Commercial Architecture June 2019 - 46

▲

PROJECT

| project management

Managing
Scope Creep
The inability to control
expanding project
demands without
increasing fees makes
profitability elusive.
Andrew Mendelson, FAIA

cope creep is the bane of profitability for design
firms if not properly managed from the outset
of contract negotiations. Once the actual proj-

ect begins, it's almost impossible to renegotiate the agreement's terms and conditions.
The task can become even more difficult due to the
fixed fees commonly associated with most professional-services agreements, as well as circumstances beyond
control that undoubtedly rear their ugly heads during
some phase of a project's life cycle. In addition, these
unanticipated or unknown circumstances can make the
project manager's job of planning, organizing, and directing resources to remain on time and on budget-while also
achieving an adequate profit-extremely difficult.
That's scope creep. Unfortunately, a diminished profit
margin is only one of the many negative effects that can
result from such situations. Others include wide-ranging
challenges extending from account-receivable issues and

Once an actual project begins, it's almost impossible to renegotiate the agreement's terms and conditions.

the loss of professional credibility to long-term exposure
problems and even litigation.
Here are three stories that illustrate just some of the
challenging situations that can lead to scope creep:

By the time the PM became aware of the added ser-

long-span structure was composed of a steel mast and

vices, the design team had used more than half of the

cable system that is commonly used for bridges but had

budgeted SD labor hours. The PM requested that the uni-

not been previously used for a building in this city. The

versity cover the additional services, which it declined to

city's building department took eight months to review

ONE PROJECT, TWO ISSUES

do, citing the architecture firm's failure to receive the

the plans, including numerous technical-review meetings

Unforeseen project changes beset the design and con-

proper authorization prior to their performing the addi-

and required the university to hire an outside engineer for

struction of a university student recreation and athletic

tional services. Eventually, the architecture firm recap-

a peer review (which confirmed the validity and integrity

center. The architecture firm began schematic design

tured about 30 cents on the dollar for these additional

of the original design).

(SD) based on a functional and spatial program com-

services, resulting in a financial loss on the project. The

While the architect and structural engineer (SE) were

pleted five years earlier by another reputable design firm.

lesson learned is to insist on a separate fee to create, vali-

timely in their request for additional services, the univer-

However, during the SD phase, the university's repre-

date, or confirm the owner's program.

sity pushed back since the contract did not address delays

sentative challenged the accuracy of that program and

In addition to this problem, the project's design team

in this phase of the project, stating that the architect and

directed revisions to it. The design staff carried out the

faced a second unforeseen issue. The university wanted

SE "should have anticipated" that the city's building de-

revisions but failed to inform the firm's project manager

the athletic facility be a notable structure that would pro-

partment would take a longer period of time to review the

(PM) that they were performing out-of-scope services.

mote student life and also act as a campus "gateway." The

plans for this novel structure. After negotiations, a por-

JUNE 2019

COMMERCI A L A RCHI T EC T UREM AG A ZINE.COM

Commercial Architecture June 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Commercial Architecture June 2019