It’s a topic that is fraught for practices small and large, but the ACA’s Vic/Tas president Paul Viney is an expert. In this series, we’ll look in greater detail at some of the most important aspects of fee calculation.
Calculating fees has long been one of the most challenging aspects of running an architectural practice.
As well as being the director of FPPV Architects and Coop Himmelbl(a)u Australia, Paul Viney is also the Association of Consulting Architects’ Vic/Tas president. And in this capacity he led the development of the ACA’s Architects’ Time/Cost Calculator, which was built by Big Dog Software’s Jeff Beach.
The third version of the calculator can currently be accessed via the ACA’s website.
Viney also regularly presents forums on the topic and he believes that it’s time to change the conversation about the way we approach fee calculation.
“The intent is not to tell people what to charge, but to start Architects thinking about how to charge,” he says.
The first thing he notes is that fee scales may not be the best way to go about it.
At his presentations, Viney often notes the sad fact that over 80 percent of firms do not know their break-even point. If your firm is one of them, before you do anything else, you need to break down your overhead costs and ensure you have an accurate view of what they are. Once you have calculated your actual costs, then you can look at working out what to charge your clients.
The list below is an example that will help you get started, and you can add other items as appropriate.
|Accountant fees (financial accounting services provided by an external accountant)||$3750|
|Administration salaries costs||$145,000|
|Fees and government charges||$275|
|General office costs||$21,980|
|Motor vehicle repairs/maintenance||$3330|
|Parking, taxis etc||$3850|
|Professional indemnity insurance||$28,470|
What frequently happens is that practices don’t record their hours properly, says Viney.
Based on ACA surveys, fewer than 30 percent of firms have a practice management system. The result is a culture of long hours and unpaid time leads to underpaid staff. This is compounded by the industry practice of using interns illegally for commercial gain. The knock-on effect of all of this is that fees are low-balled to match. In the last salary survey, it was revealed that 17 percent of practices are actually responsible for wage theft, because they are paying under the award.
A way to avoid this is to properly work out the costs related to all parts of the practice calculate a real profit margin based on the hours it will take to undertake the project and charge appropriate fees.
Version three of the calculator enable firms to anonymously compare overheads on a staff pro rata basis to firms of a similar size. The ACA has also developed a Salary Calculator to enable practices to understand their obligations under the award.
This is fairly straightforward – it’s the staff in the office that are non-technical. This is your administrative staff, marketing staff, accounting staff, office manager etc. It’s anyone who is an overhead rather than an earner of income.
These are the hours on timesheets often referred to as ‘other’. Unlike, say, a plumber, where they’ll charge their full 38 hours of the week, most architectural practices have obligations other than simply their project work. It could be CPD (continuing professional development), a quality assurance system and a range of tasks and responsibilities that the architects need to complete that cannot be billed out to a client.
If the non-billable hours are not specifically allowed, they can equal or exceed the allowed profit margin resulting in a loss from the start of the project.
The calculator requires each practice to adjust a series of variables that are particular to that business, resulting in a unique calculation for each practice.
The following template can be used as an example:
Average staff hourly rate $50
Number of staff 15
Total hours per annum 1650
Non-billable hours 10%
Profit margin 30%
The billable hours are defined by how many hours staff are being asked to work. The baseline – the award – is 38 hours, but many practices ask their staff to work more hours than that.
“We ask people to calculate their billable hours and we give them an indication of what they might use on the assumption of four weeks leave and two weeks of personal leave and/or public holidays,” says Viney.
“It’s primarily about how many hours a week they are asking their staff to work.”
If you’re working just the base hours it’s 38, so the cost of overheads per hour is higher. But if the staff are being required longer hours, say 42 hours, then this results in a reduction in the hourly rate calculation.
Practices also need to take this into account in ensuring they are paying staff above the minimum award.
“The simple process that has been traditionally used is a multiplier where practices calculate their hourly rate by using an often arbitrary rate of between 2 and 2.5 against the hourly salary cost to cover overheads and profit. The calculator takes a different approach where it amortises actual overheads cost against billable hours, which we believe is a more accurate reflection of the real costs to run the business,” says Viney.
“It’s like a see-saw. The cost of an overhead is actually the same per person, irrespective of whether you’re a director or a graduate, because the cost of the rent, the PI (professional indemnity) insurance, the cost of the technology doesn’t change.”
Viney says the problem with using a multiplier is that it exaggerates the overheads at the upper level, but practices don’t get to charge many hours from directors, but if they put the same rate is used across the practice board, it increases charge out base rate, where the majority of the time is charged.
“So it changes the see-saw to one where you have a less pretentious hourly rate at the top end and a more realistic one at the bottom end.”
Perspective is important, says Viney.
“If you look like you’re charging like a lawyer and have high hourly rates, some clients get really concerned. So say, for example based on a multiplier, I may charge $350 for a director and $70 for a graduate, but using the calculator and equally applying overheads it may result in rates changing for $250 for a director and $100 for a graduate, but I’ve got a lot more billable hours at graduate level, so I’m actually picking up a lot more on my overheads throughout the junior staff, rather than relying upon the lesser hours of the directors/senior staff. It’s quite a different way of calculating fees than used by the majority of the firms,” he concludes.
This article is from Architectural Review. If you would like to read the full magazine, click here to receive a complimentary copy of our first digital issue.
Part two of Calculating Fees will look at how to determine appropriate fees to charge clients.
Lead photo: Tima Miroshnichenko.