omissions in the specifi- cations, which he had noted and forwarded to them. He agreed that the quantities should be made the basis of the contract. In case of small deviations, he considered the architect justified in setting an omission against an addition, in order to balance the ~ accounts satisfactorily to the client, who, with the quantities before him, can see the fairness of the proceeding. He had recently adjusted accounts in- volving an amount of £500 for extras and omissions, without dispute either on the part of the principal or of the builder, becaus2 the quantities having been taken, the omissions had then been set against the additions. « He felt that the architect, as long as professional practice will allow it, is the best person to take out the quantities, because he takes them closer, in order to keep down the cost ; while a sur- veyor rather keeps things up, to prevent being called on by the builder on account of omissions. Mr. C. Rorre, Associate, could not agree with Mr. Clarke that architects shonld take out the quantities because the specification may be in- correct. An architect not capable of writing a correct specification is not capable of carrying out,a building. He inferred that Mr. Clarke is in the habit of
 * Read before the General Conference of Architects, 1871
 * plain of a surveyor as being in the habit of taking
 * although the Government declined the services of a