FEASIBILITY STUDIES

An Architect’s Guide
FEASIBILITY STUDIES

An Architect's Guide
© RIBA Publishing, 2023

Published by RIBA Publishing, 66 Portland Place, London, W1B 1AD

ISBN 9781 91412 428 0

The right of Peter Farrell to be identified as the Author of this Work has been
asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
sections 77 and 78.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of
the copyright owner.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Commissioning Editor: Alex White

Assistant Editor: Clare Holloway
Production: Richard Blackburn
Cover and Text Designed by Kneath Associates
Typeset by Fakenham Prepress Solutions, Norfolk
Printed and bound by Page Bros, Norwich
All figures created by Alex Wood except for Figure 1.01 © RIBA.

While every effort has been made to check the accuracy and quality of the
information given in this publication, neither the Author nor the Publisher accept
any responsibility for the subsequent use of this information, for any errors or
omissions that it may contain, or for any misunderstandings arising from it.

www.ribapublishing.com

DOI: 10.4324/9781003343769
CONTENTS

About the author

Acknowledgements
Introduction
1 The RIBA Plan of Work

Case Study 1: Church Reordering

2 The Client's Perspective

Case Study 2: House Extension

3 Selling the Service - The Architect's View

Case Study 3: Community Hall

4 Fees and Appointment

Case Study 4: Rowing Centre

5 Managing the Process

Case Study 5: Research Laboratories

6 Communications and Stakeholders

Case Study 6: Emergency Services Centre

7 Gathering and Assimilating Data

Case Study 7: Reuse of Heritage Building

8 Developing the Client's Brief

Case Study 8: House on Garden Plot

9 Option Appraisals

Case Study 9: Classroom Wing

10 Monitoring and Reporting Back

Case Study 10: Office Development

11 The Next Stage

Case Study 11: Affordable Housing

12 Summary
Index
About the author

Peter Farrall is a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool. Prior to his

current position, he was partner at a multidisciplinary practice in Chester for 25
years, specialising in the education sector. Peter also worked in a senior position
with two large practices dealing with commercial and residential projects. He is
past-president of the Liverpool Architectural Society, and served on the National
Council and Conduct Committee of the RIBA. He is co-author of Good Practice
Guide: Fees (RIBA Publishing, 2021).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I’ve written this book based on many years of experience working in practices of
various sizes, as well as running my own small firm as a partner for 25 years.
This knowledge has been supplemented by information provided by consultees,
some of whom work in sectors with which I am less familiar. The reason for
writing the book was to try to help others benefit from my experience. However,
I found from the research and interviews that there is a vast array of things to be
aware of, and many ways of doing things! Different sectors present different
challenges, which I have tried to reflect throughout. It is a guide for the general
practitioner. Where specialist areas are covered, I refer to the consultants that
might be needed. Larger practices, or those working in specialised fields, tend to
know their sectors.

The case studies are based on actual commissions – some from my own practice,
others provided by colleagues working in other sectors. The ‘lessons learned’
were sometimes hard won, resulting in challenging situations for the practice or,
in some cases, for the client. For these reasons details have been changed and OS
block plans redrawn to anonymise the projects. In some cases, information has
been omitted or two case studies combined to make a point more clearly. Any
remaining resemblance to persons, places, projects or practices is totally
coincidental.

The book is organised to make it easy to dip into. The introduction covers the
main issues, and there is a case study at the end of each chapter which picks up
on the specific challenges of each sector.

I would like to thank the following architects for their advice, and for allowing
me to use quotations from the interviews I conducted. Some of these
practitioners are my personal contacts, but the majority were recommended by
the RIBA as demonstrating best practice in their particular sector: Julian Baker
(Ellis Williams Architects), Tony Barton (Donald Insall Associates), Ian
Bramwell (Mole Architects), Luke Butcher (Butcher Bayley Architects), Ruth
Butler (Ruth Butler Architects), Jo Day (Langstaff Day Architects), Dave Gilkes
(DK-Architects), Adam Hall (Falconer Chester Hall), Simon Knight (Simon
Knight Architects), Chithra Marsh (Buttress Architects), Roger Latham (Design
Group Chester), Kristian Molloy (CAM Architects), Paul Monaghan (Allford
Hall Monaghan Morris), Mark Pearce (Kepczyk Pearce Sanderson Architects),
Helen Reid (ABHR_A), Ian Ritchie (Ritchie Studio), Helen Roberts (Feilden
Clegg Bradley Studios), Dave Rudkin (Halsall Lloyd Partnership) and Flora
Samuels (University of Reading).
INTRODUCTION

What is a feasibility study? Most practising architects have no difficulty

answering this question. However, the format and scope of the study depend
on the sector you are working in and the type of client involved. The
perception of what constitutes a feasibility study is also different depending
on the type of work you do. The RIBA Plan of Work has been developed to
reflect new methods of procurement and the importance of sustainability.
However, the description of a feasibility study in the guidance notes is quite
narrow, where it is presented primarily as a way of testing the brief.

In terms of architectural practice, a feasibility study is a self-contained

commission to test the viability of a client’s proposal. Can a site be developed?
Is it better to refurbish an existing building rather than construct a new one? Can
a house extension be provided within the client’s budget? It is sometimes said
that ‘what the client wants is rarely what they need’, especially in connection
with domestic projects. This also applies to clients in other sectors, where the
feasibility study commission represents the most valuable professional advice
they pay for.

For many architects, a feasibility study forms part of the early RIBA work stages
of a commission, and involves managing the design process to establish the
viability of the proposal and brief. For some clients, a feasibility study is a step
towards unlocking funding or securing approval for a proposal from the board of
directors. For others, it is to establish the potential of using existing facilities as
an alternative to a new building.

‘We take on feasibility studies in order to get architecture built. Our

commissions are sometimes nothing to do with RIBA Stage 1 or 2 but
to determine what the study wants to discover; the client may not need
a new building at all. It is important to offer objective advice.’

Ian Ritchie, Ritchie Studio

FEASIBILITY STUDY BENEFITS
Clients tend to fall into two broad categories: experienced and less experienced.
Even where a client is an expert in their field, they are often unaware of some of
the services architects can offer. Less experienced domestic and end-user clients
may not be familiar with the design process, or the impact regulations and
procurement methods can have on their proposals.

The benefit to the client of commissioning a feasibility study is that, for a limited
fee, the viability of a proposal can be established and the brief better defined.
The business case for the project is often critical, but without understanding the
broad costs associated with development, the programme and the risks involved,
it may be difficult to put this strategy together.

‘Often the problem for architects is that the brief is fixed at an early
stage and then difficult to change. RIBA Stage 0 and Stage 1 is where
the real value is added. We need to articulate the service more.’

Flora Samuels, University of Reading

The benefit to the architect is that it is an opportunity to get to know the client,
speak with the key stakeholders and become involved with a project at inception.
This is where you use high-level skills and can add real value to a project.
Building a relationship is important, and understanding your client’s aspirations
enables you to appreciate their key performance indicators (KPIs).

The RIBA Plan of Work describes a feasibility study as a way of establishing the
viability of the brief and detaches it from the later work stages, though it is also
sometimes necessary to test out scenarios at later work stages to develop the
brief in more detail. Formulating the brief often requires you to ask questions
and then listen in an open-minded way. This process also allows the client to
establish the scope of the project.

The output from the feasibility study can help you define the complexity of the
project and the level of professional service that is required. This process in turn
enables you to determine the fee more accurately and provide the client with a
breakdown of the tasks and outputs required to deliver the project. It allows you
to engage the client in the design process, get buy-in to the vision and set the
project up for the later work stages.

MANAGING THE DESIGN PROCESS

Feasibility studies are a great source of work – as a standalone commission, to
assist the client with funding or to support a speculative proposal to unlock a
development opportunity. However, there are many pitfalls for the unwary. It is
easy to spend longer on the commission than is appropriate in terms of resources
and fee. It is also possible to go into too much detail and become involved in
architectural design matters when it is the broad principles that are important to
establishing viability.

To appreciate the context of this early design and viability work, it is useful to
understand the RIBA Plan of Work and the importance of work stage sign-off.
This industry-standard system provides a template for all procurement routes,
and decisions made early in the design and briefing process can be critical to
success. Clients come to a project from many standpoints, and involving them in
the design and decision-making process is important. Testing out the viability of
the project at an early stage and for a limited financial outlay in fees can be
useful. For some projects, funding can be tied into grants or bids, and the
feasibility study is the first stage in a process to demonstrate viability.

‘The sports and leisure sector involves us in extensive feasibility

studies, sometimes with a multi-headed client and many committees,
 and therefore lots of consultation. Our projects always start off with a
feasibility study, and sometimes these develop to include other
consultants taking the project up to RIBA Stage 2 in order to
demonstrate viability.’

Jo Day, Langstaff Day Architects

Whether the feasibility study is a standalone project, or the early stages of a full
commission, the design process must be managed. There may be multiple
stakeholders, and organising the client and other members of the team requires
diplomacy and skill. Agreeing a programme, and then adjusting the plan if
necessary to take account of the inevitable changes in the brief, will help the
team keep on track. Good communication is important, and you will often be at
the centre of the web in these terms. The initial stages of a project can be fluid as
the brief is evolving, and it is important to ensure that everyone is kept informed.

At the early work stages, there is sometimes resistance from the client to invest
in surveys or other investigations while the viability is being tested. It’s
important to decide what information is critical, and establish the risks
associated with the early-stage design work.

DEVELOPING THE BRIEF

The guidance notes for the RIBA Plan of Work recommend that the brief is
established prior to any design work taking place, and that the feasibility study is
there to test the brief. Many clients find it difficult to develop a brief in the
abstract, and often the architect must ask the right questions to help define the
parameters. This can be a developing process, and sometimes takes you beyond
the original boundaries of the project. This is where you are adding value to a
project, sometimes developing a proposal beyond anything the client could have
imagined at the outset. Ideally, this process needs to be finalised by RIBA Stage
2 if it is not to disrupt the project and involve abortive work.
 ‘Feasibility studies are useful to allow clients to understand the
opportunities the site provides before they commit to a major
investment or commission a competition.’

Helen Roberts, Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios

Option appraisals are a good way of involving the client in the briefing process.
By reviewing alternative solutions against a set of agreed criteria it is possible to
tease out the client’s priorities, some of which may not be entirely objective.
Many practices, large and small, use option appraisals to establish the optimum
solution and to ensure that opportunities are not missed. This approach also
gives you an audit trail, to show how decisions were made if they are challenged
in the future.

Throughout the process, it is necessary to monitor what is happening and report

back regularly. Keeping the client informed is important, and communication
may be needed at several levels. Board approval may be required at key stages,
or if a community is involved ‘town hall’ meetings may be needed. The final
output from the feasibility study or work stage will need to be formalised in
some way as a record.

A feasibility study would normally extend over RIBA Stages 0, 1 and perhaps 2,
and moving to the next work stage requires the work done to be signed off.
Procurement routes differ, and sometimes the feasibility study will provide
evidence to bid for funds. In some instances, procurement rules may require that
competitive fee bids are sought from architects for the next stage. Whatever
route is chosen, understanding the basis of the initial development work is
important and will form the foundations for the project.

‘It’s essential to get the strategy right at the feasibility study stage,
since this will drive the concept through the whole process. It’s the
 most important stage of the project.’

Paul Monaghan, Allford Hall Monaghan Morris

SUMMARY
The nature of architectural practice is changing, with a greater emphasis on
teamwork and contractor-led procurement. The challenges of climate change
together with the importance of life safety and wellbeing create an ever more
complex professional environment. Whatever the procurement route, it is
important that projects are based on a firm footing if the client’s vision is to be
realised. Feasibility studies, and the design work carried out at the early RIBA
work stages, provide this foundation. Creating a clear vision, ensuring buy-in
from the key stakeholders and then communicating the strategy is key. The
feasibility study is the gateway to the project.
 CHAPTER 1
THE RIBA PLAN OF WORK

DOI: 10.4324/9781003343769-1

The RIBA Plan of Work was first launched in 1963. It is an evolving

document which has been adopted by the majority of building industry
professionals and established clients. Most architectural practices in the UK
use it to manage the design process. The 2020 version embodies
sustainability in each of the eight work stages, as well as considering life
safety and procurement options.

The excellent guidance notes that accompany the RIBA Plan of Work clarify the
various work stages, and explain the significance of a feasibility study to help
the client define the brief. It is useful to understand the terminology of the RIBA
Plan of Work to provide context. However, the feasibility studies described in
this book are sometimes much broader in context and scope because they are
taken from real-life situations. Nevertheless, the essence of a feasibility study is
to test the viability of the client’s brief, and this is normally undertaken as part of
Stages 0, 1 and 2 of the RIBA Plan of Work.

In this chapter we will consider:

■ the structure of the RIBA Plan of Work and how it works

■ work stages relating to feasibility studies
■ the importance of defining the brief

THE STRUCTURE OF THE RIBA PLAN OF WORK

The RIBA Plan of Work breaks a project down into eight parts:

■ Stage 0: Strategic Definition

 ■ Stage 1: Preparation and Briefing
■ Stage 2: Concept Design
■ Stage 3: Spatial Coordination
■ Stage 4: Technical Design
■ Stage 5: Manufacturing and Construction
■ Stage 6: Handover
■ Stage 7: Use

The performance of the completed project at Stage 7 is reviewed in use, and this
feeds back to Stage 0 so that the lessons learned inform future projects. The
framework and terminology are important to understand, because at Stages 0 and
1 it is recommended that no design takes place until the brief is clearly defined.
Stage 2 is where the real design work happens, with the intention that the basic
layouts and massing are developed. RIBA Stage 3 proposals are a refinement of
the Stage 2 design, including consideration of materials with the integration of
structure and services to achieve a fully coordinated design prior to moving on to
a Local Planning Authority (LPA) submission and technical design, or RIBA
Stage 4.

Used in conjunction with the RIBA Job Book, this approach leads to a properly
considered proposition and helps avoid design changes and abortive work later
in the project. Unfortunately, in the real world, things seldom follow this ideal
plan, particularly on smaller projects. Sometimes clients find it difficult to
describe in the abstract what it is they want, or even the business case to which
the project must adhere. On other occasions, there is simply not time to work
from first principles, and some sort of shorthand proposition must be tested.
Often a client will come to an architect to explore a proposal, or to undertake
some sort of capacity test to establish viability relative to a business case.
Whatever the details of the commission, it is important to keep the RIBA Plan of
Work in mind and to be aware of deviations from this logical progression, to
manage the risk.

RIBA WORK STAGES RELATING TO FEASIBILITY

STUDIES

Stage 0: Strategic Definition

Strategic Definition was introduced as a new work stage in 2013, and precedes
the briefing process. It is not necessarily about practical details, but rather how
to meet the requirements. For example, a construction project may not be the
best way of achieving the client’s objectives. Stage 0 is about making the right
strategic decisions and capturing them in a viable business case. It can vary from
a quick overview to a protracted development process. Stage 0 would not
normally involve the design team unless they are needed to address specific
issues. Site surveys may be needed as well as understanding restrictions of land
ownership and the political and legislative issues. Budget will be important as
well as establishing that the client’s funds are sufficient for their aspirations.

Case Study 1 describes a church community who wanted to make better use
of their accommodation and attract more people to their city centre site.
Broad aspects of the brief were defined. The feasibility study then explored
how these aspirations could be met within a limited budget.

Stage 1: Preparation and Briefing

Stage 1 is about formulating the client’s brief and looking into the requirements
in more detail to provide the design team with objective information for the
concept design at Stage 2. It is not necessarily about design, but rather layering
the detail and requirements into the brief. The project brief should contain
guidance on project outcomes and quality aspirations as well as setting goals for
sustainability. It will include site information and other surveys to allow design
work to proceed. Normally, Stage 1 would involve only the client team unless
specialist skills are required to assess key project issues and risks. The brief may
be a developing document, employing feasibility studies to test the proposition
and look at options to demonstrate what is viable, and may be subjected to more
rigour at RIBA Stage 2. Issues such as selection of an appropriate design team,
procurement and project programme may also be considered as part of the brief,
including a responsibility matrix.

‘The architect often comes in too soon in the process when there is no
brief. On some occasions, it is helpful for a client to have an
independent collaborator to rally the organisation, break down
barriers and avoid silo thinking. As a RIBA client adviser, I provide
design thinking without being the architect.’

Ruth Butler, Ruth Butler Architects

Stage 2: Concept Design

Stage 2 is about getting the design concept right and testing the proposals against
the project brief. It is necessary to establish which tasks and strategies will
contribute to the architectural concept, and the proposals will need to align with
the site information and spatial requirements. The level of detail will vary from
project to project, and will focus on what tasks and information are required to
meet the Stage 2 outcomes. Pre-application consultations may be needed with
the Local Planning Authority (LPA), and any financial implications associated
with a submission will need to be understood. Externally, the building must meet
with the client’s vision as well as the demands of local context. The project brief
may be adjusted at Stage 2 to align with the architectural concept, and this will
also require buy-in from the client and stakeholders. Specialist consultants might
be needed, and under some procurement routes the construction team may also
be involved. The outcome of Stage 2 is for the architectural concept to be
approved by the client and aligned with the project brief.

‘Not all of our projects start off with a feasibility study, but we see
RIBA Stage 2 as a good stopping-off point and an opportunity to
 review the scope of work and the fee.’

Dave Gilkes, DK-Architects

Stage 3: Spatial Coordination

Stage 3 is typically outside the scope of a feasibility study, as by then the brief
and design concept should be agreed and frozen. The purpose of Stage 3 is to
coordinate the design before preparing detailed information for manufacturing,
at RIBA Stage 4. Building on the Stage 2 output, the information needs to be
coordinated sufficiently to avoid all but the most minor iterations. Concept
design development should not continue, as it should have been signed off at
Stage 2 along with the project brief. Any major changes will therefore need a
change control procedure to check the cost and programme implications. If a
planning application is needed, it would normally be submitted at the end of
Stage 3.

Work stage sign-off

It is recommended to prepare a client report at the end of each work stage to

record all the relevant activities during that stage for future reference. The report
also acts as a reminder of what decisions were made in relation to the design and
the project strategies, why they were made, and who was party to them. The
completion of each work stage allows the client to review the outputs and agree
that it is appropriate to move to the next stage. Time may be required to allow
the client to consider the proposals and liaise with stakeholders before moving
on to the next stage. Or it may be that design proposals are developed in parallel
with the approval process. Whatever approach is used, it is important that the
client signs off the work stage to create an audit trail, and that any outstanding
matters are dealt with to avoid having to revisit design work later. Programme,
quality and budget considerations should be defined to ensure that the
developing proposals are in line with the client’s brief.
 ‘At an early stage we provide the client with a programme that sets
out a framework for the project and allows them to see how the
project will be organised. This can be a really useful benchmark later
on.’

Kristian Molloy, CAM Architects

THE IMPORTANCE OF DEFINING THE BRIEF

The guidance notes for the RIBA Plan of Work recommend that the brief is
properly defined before any design work takes place. They also suggest that
feasibility studies are undertaken to test the viability of the client’s requirements
and the emerging project brief against specific site issues and context. Producing
a project brief in isolation can be counterproductive if it is not tested against the
constraints of a particular site, to establish that the requirements of that site be
accommodated. In the context of the RIBA Plan of Work, feasibility studies
primarily test the potential project’s fit, and are not meant to be the beginning of
the design process (which commences at Stage 2). If there are several options or
proposals at Stage 1, it is recommended that they should not be assessed or
vetted in detail except to inform the briefing process, or they risk undermining
Stage 2. Feasibility studies may also include engineering aspects such as a
search of utilities, and they should consider project risks and any issues likely to
result in abnormal costs.

Sustainability

The 2020 version of the RIBA Plan of Work incorporates sustainability at each
of the work stages. A sustainability strategy does not provide a target but acts as
a guide for the delivery of a sustainable building to meet the client’s
requirements, address climate issues and develop sustainable outcomes. The
strategy must be considered at an early stage in the project, as it may have legal
and certification requirements.

Ideally, the brief will include measurable outcomes stakeholders. The initial
stages may also consider whether a development is needed at all, since the most
sustainable option may be reusing an existing facility.

‘We need to consider financial, social and environmental issues. If

your funding is coming via eco-banks you will need to demonstrate
how are you adding value environmentally and socially.’

Flora Samuels, University of Reading

Procurement

Over half of the projects constructed in the UK follow a contractor-led

procurement route, often with some element of contractor design. Design and
build contracts are usually initiated post Stage 3, and after planning approval has
been obtained. However, this is not always the case, and some clients involve the
contractor at earlier work stages. The RIBA Plan of Work can accommodate
these different options and recommends that clients are encouraged to consider
what procurement route is best for them, because it will affect how the design
process is managed, as well as the balance between time, cost and quality.

Information format

As part of the design management process, agreement is needed about the format
for information. With larger projects, the shift from 2D computer-aided design to
3D and building information modelling (BIM) affects the early stages and has an
impact on communication and the format of site and building survey
information. Site data can now be gathered in many ways. It is important to
consider how this will be incorporated into subsequent drawing models.

SUMMARY

The RIBA Plan of Work is a useful framework and an essential tool for
managing the design process. In an ideal world, a client will carefully consider
their requirements and put together a well-considered brief prior to engaging the
architect. It is important to remember that without a brief, it is impossible to start
designing. However, in the real world this often doesn’t happen, and for many
practices the ability to listen to a client and unpick what they say to help develop
the brief is an important skill. Often, a feasibility study or option appraisal is a
good way of engaging a client and establishing what they do and do not want.
For many practices, the boundaries between Stages 1 and 2 become blurred. For
others, Stages 1 and 2 are considered as the feasibility stage of a full
commission, with a break clause before moving on to Stage 3. However the
design process is managed, the RIBA Plan of Work and work stage report sign-
off represent an important discipline to help guide the client through a project
and avoid time spent on design decisions that are later aborted.
WATCH POINTS
■ Feasibility studies can be fast-tracked and chaotic, which means the
RIBA Plan of Work is a useful guide to follow.
■ Be aware when a feasibility study is drifting into detail design and spatial
coordination, as this may not be appropriate in terms of the scope.
■ Keep a record of the client’s developing brief.
■ Use the work stage sign-off system to record the client’s agreement.

CASE STUDY 1
CHURCH REORDERING
 Sector: Ecclesiastical

Client: Church committee

Function: Improved space usage

Construction value: £400,000

BRIEF
The church wanted to make better use of its buildings and for the
accommodation to be more accessible. The brief was to allow the facilities to be
used by the wider community throughout the week for different functions,
including a crèche, performances and exhibitions. Improving the cafe was
intended to attract casual visitors to the prominent city centre site as well as
providing much-needed income.

CLIENT AND STAKEHOLDERS

The church project committee were all volunteers, and half the cost of the work
had to be raised by the church itself. Keeping the wider community on board
was important, and several ‘town hall’ meetings were held. Stakeholders such as
the crèche and cafe managers were consulted, and formal presentations were
made to the church authorities. The practice was involved in many more client
meetings than originally anticipated, and also helped with fundraising activities
by producing promotional material.

DESIGN AND PROCESS

The church asked a number of local architects to submit initial ideas and fee
proposals. The winning practice proposed linking the various functions together
by enclosing an existing courtyard. Ramped access was also provided between
the two ground-floor levels, and the remodelling included accessible toilets and
baby-changing facilities to create more user-friendly accommodation with an
enlarged cafe and crèche. The client liked the ideas, but was unsure if they could
be delivered within the budget. The architect recommended a feasibility study to
establish the broad cost of the proposals and also the likelihood of gaining
planning approval. This gave the committee the confidence to proceed.
KEY POINTS

■ A feasibility study can give the client the confidence to commit to a

project.
■ Clients have fixed budgets – providing costs at each work stage allows
discussions to take place about viability and scope.
■ Community projects tend to involve committees of laypeople, so it is
important to communicate clearly and explain the design and
procurement process.
 CHAPTER 2
THE CLIENT'S PERSPECTIVE

DOI: 10.4324/9781003343769-2

A client considering a new project is likely to have been thinking about the
proposal for a long time. They may be an expert in their own particular
field, or they may be less experienced but passionate about an idea. They
may have clear objectives but an imprecise brief.

Whatever the starting point, a sound business case is likely to be important, and
they will have approached an architect because they need help realising their
vision. However, many clients do not understand what architects do, the process
of design or the impact of different procurement routes. Cost is likely to be an
important factor – even if they do not have a fixed figure in mind, they will want
to know that they are getting value for money. Issues such as quality and
programme might not have been considered in detail, but they are inextricably
linked to the budget. An inexperienced client may be apprehensive about
approaching an architect for the first time, and unsure of how to go about
selecting the right practice or the fees involved. A feasibility study is a good way
of making a start and establishing the viability of a proposal for a limited fee
commitment.

In this chapter we will consider:

■ The client’s viewpoint, needs and prejudices

■ Different types of client and different sectors – the perspective of
experienced and less experienced clients, and the importance of the
business case
■ Balancing time, cost and quality
THE CLIENT'S VIEWPOINT

Clients and projects vary enormously. The client may be considering an

extension to their house, or a whole new building. They may be part of a
committee of people hoping to get grant funding for a new village hall, or they
may be an experienced facilities manager of an institution considering a major
project. Different types of client will have differing views on costs, risk and
budget flexibility.

In the early stages it is important for you to listen, establish what the client is
trying to achieve, and consider the right balance between time, cost and quality.
It will often be necessary to explain the services you can provide, how the design
process works and the implications of different procurement routes. A feasibility
study can be the beginning of the architect–client relationship.

DIFFERENT TYPES OF CLIENT

It is useful to consider the client’s perspective and to understand the different
sectors they operate in, as each area has its own risks and challenges.

Domestic housing

For sole practitioners and small practices, domestic or end-user clients represent
the majority of their business; many architects start their practice with such
projects. In many ways these are the most demanding clients, because the project
is their home and the outcome affects them personally.

‘They have only half the money they need, they think they can do it in
half the time, they don’t realise the planning implications ...'
 Jo Day, Langstaff Day Architects

A client who has undertaken such a project before will know the value an
architect can bring. However, less experienced clients may be apprehensive
about seeking professional advice and the fees involved. If it is the first time
they have used the services of an architect, they will not know what to expect.
There can be a mismatch between their aspirations and what is actually possible,
due either to practical issues or financial constraints. For this type of client, a
feasibility study is an ideal option. For a limited fee, you can test out their brief
and establish broadly what is possible. If viable, this can then lead to a full
commission, with further specialist advice as required for detailed design and
implementation.

Case Study 2 describes a domestic house extension where the client had
preconceived ideas about the best solution without fully appreciating the
financial implications.

‘A feasibility study provides the client with a discrete output for a set
fee, and also an exit route from the project if they do not want to
proceed. We normally formalise the output into an A3 document
covering budget, programme and local authority planning matters.
Most of our domestic projects and one-off house commissions start in
this way.’

Simon Knight, Simon Knight Architects

Larger housing schemes

Clients dealing with larger housing schemes tend to fall into two groups: public
sector and private sector. Public sector clients and housing trusts are experts who
care about quality and understand the skills an architect can bring. Architects
tend to be appointed via either a framework agreement or some other system that
demonstrates ‘best value’ based on a quality/cost assessment of the professional
service. For any specific project, a feasibility study often forms the first part of
the process in establishing a site’s potential and securing funding. For many
organisations, there is an expectation that this work will be done at risk or for a
very low fee until viability is established.

Case Study 11 describes a scheme for affordable housing where the

architect was appointed via one of the Housing Association’s design and
build contractors to assess the potential capacity of the site.

‘Most our work in public sector housing starts with a feasibility study,
and this sometimes includes helping the client to flesh out their brief,
which is an essential component. It is also important to get the client
to buy in to the vision.’

Dave Rudkin, Halsall Lloyd Partnership

Private housing developers are also usually experienced clients who know how
architects work. When considering the acquisition of a site, they will often ask
their architects to undertake a ‘capacity study’ to establish how many units or
dwellings can be accommodated there. Generally, they expect these early
capacity studies to be done at risk on the basis that they will appoint the design
team for the project if it can be shown to be financially viable. The initial
feasibility study is normally about maximising the development potential to
establish the value of the site. Remember that carrying out feasibility work for
no fee is not in accordance with best practice, and you are in danger of giving
away valuable advice. Chapter 4 discusses the importance of assessing risks and
benefits to the practice.

Private sector organisations have more flexibility to appoint the architect they
want to work with and to negotiate a fee, because they are not restricted by
public sector procurement rules. They can sometimes be very loyal to a practice
with which they have a successful relationship. Private sector clients will often
undertake their own cost analysis, and it is important to understand their attitude
to risk and sometimes be prepared to share in that risk at the feasibility study
stage.

Public sector

Client organisations in the public sector, such as education and health institutions
and local authorities, tend to be experts in procuring architects’ services and
appreciate the different skills an architect can bring to a project. They are bound
by procurement rules in terms of demonstration of ‘best value’. Selection of the
architect may include pre-qualification questionnaires and formal assessments
with a scoring system that can be proscriptive, based on cost and quality of
service. Often the person dealing with the appointment will be a building
industry professional in their own right, procuring services on behalf of the end
user or stakeholders. Sometimes architects are appointed via a framework for a
period of years, and feasibility studies form part of the agreement. For smaller-
scale feasibility studies, firms may be appointed without going through this
process. Either way, the architect is providing expert independent advice, often
supported by other consultants, and is normally reimbursed for time spent.

Projects in the public sector tend to be larger and more complex, and often use
feasibility studies to demonstrate a need or to establish the business case. The
organisation providing the finances may be different from the commissioning
body, and the feasibility study can be used to make a case for funding. Final
decisions may be referred to a board or committee of elected members. Public
sector clients generally understand the importance of a clear brief. The feasibility
study is seen as a stepping stone in this process.

Case Study 6 describes a joint emergency services facility that did not move
forward because, although the project was shown to be viable, it failed to
secure the approval of the elected members of the local authority.

The public sector tends to be risk averse with multiple stakeholders, and the
architect is sometimes expected to manage the process of engagement with
consultees. It is important for the client to have an audit trail of the decisions
made and to be able to demonstrate best value. It is easy to underestimate the
amount of time needed, and it is important to get client sign-off on the final
proposals to conclude the study.

Sometimes the client requires a fixed fee, rather than an hourly rate, which can
be difficult for you to manage if the scope of the commission is developing and
changing. Ideally, the feasibility study will be the first stage of a full
commission, but procurement rules do not always allow this and sometimes a
further fee bid is required once the viability of the project is secured.

‘Public sector procurement is much more proscriptive than in the

private sector. Frameworks and fee bids are the norm, with a declared
percentage for Stages 1 and 2. Generally, private sector developers
do not expect to pay for feasibility studies but can then be loyal when
a job goes ahead.’

Dave Gilkes, DK-Architects

Charity/Community/Heritage

The charity and community sectors include sports clubs, churches, larger
institutions and visitor attractions, as well as local groups applying for grant
funding. Established religious organisations and larger institutions can be well
organised, but many clients in this sector are not. The project committee may
have been recently formed by inexperienced laypeople to act as the client.

Church and heritage projects tend to follow a set procedure, and these clients
look to their consultants to have specialist knowledge, both in terms of
conservation and also the process of applying for funds. The client steering
committee may include some inexperienced members, but the system generally
allows the architect to keep things on an even keel. Sometimes the client will be
involved in fundraising, and lay members will be giving their time freely. Such
organisations expect you to support the cause and sometimes go well beyond
what might normally be expected in terms of a professional service. There may
be multiple stages of funding/grant applications required, with protracted
gestation periods.

‘Ecclesiastical work tends to be either fabric repair or reordering. All

our commissions start with a feasibility study, including a conditions
survey or heritage assessment. Some churches have their own money
or land to sell. Projects are not “real” until they get funding, and not
all bids succeed!’

Mark Pearce, Kepczyk Pearce Sanderson Architects

Community projects range from a new village hall to improved community

sports facilities, for which bids might be made to Sport England or the Lottery
Fund. The feasibility study is seen as a way of unlocking the funding, but there
might be aspects of the business case that will be outside your level of expertise
or control. It may be the first time a particular community has undertaken a
project, and often the client committee steering such projects can be unwieldy,
without a clear hierarchy or control – they might even look to you to help chair
meetings. Such groups can also have unrealistic expectations of what is possible
and what outputs are reasonable to expect from you as part of a feasibility study.
Funds are limited, and the initial grant submission may be to help with the
professional fees involved in preparing a bid. Community groups may not
understand what an architect does in detail, the process of briefing or design, or
how procurement works, and it will be for you to explain these things. There can
sometimes be an expectation that the initial work is given at no cost to the client.
Again, this is not in accordance with best practice; the extent to which this is
sensible will depend on your relationship with the local community or cause.
Understanding the scope of service, the amount of time required and the risk
involved is important, particularly if there are complex funding applications.

‘We do not necessarily expect to make any money on feasibility

studies, but they are interesting to do and a way of giving something
back if it is a community project, as well as sometimes having
marketing potential.’

Dave Gilkes, DK-Architects

Case Study 3 describes a community group pursuing grant funding for a

new village hall, where the architect went well beyond what might be
expected in terms of a ‘normal’ professional service in order to support the
client.

Commercial

The commercial sector includes clients who have their own business, work in
manufacturing or sales, or are running an office. They understand how their own
business operates, and may assume that their expertise is directly transferrable to
project matters. They generally know what they want but need help in achieving
it. As businesspeople they understand the principle of service provision and the
role of an expert. They tend to be busy, want to minimise the amount of time
spent on the project and expect a high level of professional service. The day-to-
day client liaison contact may not be the same as the person making the final
decisions, as there might be a board of directors or partners involved.
Commercial clients understand the importance of the business case, and often
see the feasibility study as a way of testing the viability of the brief. Multiple
options and sites may be involved.

Clients in the commercial sector might be able to make decisions about your
appointment without going through a proscriptive process. They appreciate that
your practice is a business and may be more inclined to negotiate a fee if they
are comfortable with the service offered. It is important to be clear about the
scope and outputs of the feasibility study to avoid misunderstandings and to
ensure it supports the business case with an appropriate assessment of risk.

Developer

Developers are interested in providing a good financial return for their investors.
They may be local builders developing a small residential scheme, or a large
company undertaking a multi-million-pound project. Funding may be coming
from a separate source, and justification of the business case is needed. A project
usually starts with a site acquisition, and some sort of feasibility study will be
needed to justify the potential. The developer will often require this capacity test
to be undertaken at risk on the basis that you will be commissioned if the project
goes ahead. Since there may be many companies bidding for the same site, there
are no guarantees for the practice. Developers know the value an experienced
architect can bring to the project, and can be very loyal to a practice with which
they have established a rapport. For a larger company, the client liaison contact
may be a qualified professional in their own right.

‘We have found developer clients to be quite loyal to our practice

because we have provided objective advice in the past, even though
some of the schemes did not proceed.’

Simon Knight, Simon Knight Architects

Smaller developers may have a background as a builder or surveyor, and their

organisational skills can vary. They know they need help with the essentials such
as planning permission and regulatory issues, but there are many other things
that can crop up, such as boundary conditions, infrastructure and services. What
might start out as a relatively straightforward commission can quickly become
more complicated. Assessment of a site’s potential is an important part of your
contribution, and there is often an expectation that this should be done at risk.
The developer client will often deal with the cost-estimating side of things
themselves, and they will be familiar with assessment of risk.

Case Study 10 describes a site acquisition scenario where the architect was
asked to work at risk until the site’s viability was demonstrated.

‘Undertaking feasibility studies at risk is a way of life in the

commercial sector and an important source of work for us. Sometimes
we are invited to advise more than one client bidding for the same
site. We have a small designated team, but we need to be mindful of
our success rate.’

Adam Hall, Falconer Chester Hall

Contractor

Over 50% of construction projects in the UK are contractor-led, often using

some sort of design and build procurement route. Normally design and build
contractors are employed post Stage 3, after planning approval has been secured,
but this is not always the case. Some clients contact a design and build
contractor to ask their advice about a project or to get an idea of viability and
cost at an early stage. Contractors tend not to have in-house design expertise and
so turn to an architectural practice for assistance and to provide sufficient detail
to allow them to price the work. Contractors are experienced at using
subcontractors, but their requirements in terms of the level of professional
service they require vary enormously.

Larger public procurement projects invite design and build contractor teams to
submit proposals via a ‘mini competition’. Sometimes the brief is clearly
defined, but this is not always the case; a considerable amount of design input
may be needed, verging on Stage 2. With some organisations, there is an
expectation that this work should be carried out at risk. This is not in accordance
with best practice; however, where a firm is on a framework, there may be an
expectation that the commissions secured will make up for abortive time spent
on unsuccessful bids.

BALANCING TIME, COST AND QUALITY

For these differing client groups and sectors, a feasibility study represents a way
of testing the brief and balancing the most appropriate solution against the cost
and the quality required. Budget may be critical to the client, and it is important
that there is a clear understanding of the level of accuracy of any figures you
provide, so that they are in line with the client’s own attitude to risk. Quality can
be difficult for a client to define and can sometimes be discussed by reference to
other schemes, or similar projects. Clients may have explored the business case
for the project but not necessarily the operational or whole-life costs, and
considering the environmental impact is becoming increasingly important. All
clients would like their project

‘Feasibility studies can be used as a way to educate the client,

synthetic thinking, bringing all sorts of things together.’

Ian Ritchie, Ritchie Studio

completed as soon as possible, but there are often practical considerations of

what constitutes a sensible programme. Developing the brief and strategy in a
measured way can save time later in the design process and avoid abortive work.

SUMMARY
Clients’ perspectives on projects vary enormously depending on their level of
experience and the sector they are working in. They may be apprehensive about
appointing an architect and the fees involved. A feasibility study provides a
discrete output for a defined fee, which then allows the client to proceed with
more confidence having established the viability of the proposal. It can also be a
stepping stone, unlocking funding and allowing a client to move to the next
stage.

WATCH POINTS
■ Explain the benefits of a feasibility study to help define the brief.
■ Be clear about how your fees are calculated and the scope of the
study.
■ Be prepared to explain the design and procurement process.
■ Different sectors have differing requirements in terms of service and
fee.
■ Community/charity groups sometimes need help with non-
architectural things, and this takes time.

CASE STUDY 2
HOUSE EXTENSION
Sector: Domestic

Client: Owner end user

Function: Additional living accommodation

Construction value: £60,000

BRIEF

The client wanted to add a fourth bedroom with ensuite bathroom as well as
creating a larger kitchen and living room, to cope with their expanding family
and to avoid having to move house. The budget was poorly defined and was
based on the neighbours’ recently completed two-storey self-build extension.

CLIENT AND STAKEHOLDERS

The owner end user had preconceived ideas, and wanted to create a two-storey
extension to the side of the house in a similar manner to their neighbours. They
‘just wanted someone to draw up a scheme’. The architect was concerned about
the likely cost in relation to the client’s optimistic budget, and recommended a
feasibility study to establish the cost of the two-storey extension as well as
looking at possible alternative solutions. The brief was discussed in more detail
to establish what the family actually needed in the short and longer term.
DESIGN AND PROCESS
The cost of the two-storey extension (option 1) was substantially over the
client’s budget, and also provided more accommodation than was actually
needed. An alternative solution (option 2) explored converting the loft to provide
a fourth bedroom with ensuite shower room. A single-storey extension to the
rear provided a new living room and increased the size of the kitchen. Cost-per-
square-metre rates were used for budget purposes with the appropriate caveats.
Following the feasibility study, the architect was appointed just to obtain
planning approval and then the client negotiated with a local builder. The project
was implemented in two phases to suit the client’s finances.

KEY POINTS
■ Inexperienced clients can sometimes have unrealistic expectations.
■ A feasibility study can establish the viability of a client’s idea for a
 limited financial outlay in fees, and will avoid will abortive work later.
■ A project that can be implemented in phases can help where cash flow is
an issue.
 Chapter 3
Selling the Service – The Architect’s View

DOI: 10.4324/9781003343769-3

Feasibility studies can be a great source of work as the precursor to a main

commission. Whether the study is seen as the early work stages or as a
separate commission, there are many advantages to approaching a project
in this way.

‘We see feasibility studies as an essential precursor to the main

commission.’

Mark Pearce, Kepczyk Pearce Sanderson Architects

It is unusual for a client to provide a fully worked-up brief at the outset, so the
first period of most projects is generally spent finding out what the client wants
and explaining how architects go about their business. Even when working for
repeat-order, experienced clients, it is sometimes difficult to gauge the full scope
and complexity at the beginning of a project and calculate an appropriate fee. A
feasibility study provides an opportunity for the architect to familiarise
themselves with the project and client, to help define the brief and to resolve any
major viability issues. For some practices, a self-contained feasibility study
commission is common. For others, it is a necessary step to securing a
commission by carrying out some sort of capacity test at risk. Whatever the
circumstances of the commission, understanding the scope of service is
important, so that the practice does not commit more staff resources than is
appropriate.

In this chapter we will consider:

 ■ The benefits of a feasibility study as a precursor to a main project
■ Defining the service and scope for a full commission
■ Adding value to the project and reflecting this in the fee
■ Defining the brief and procurement strategy – the impact of the proposed
procurement route

‘Feasibility studies vary from scheme to scheme depending on use and

complexity. They centre around the client needs and the knowledge
that we can bring with our expertise. The benefit to us getting
involved at the early stage of the project is, even if the project doesn’t
go ahead, the intelligence we have gained can be useful in the future.’

Chithra Marsh, Buttress Architects

The benefits of a feasibility study

The previous chapter discussed the benefits to the client of commissioning a

feasibility study, but there are also many advantages for the architect. This is an
area where architects are using their design and problem-solving skills. Their
ability to assess a site and help a client define the brief is unique among building
industry professionals, and it is therefore appropriate to charge accordingly for
these high-level skills.

‘My clients like to employ someone who can think sideways; if a client
wants to hire my brain, they can pay for it.’

Ian Ritchie, Ritchie Studio

A practice working in the domestic sector will sometimes find clients with
unrealistic plans, or what appear to be non-viable ideas. Taking on a full
commission when the outcome is uncertain carries with it a high degree of risk –
for the architect in assessing the fee, but also for the client in terms of an
outcome. Recommending a limited feasibility study for a relatively low fee
allows the viability to be assessed as well as putting more definition into the
scope of the project. Some practices engaged for a full commission refer to the
early work stages as ‘Feasibility’, and make clear to the client that the fee will be
reviewed at the end of Stage 2, when the scope and complexity of the scheme is
established.

For educational clients a feasibility study might allow the institution to bid for
funds. Helping a governing body to show it has assessed the issues in a
professional way can enable it to fast-track the submission, by showing that the
school is ready to start promptly and has assessed the risks. This could put it
ahead of its competitors in the bidding framework. Meanwhile commercial
clients may have a clear strategy on their operational needs but be unsure how to
meet them. A feasibility study is a way for these clients to assess their options
and establish whether a new building is indeed the best solution.

Case Study 9 describes a school that was able to use the output from the
feasibility study to make a successful bid for funding new facilities.

Defining the service and scope

From the architect’s perspective, every project tends to be a prototype and no

two commissions are the same. The feasibility study is an opportunity to define
scope and brief more clearly, providing a better foundation for the full-
commission professional service and fee proposal. The traditional system of
using a set percentage fee for a particular value or type of work is a rather
simplistic way of calculating a fee, and makes no link between the work required
and the revenue to be received. A more objective assessment of the staff
resources needed to carry out a project means that the architect has defined the
amount of work involved. Over 30% of all commissions in the UK are for Stages
1 to 3 only, and other types of partial service are common. In these
circumstances it can be difficult to apply a percentage, and a more objective
assessment of the work involved is needed.

Case Study 4 describes a feasibility study to support a funding bid for a

rowing club’s new facilities. The developing brief and assessment of
complex site constraints meant that much more time was spent than had
been estimated. The architect successfully renegotiated their lump sum fee
because they had set out the scope clearly at the outset.

In terms of budget, some clients, even larger institutions, approach a project

rather optimistically – either because they are inexperienced, or for political
reasons. This means that the construction budget stated at the outset may be
much lower than the real cost of the project. At an early stage, architects
sometimes commit to a fixed fee based on the client’s initial budget, which can
cause difficulties later as the project budget increases. A feasibility study allows
the budget to be defined in a professional way, enabling the architect to be aware
of the cost of the project before committing to a fee.

‘When dealing with feasibility studies we tend to be explicit about the

output, how many client meetings, when the meetings will take place
and how many variants are going to be investigated. It’s important to
know how many options are going to be done (not hundreds!) to agree
the scope of work in principle and clarify the outputs.’

Helen Roberts, Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios

Projects can sometimes have a protracted gestation period, particularly when

funding is coming from an external source, or where a grant application is
involved. In general, a longer project programme tends to mean more staff
resources are expended. The feasibility study defines how the project is likely to
be organised, allowing for a better assessment of the fee and how it will be
resourced in the office. Major departures from the programme with resource
implications can be discussed with the client, using the feasibility study fee
proposal as a benchmark.

‘The feasibility study output provides a benchmark for the brief and a
firm foundation for the ongoing fee and professional service
negotiations. Beware of clients dangling carrots of future work unless
you know them well! There is always a risk that the project(s) may not
go ahead.’

Kristian Molloy, CAM Architects

Architectural practice is all about people, and a feasibility study is an

opportunity to get to know the client and how they operate. It might be that the
chemistry just isn’t working, and it is better for you to find this out as part of a
limited commission rather than when locked into a lengthy relationship.

Adding value to the project

When carrying out a feasibility study you are using your unique analysis and
problem-solving skills. Experienced practitioners tend to be good listeners, and
the ability to interpret what is being described, then feed this back to the client in
order to develop the brief is a key skill. For a relatively low outlay in fees for the
client, the architect can add value to the project by seeing opportunities and
establishing viability. In these circumstances there may be an opportunity to set a
charge-out rate that reflects the value of the advice being offered, especially if it
is in a specialised field such as heritage.

‘Architects should get properly paid for this most valuable work of
flushing out the brief and the project parameters, since this allows the
 client to make decisions at the right point and at the right time.’

Jo Day, Langstaff Day Architects

For a domestic project, there is an opportunity to add to the property’s value,

adopting a strategy which can then be developed in detail at the later work
stages. The output from the feasibility study puts the project on a sound footing
and should help to avoid abortive work later, as well as identifying the key issues
and risks. It may be that the project is non-viable, but if so it is better to discover
this at an early stage. It is important to ensure that the fee charged for the
feasibility work is sufficient in its own right. Some domestic clients may choose
to take the sketches you have prepared and then negotiate with a local contractor,
requiring no further service from you.

Case Study 8 describes a new-build house on a sloping site, where the

retaining wall costs were very high. An alternative procurement strategy
was adopted, making the project financially viable.

Defining the brief and procurement strategy

The guidance notes for the RIBA Plan of Work refer to a feasibility study as a
way of testing the client’s brief. This is a process which may continue through to
Stages 2 and 3 as detailed issues are explored and tested. Procurement can have
a big impact on programme, and considering this at an early stage will also help
to establish the client’s aspirations in terms of cost and quality. Many projects,
initially commissioned on the basis of traditional procurement, become
contractor-led post Stage 3, causing issues for the architect in terms of
appointment and fees. These are difficult decisions for a client, particularly if
they are inexperienced. A discussion about the pros and cons of different
procurement routes in the early stages of a project can be extremely helpful,
enabling you to explain the benefits of a traditional procurement route to allow
the client to maintain quality control. A simple project programme created as
part of a feasibility study can allow the client to understand the process, and any
delays or problems later can be seen within a broader context.

‘A recent commission involved replacement of a large hotel after a

fire destroyed the building. There was enormous pressure to proceed
with all haste; however, we prepared a simple Gantt chart to allow the
client to understand the project programme. The client later said that
this document saved them time in the long run and allowed them to
appreciate the critical path, since they did not fully understand the
design or procurement process.’

Kristian Molloy, CAM architects

Summary
A feasibility study has many advantages for the architect as a way to start a
project. Whether it forms a standalone commission, or Stages 1 and 2 with a
break clause, defining the client’s brief and how the project is to be organised
can pay dividends in the long term. Using the output from the feasibility study as
the basis of the fee and professional services proposal for the main commission
provides transparency, making it easier to negotiate with the client. A feasibility
study provides an opportunity to use high-level skills, sometimes as a result of
years of experience, and this can be reflected in the charge-out rate. For a project
where there is an expectation that the initial work is done at risk, it will be for
you to decide the time investment that is appropriate and the level of risk you are
prepared to take. If the practice is in the housing or commercial sectors this may
be the way of doing business, and experienced firms will assess the risks and
benefits. The feasibility study can also provide an opportunity to get into new
sectors and promote the work of the practice. Finally, taking the initiative and
bringing a proposal to a client puts the practice in a much stronger position to
negotiate an appropriate fee.

‘The best scenario is when the architect brings the site and proposal
to the developer, then that puts you in the driving seat!’

Adam Hall, Falconer Chester Hall

Watch points
■ A feasibility study provides an opportunity for you to get to know
the client.
■ Your charge-out rate should reflect the value of the advice given.
■ The feasibility study is a way of you helping a less experienced
client with limited funds establish the viability and scope of a
project.
■ Stage 2 can provide a useful stopping-off point to review your fee
and scope of work.

Case Study 3
Community Hall
Sector: Community

Client: Community project group

Function: Multipurpose assembly hall

Construction value: £2 million

Brief

An active village community with a small, rundown hall needed accommodation

better suited to its growing needs, while also providing improved accessibility.
Initially the client assumed the existing hall would be refurbished and extended.

Client and stakeholders

The village hall had a management committee consisting of volunteers who put
the initial brief together and formed a project group. There were many important
stakeholders, including a crèche and sports and activity groups, each of which
needed to be consulted. The wider village community and the adjacent school
were also important stakeholders. Many sources of funds were explored, each
with their own requirements in terms of KPIs.
Design and process
The architect helped to develop the brief to support the application for grant
funding. A conditions survey showed the old hall to be in poor condition, and
that a new hall was a better solution. Lottery and other sources of funding were
sought in two tranches – the first to assist with the feasibility study, and the
second to provide a detailed proposal and evidence of viability via a business
plan.

Engagement with the stakeholders and user groups enabled the brief to be
developed in terms of function and accessibility. Siting the hall in a new location
allowed the old hall to be used throughout the procurement process, with
demolition taking place once the new hall was completed. A massive amount of
time and effort was involved in supporting the grant applications.

Key points
■ A professionally prepared report, including a business plan, will give the
 client credibility when applying for grant funding.
■ Expect to get involved in non-architectural issues when working on a
community project.
■ Engaging directly with the stakeholders and user groups allows a better
understanding of their practical needs.
 CHAPTER 4
FEES AND APPOINTMENT

DOI: 10.4324/9781003343769-4

Calculating the fee and setting out a professional services contract is

challenging when dealing with a feasibility study because the brief tends to
be fluid and may be poorly defined. Ideally you would work on a time-
charge basis for this type of commission, using an hourly charge-out rate
that reflects the level of expertise required. Sometimes clients are
uncomfortable with this rather open-ended method of charging and require
an indication of the likely total fee. In order to do this, it is necessary to set
out the task and the outputs required of the study.

Given the way in which feasibility studies tend to evolve, it is then sensible to
keep the client updated regularly about how your time is being spent, with early
warnings when the fee is being exceeded. Where the feasibility study is
undertaken at risk, and departing from best practice, it is still important to
consider the resources needed and whether this investment is appropriate in
terms of the risk and the potential opportunity of a commission for the practice.

In this chapter we will consider:

■ Defining the scope of service

■ The fee and professional services proposal
■ Methods of charging
■ Monitoring and invoicing – keeping the client informed
■ Subconsultants and surveys
■ Transition to a full commission

DEFINING THE SCOPE OF SERVICE

Chapter 2 reviewed different sectors and how they affect clients’ requirements. A
feasibility study is an opportunity for you to give independent and impartial
advice in relation to these requirements. Important decisions may be based on
the outcome of the study, and the expert advice you give may be based on many
years of experience. It is therefore reasonable to charge at an appropriate rate for
the services you provide. Even if you are familiar with a particular client or
sector, no two projects are ever alike; site-specific issues present differing
challenges. For this reason, it is difficult to predict how a feasibility study will
work out, and the amount of time needed to address all the relevant issues. This
can make it difficult to define the scope, and the associated fee. Sometimes the
client will ask you to share in the risk at the early stages on the understanding
that if the project goes ahead your practice will be appointed. However, the
financial gains associated with the project may be far greater for the client than
for the architect, and there will be practical limits to this arrangement. There will
also be an expectation that you will provide professional and impartial advice.
Working at risk can put pressure on the architect to argue that a particular
proposition is viable, to sell the scheme.

level of fee we charge is as much to do with our relationship with the

client, whether existing or new, as the scope of work. We always make
it clear when we are doing work at risk that an agreement should be
in place on the level of risk we are willing to take from the outset and
if we are able to recoup that fee during the main commission if the
project goes ahead. This is an easier conversation to be had with a
client that we are already working with and is treated with caution
with new clients, depending on circumstances.’

Chithra Marsh, Buttress Architects

Historically, architects have provided a full professional service to a client from

inception to completion using a traditional procurement route with a fee based
on a percentage of the construction costs. More recently, fees have been
calculated on a resource basis by assessing the professional service and outputs
required. This change is partly as a result of architects providing a partial service
covering just some of the work stages. Clients also use different procurement
routes, including contractor-led design and build projects. A feasibility study will
tend to cover work stages up to Stage 2, but the scope of work is often poorly
defined at the feasibility stage and the level of professional service required is
difficult to predict. In these circumstances the best method of charging is to be
reimbursed based on the number of hours spent. This may mean providing
updates on how time is spent every month or every week, so that the client can
see what they are getting for their money and ask you to stop if they want to
review what is happening. Sometimes the client needs some idea of their likely
financial commitment and will request a lump sum fee.

Whatever method of charging is chosen, it is important to record your

assumptions of what the brief consists of and what you are being asked to do.
Depending on the scale of the project, this might be shared with the client in an
email or a more formal communication. Where you have several repeat projects
of a similar type, such as one-off houses, a proforma might be appropriate to
record these details.

Case Study 2 describes a straightforward domestic house extension. The

practice dealt with many projects of this type and had a standard way of
setting out their fee and service proposal as well as a client questionnaire to
help define the brief.

‘The feasibility study defines the scope and then allows us to put
forward a firm fee; this can be difficult otherwise, especially when
dealing with an existing building. When we receive an enquiry from a
domestic client, we give a 30-minute Zoom consultation free, but then
charge £100 if the client wants us to meet them on site.’

Luke Butcher, Butcher Bayley Architects

THE FEE AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
PROPOSAL
The professional services proposal should cover the key aspects of the project
and what you are being asked to do as part of the commission. Even if the brief
is vague to start with, it is important to record your understanding of the project
and the professional service you could provide. Include the client’s budget, even
if this is not yet finalised, as this is a good indicator of the scale of project. The
programme should be also recorded, both for the feasibility study itself, and also
for the client’s expectation of when the project will be completed. Stating the
scope of service and outputs required is important to avoid misunderstandings
later – for example, ‘one hand-drawn plan’, ‘two simple SketchUp-type 3D
images’, etc. If cost advice is included, the level of accuracy and format for
budget estimates should be explained. It is particularly important to clarify the
basis on which you will be assessing the viability of the proposal from a Local
Planning Authority (LPA) perspective, and whether any pre-application
discussions are likely to take place. There may be local authority fees involved,
and the status of any feedback received from the planning officer needs to be
explained.

The professional services proposal provides a basis to estimate the commitment

required to deliver feasibility study in terms of the person-days. Based on the
relevant charge-out rates, you can then estimate the cost to the office and the fee
for the client. If the study is to be delivered over a period of months it will be
necessary to identify the invoicing points and your terms of payment. You may
ask for an advance payment; many practices, large and small, do this with when
dealing with a new client. If the client requires a lump sum fee, it will be
important to state your assumptions and how you have calculated the fee. The
lump sum fee should be seen as a ‘fee ceiling’, and you should advise the client
if you are approaching it so they understand if you are about to stop work, or
need to agree an additional fee to carry on.
 ‘Putting a proposal together for a feasibility study at FCBS, we use
our “resource rates spreadsheet” to work out the resources in order
to establish the fee, but we then may take a view on the actual fee
depending on circumstances and the client in order to secure the
project.’

Helen Roberts, Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios

Client care letter

RIBA provides templates for client care letters, which are a less formal version
of the professional services contract. Although this document can seem a little
unwieldy for a small project, it does provide a useful checklist, such as whether
other consultants are needed (structural or cost consultants, for example), where
site information is coming from and the basis of the fee calculation.

METHODS OF CHARGING
The most sensible arrangement is to invoice the client monthly for the work
done on an hourly basis using the appropriate charge-out rate. If there is more
than one member of staff working on the project it may be necessary to state the
rates for different levels of seniority. It is also important to clarify if you are
going to charge for travelling expenses, and if there will be any other out-of-
pocket costs such as Ordnance Survey maps or other surveys.

Clients sometimes ask the architect to carry out the initial feasibility work at risk
on the basis that they will get the job if the project is viable. Sharing the risk or
an incentive fee is the norm with some clients. Even in these sectors,
experienced architects are wary when dealing with a new client and may
research their credentials and track record.
Case Study 11 describes a project for affordable housing where the architect
worked at risk until the viability became more certain.

‘We will always check out a new client via Companies House, the
internet and the grapevine. If they are not prepared to pay for an
Ordnance Survey plan, it’s not a good sign!’

Dave Rudkin, Halsall Lloyd Partnership

Where the client is a charity or community group, it’s up to you how far you go
if asked to undertake work for no fee. Bids for grant funding can be time-
consuming and need to be rigorous to justify the business case, even to get past
the first stage.

Where a lump sum or fixed fee is quoted, the scope of the commission will need
to be clearly stated with caveats to avoid the practice having unlimited liability
in terms of the resources needed to complete the study to the client’s satisfaction.
It is much better to think in terms of a fee ceiling, and then advise the client if it
seems the fee is to likely to be exceeded.

‘We do not do concept designs for free; sometimes they are done at
cost in order to initiate the project, but they are fun.’

Mark Pearce, Kepczyk Pearce Sanderson Architects

MONITORING AND INVOICING

The benefit of preparing a schedule of tasks as part of the fee proposal is that this
document or programme can be used to monitor how the project is progressing
in terms of use of resources, so you know when to advise the client if resources
are expended. Sharing the detailed fee build-up with the client will allow this
document to be used as a datum if there is a need to discuss additional fees. The
problem of spending too much time on a feasibility study is not restricted to
small practices. Some large and prestigious firms admit to committing far too
much time to speculative ventures, driven by their enthusiasm to make the
project work. Of course, it is for you to decide the right strategy, but it is best to
be armed with the right information to make this decision. Invoicing on a regular
basis is a good discipline to follow. Monthly is the norm, in some cases weekly.
Beware of outstanding payments: clients may not appreciate the ‘independent
and impartial advice’ they receive if it means a proposition is not viable.

‘If the project moves forward slowly and the design development
becomes protracted, this can gobble up resources. Sometimes it’s
difficult to make a fuss if it’s a long-established client!’

Helen Roberts, Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios

SUBCONSULTANTS AND SURVEYS

Even the most modest feasibility study will need some sort of site plan or
existing building survey. Practices vary in their approach to this, with the
majority outsourcing the work to another survey company or requesting that
drawings be provided by the client. The survey can represent a significant
proportion of the feasibility fee on a small project, and this can be an issue for
the client. Ground conditions or other substructure and services assessments can
also have major cost implications and may need expert advice to interpret. For
the client, it is often easier to request that the firms offering these services are
appointed as subconsultants to the architectural practice. There are many
downsides to this arrangement, however, including increased liability and issues
of payment should the client be slow to pay, or even default. Where possible, it
is always best to get the client to deal with these appointments directly.

Case Study 8 describes a project where the client refused to commission a

topographical survey, insisting that the layout was based on Ordnance
Survey data. Unfortunately, lack of detail resulted in a boundary dispute
later in the project.

TRANSITION TO A FULL COMMISSION

Chapter 11 discusses in detail how to manage the transition from feasibility
study to full commission. Some practices, engaged on the basis of a full-service
commission, refer to Stages 1 and 2 as ‘Feasibility’, with a watershed prior to
moving to Stage 3. This provides them with an opportunity to review the project
scope, and the effect on the fee if it has changed.

‘We resist giving any advice for no fee; we are interested in building
architecture, real projects for real clients. Even with a full
commission, we tend to review our fee and service proposal at the end
of Stage 2 when the brief and scope are clearer.’

Ian Ritchie, Ritchie Studio

Even if the feasibility study is a standalone commission it is worth considering

your strategy if the project goes ahead, and the status of the work completed to
date. Chapter 3 discussed public procurement rules that might require the
ongoing commission to be the subject of a fee bid. Or, in the case of a
commercial client, they may sell the land to a new developer who wishes to
employ their own architect.

Case Study 10 describes a speculative project where the architect agreed to

work at cost to obtain planning permission. The client then sold the site to a
developer, who decided to employ a new designer. The original architect
failed to recoup the investment they had made.

SUMMARY

Feasibility studies tend to be unpredictable and often develop in ways that could
not have been foreseen. Sometimes a client with a clearly stated brief and budget
will take on board a ‘blue sky thinking’ proposal by the architect, and somehow
finds the extra money! On other occasions the architect may be expected to
consider multiple options, which will take extra time for the practice to explore.
While it is good to see the project develop in a positive direction and to exceed
client expectations, it is also important for the practice to have a datum and to
keep a check on how their time is being spent.

It is easy to start on a project without any sort of contract or exchange of emails.

This happens in both large and small practices when they are keen to get going
with the commission. However, this is not sensible, and it is also in breach of
Architects Registration Board (ARB) codes. Even if the work is being carried
out at risk, it is important to set out the basis on which you are working.

WATCH POINTS
■ Always record the scope, brief and budget, even if these are not well
defined at the outset.
■ Consider the level of expertise employed, the value to the client and
the risks involved for you, and reflect this in your charge-out rate.
■ Have some sort of agreement in place before you start work.
■ Keep the client updated regularly on progress and fees.
■ When working speculatively (for no fee), weigh up the client, the
risks and the potential benefits to the practice.
 CASE STUDY 4
ROWING CENTRE
Sector: Sports and leisure

Client: Community group

Function: Rowing club and boat store

Construction value: £2 million

BRIEF

A rowing club wanted a new boat house located on a site it owned that had a
small timber boat store in poor condition. It hoped to attract funding from Sport
England.
CLIENT AND STAKEHOLDERS

The club contacted the architect asking for ‘just a few sketches’ to support its bid
for funding. A lump sum fee was agreed, but it quickly became apparent that
justification would be needed for the application, with assurances that planning
approval could be obtained. The architect’s brief was expanded to include a pre-
application meeting with the local authority and preparation of outline proposals.

DESIGN AND PROCESS

The club wanted the new facility to be fully accessible, with showers and toilets
as well as a club room in order to attract a broader spectrum of the community. A
considerable number of meetings were needed to establish the brief, and the
commission increased from Stage 2 to 3 with a full planning application in order
to demonstrate viability. Numerous specialists were required to support the
application, including flood risk, ecology, arboricultural, highways and heritage.
While the client agreed to the increased fees, they insisted that the other firms
were appointed as subconsultants. The fee and service proposal had to be
updated three times.

KEY POINTS

■ Set out the service you are going to provide at the outset as well as your
understanding of the brief, even if it is not well defined.
■ Keep the client informed if the scope increases, and make clear the
implications for professional fees. Beware of drifting from a feasibility
study to Stage 3.
■ Advise the client where surveys or specialist consultants are required. Be
clear about the limits of your expertise.
 CHAPTER 5
MANAGING THE PROCESS

DOI: 10.4324/9781003343769-5

Feasibility studies can be very fluid and unpredictable, and setting out a
plan helps to keep the project on track. Developing a project programme,
setting boundaries and agreeing outputs are all essential. Whether you are
dealing with a large organisation or an inexperienced domestic client, it is
important to manage the process and the client. This will ensure that the
project moves forward smoothly, and should also avoid you wasting your
time with abortive work.

In this chapter we will consider:

■ Organising the feasibility study relative to the RIBA Plan of Work

■ The project programme as a way to help a client understand the process
■ The importance of setting limits to the study and agreeing outputs

ORGANISING THE FEASIBILITY STUDY

If you have been working in practice for some time and tend to work in certain
sectors, you will probably have a set routine for organising and formatting a
feasibility study. But for less experienced architects, or those entering new
sectors, there are many pitfalls and challenges. It is easy for a client to
misunderstand the purpose and deliverables of the study. The feasibility study
might be a capacity study to establish how many residential units will fit on a
site, or it might be a bid for grant funding for a new village hall, or to see
whether an extension is feasible to the rear of a residential property. Each of
these commissions will have different requirements in terms of scope and output.
The RIBA Plan of Work, with its three stages of Strategic Definition, Preparation
and Briefing, and Concept Design, is useful to underpin the design process. It is
sometimes necessary to explain the terminology used, the design process and the
impact of different procurement routes so that the client understands the
overarching structure of the commission. Getting buy-in from the client to the
way the project is to be managed is important.

‘We find there are different requirements for different types of

commission – large sites tend to be capacity studies and smaller sites
are more dependent on planning or permitted development.’

Ian Bramwell, Mole Architects

THE PROJECT PROGRAMME

Chapter 4 discussed the key areas to consider when putting together a
professional services proposal. Ideally, a project programme will have been
prepared that notes the client deadlines and sets out key tasks to be undertaken.
This programme will provide a framework within which to work – not just for
the architect, but also for the client and other stakeholders. Clients are often busy
people, and sometimes struggle to make time for the meetings and other tasks
associated with a project. Agreeing key dates in advance, what information is
needed and what decisions are required by when allows the client to consider
what pace is practical, and for the programme to be adjusted accordingly. The
programme may also identify decision periods for the client following a key
meeting or submission of information. For a domestic client, this may be just a
few days to allow time for them to review the proposals. For a larger
organisation, internal consultations with stakeholders may be necessary, and a
formal sign-off by the board or governing body can take time. Identifying these
periods within the programme means that, should delays occur in obtaining
client feedback, it is possible to demonstrate the impact to the overall
programme.

‘It is important to communicate the process and also to warn the

client about how much time they will need to devote to the process.
Clients need to understand procurement and how it affects the
project.’

Ruth Butler, Ruth Butler Architects

Involving other professionals

There may be other consultants and surveyors involved, so ensuring that the
programme allows sufficient time for their specialist contributions and working
out what activities are on the critical path is important. For example, an
arboricultural survey may be critical to establishing the viability of a footprint
before any layouts can be considered. However, specialists can have a long lead-
in time due to other work commitments. Local authority planning officers may
also be busy, and pre-application discussions normally require a submission of
drawings and other information before they will attend a meeting or provide
feedback. This is a particularly difficult area for architects, because the feedback
on a proposal from the planning officer may be critical to the progress of the
project. It is important to state your assumptions at the outset, and not make any
commitments on timing or outcomes to the client.

Case Study 4 describes a project where the arboricultural survey and flood
risk assessment were the critical factors in assessing the viability of the
proposal.

The RIBA Plan of Work

The RIBA Plan of Work provides a good outline for the process you are likely to
follow. Initial meetings may focus on Stage 0 – why is the client considering the
project? Could existing buildings or facilities be reused? What is driving the
study?

Stage 1 is all about the brief – what the client is trying to achieve both
operationally and in terms of accommodation. The level of detail required to test
the viability of the brief will depend on the type of project and the commission.

‘We often set out a “process map” in order to define scope and
therefore the fee. We take the client through things logically, step by
step. Often the project ends up in a different place from the original
starting point, and clients soon cotton on to the benefits of the
feasibility study; it also avoids the client being bewildered by the
whole RIBA [Stages] 0 to 7 procurement process.’

Jo Day, Langstaff Day Architects

Feasibility studies tend to be a ‘back and forth’ process of listening, exploring,

testing and then playing proposals back to the client.

For a modestly sized feasibility study, you might expect an introductory or

exploratory meeting, followed by a briefing meeting. At the third meeting you
might present initial proposals, with a final meeting to present your subsequent
findings or more developed proposals. Your programme or Gantt chart can show
these milestones and allow reasonable time for information gathering and
surveys.

Often, your proposals will highlight inconsistencies in the client’s strategy and
goals. This may result in the need to revisit the brief and go back through the
loop of testing ideas. Stating the number of meetings you propose to attend at the
outset is a good way of setting boundaries, and provides a datum later if the
initial estimate turns out to be insufficient.
Case Study 5 involved extensive briefing meetings with stakeholders due to
the specialist nature of the laboratories. The commission was based on a
lump sum fee. The architect stated their assumptions at the outset, referring
to the number of meetings to be attended. The client agreed to them being
reimbursed for the additional consultations.

It may be difficult to prepare a programme at the start of the commission due to

lack of information, and assumptions will have to be made. Nevertheless, it can
be a useful reference later if the brief and scope change, with implications for
office resources and fees that may have to be discussed with the client. On a
larger project, it is also important that staff within the office understand the
scope of work and are aware of the person-day allowances included within the
commission.

‘A draft project programme provides a good framework for the

commission and allows the client to see how things will pan out.
Beware of drifting into the later RIBA work stages and doing too
much work. Set a limit for yourself. Be aware of clients saying “can
you just do this little bit of extra work”; it must be an affordable loss
if the project does not proceed.’

Kristian Molloy, CAM Architects

SETTING LIMITS AND AGREEING OUTPUTS

Feasibility studies can be rather fluid commissions, and sometimes expand into
more substantial investigations. Ideally, this will result in a commission for the
delivery of the project, which is the whole point of the exercise. Setting
boundaries about what areas are going to be investigated and the outputs
required is essential so that the client has a clear understanding of what to
expect, and the quality and status of that information. Architects are sometimes
too keen to get involved with the detailed design. However, this may not be
appropriate as part of a feasibility study whose purpose is to test out the viability.
Communicating this to the client, and also to staff working on the project, is
important so that the process does not go too far.

‘The bigger the project, then generally the lower level of detail
required for the feasibility study; we deliberately keep the proposals
sketchy to avoid drifting into RIBA Stage 3, but this can sometimes be
difficult.’

Simon Knight, Simon Knight Architects

Managing client expectations and explaining about the quality of deliverables is

important, especially when working with an inexperienced client. Showing a
client examples of reports prepared for other projects of a similar nature can be a
good way to explain what to expect. In Chapter 10, we discuss the format of
client reports and feedback meetings in more detail.

Case Study 2 is a straightforward option appraisal for extending a house,

with costs based on square metre rates. The feasibility study included
simple line diagrams. The practice had extensive experience of this type of
work, and giving the client examples of previous feasibility studies
undertaken allowed the architect to manage the client’s expectations.

SUMMARY
Feasibility studies take many forms, depending on what aspect of the client’s
brief is being explored. For capacity studies, undertaken at risk for a developer
client, it is all about how many units can be accommodated and the implications
of any abnormal site issues. Unless the project is in a sensitive location, the
design of the actual units may not be important. For a heritage project, the
viability may focus on the heritage assessment and the impact the proposal will
have on the existing fabric. For a domestic extension, permitted development
rights may provide the key to the project and what it is possible to achieve. For
these three examples, the detailed design of the proposal may not be important,
but for many clients (and architects!) it is this aspect of the project that they are
eager to explore. Setting boundaries, explaining what outputs the client should
expect, and giving examples of the sort of sketch layouts or simple 3D diagrams
you are likely to produce is important in order to manage client expectations.
Thinking about the timing and deadlines in advance, and preparing a project
programme, provides a framework within which to work.

WATCH POINTS
■ Set out a programme to show how the commission will proceed with
milestones.
■ State the deliverables the client can expect, and give examples if
possible.
■ Ensure the client and the other consultants understand what is
expected from them, and by when.

CASE STUDY 5
RESEARCH LABORATORIES

Sector: Education

Client: Institutional

Function: Research laboratories

Construction value: £3 million

BRIEF

An institutional client required a new laboratory building to address its

expanding research needs. The specialist nature of the processes required very
high standards of finish and sophisticated mechanical and electrical services.

CLIENT AND STAKEHOLDERS

The university’s facilities management department commissioned the practice
from its list of consultants. It then managed the process of consultation with the
various departments and specialist user groups. A specialist team within the
institution dealt with the interface with the funding organisation, and also
produced the business plan to address the KPIs. The university had a good
rapport with the local authority, but the development was close to residential
properties.
DESIGN AND PROCESS
The design team were employed to carry out a limited feasibility study to
establish the broad costs and a programme for the project, as these were critical
to funding. The site’s proximity to residential properties made it difficult to
provide assurances on planning approval. Establishing a detailed brief was
challenging due to the innovative nature of the processes. Numerous meetings
were held with the stakeholders. A specialist consultant established costs
associated with the services.

Pre-application discussions with the local authority were inconclusive, and the
client expanded the commission to include Stage 3 and a full planning
submission. Planning approval was obtained, but in order to meet procurement
rules, competitive fee bids were then invited from consultants and the original
practice lost out on the implementation.

KEY POINTS
■ Your fee needs to reflect time spent developing the brief, managing the
design process and dealing with stakeholders.
■ Cost-per-square-metre rates are not always sufficiently accurate where
specialist work is involved, particularly mechanical, electrical and
plumbing (MEP).
■ Do not assume you will be appointed for the implementation just because
you have undertaken the early-stage design.
■ A fee bid should be based on the information provided by the client in the
invitation documents – not on your local knowledge.
 CHAPTER 6
COMMUNICATIONS AND STAKEHOLDERS

DOI: 10.4324/9781003343769-6

Communications are fairly straightforward when dealing with a one-off

house commission for a domestic client; however, when working with a
husband-and-wife team, for example, things can quickly become more
complicated! Many projects involve multiple stakeholders, and the way in
which communications are managed can be critical to the success of the
commission. The majority of disputes brought before the ARB are as a
result of poor communication between the architect and the client.

In the chapter we will consider:

■ Methods of communication
■ Understanding clients and stakeholders – the client organisation and
hierarchy of decision-making, and stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities
■ Creating a framework for communications
■ Keeping records and feeding back

METHODS OF COMMUNICATION

Much of what we do as architects is concerned with communication, whether in

verbal, written or graphic form. Like other professionals, we tend to use a
specialised language and shorthand. Trying to imagine the perspective of the
person receiving the information, who may not be familiar with the procurement
process, will help you convey your message in an appropriate manner. Modern
forms of communication involve multiple platforms, but whichever is used it is
important to communicate clearly, consistently and in a way that is appropriate
to the recipient. The outcome of the feasibility study can have a significant
impact, and it is important to consider the big picture when communicating it.

UNDERSTANDING CLIENTS AND

STAKEHOLDERS
As discussed in Chapter 2, clients and stakeholders vary enormously. In an ideal
world, the client is a single individual who knows what they want and can be the
sole arbiter of what represents an appropriate response to the brief. However,
many commissions are more complicated than that, and even a relatively modest
project can have multiple stakeholders. For example, a village hall may serve the
community in a number of ways at different times, and each user group will have
unique requirements. Ensuring that these different voices are heard and that the
hierarchy of demands are addressed can be challenging. Ideally, there will be a
client committee and a chairperson who manages the process and can decide the
priorities. It is also possible that you will speak directly to groups with specialist
needs in order to develop the brief and check its viability.

Case Study 3 describes a feasibility study to support grant applications for a

replacement village hall. Liaison was required with the project committee,
and with the various user groups. ‘Town hall’ meetings were also held to
gain the support of the wider community.

For larger institutions and commercial organisations, it is important to

understand who will deal with day-to-day communications, who that person
reports to, and who makes the ultimate strategic decisions. If there are other
stakeholders involved, what is their status, and what are their specific areas of
expertise? Different organisations have different management structures.
Sometimes there is a clearly established hierarchy for decision making, and a
line of command. Alternatively, there may be management by consensus, which
can be much more difficult to navigate. Consultations with stakeholders can
result in an outflow of emotion and grievances. Remember that your job is to
address the parameters of the brief and work within the terms of your
commission, not to solve the problems of the organisation.
 ‘Some of our clients in the sports and leisure sector have architect
project managers on their side who are all experts; it’s a team effort.
It’s important to programme things out and keep communications
under control.’

Jo Day, Langstaff Day Architects

Even where the client is a single individual, there may be multiple stakeholders
who affect the feasibility study, including the community and neighbours, the
local authority and other regulatory bodies, as well as the funders if the money is
coming from a separate source. Each of these parties may have to be consulted,
either directly or via the client, and will have an impact on the outcome of the
study. Establishing with the client who the stakeholders are and their
significance to the project is important, and should help to avoid problems later.

Chapter 2 looked at the different types of clients and their sectors. For public
sector clients, the person who commissions the feasibility study and deals with
the architect on a day-to-day basis is not necessarily the person who will manage
the facility or who has detailed knowledge about how it should operate.

A well-organised client will have a tried-and-tested system for delivering

projects, with rules about how the stakeholders are to be consulted and the
outcomes recorded. However, this is not always the case. It takes time and
trouble for the client to organise things in this way, and sometimes the resources
and skills are simply not available. In these situations, it may be useful for you to
help the client by recommending a reporting structure so that feedback from
stakeholders is funnelled to the architect via a single source who is designated as
client representative. Housing, heritage and some public realm projects may
require consultation with the wider community. The appropriate civic and
statutory consultees need to be identified early on, as this can be a lengthy
process and it may need careful management.
 ‘We are involved in masterplanning and are currently working on a
number of projects relating to the future of the high street.
Consultation with the local community is key to these schemes.
Presentations of the initial feasibility study allow broader voices to be
heard and captured. We then have an opportunity to present back our
solutions and demonstrate that we have listened, even if it’s not
possible to take on board all their ideas.’

Chithra Marsh, Buttress Architects

Case Study 11 describes a project for affordable housing. Because the

Unitary Development Plan indicated that the site was not designated for
housing, gaining the support of the rural housing officer and the local
community was critical.

CREATING A FRAMEWORK FOR

COMMUNICATIONS
It is good practice to set out a framework of how communications will work with
the client. This may be as simple as agreeing the meetings that will take place, or
it may be concerned with communicating via certain platforms to avoid
confusion and ambiguity. Agreeing who will communicate with whom avoids
messages being received directly from stakeholders, where the status,
significance and validity are unclear. Ideally, all communications coming from
the extended client organisation will be channelled via a single representative,
preferably someone with the authority and knowledge to advise on the status of
the information.

‘On a recent library project, the principal of the college acted as the
client liaison person, which was ideal because he could also be the
 arbiter of stakeholders’ requests. Normally, our client contact would
be someone from the estates department who would have to consult
within the organisation in order to establish the validity of the
stakeholders’ requests.’

Roger Latham, Design Group Chester

Where there are multiple stakeholders, these need to be identified at the outset so
that you know who they are, why they are important and the significance of their
contribution. Sometimes information gained from stakeholder meetings can be
unreliable or at odds with the policy of the organisation. In some instances, with
larger organisations, a client ‘chaperone’ can be useful to help direct the
discussion and interpret the information being provided.

Case Study 6 involved three different client organisations, each with their
own protocols and methods of working. The clients’ in-house project
manager was experienced in dealing with these stakeholders at an
operational level, and was able to aid communications and avoid silo
thinking.

Bringing the information together and feeding back any conclusions or proposals
requires you to understand who to report to, who deals with day-to-day matters
and who makes strategic decisions. This is important, because it is easy to rely
on the client’s representative, only to find that it is the board, governing body or
steering committee that has the ultimate say. It is also important to ensure that
the client’s representative has authority to act. Chapter 10 deals with issues
associated with reporting to the client in more detail.

Ideally, the hierarchy for disclosure of information will reflect the management
structure of the client’s organisation to ensure an appropriate level of
confidentiality is maintained. For example, in a school restructuring project, it
may be that the head of department is unaware that their subject is about to be
taken off the curriculum. It is important for you to understand who is permitted
to know what.
 ‘Clients are answerable to other people in their organisation so a
project viability assessment is important.’

Helen Roberts, Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios

Where there is a design team and the architect is lead consultant, it is also good
practice for all information to filter to the client via the architect. This could
include survey information and the interpretation of the data by specialists.
Ideally cost information will also be communicated via the architect to ensure
that there is a consistent message being presented.

Case Study 7 involved intrusive surveys to establish whether the existing

floors were capable of accommodating the new use. Opening-up works also
required asbestos surveys, with health and safety implications.
Coordinating these activities, obtaining client authorisation and
interpreting the data were critical to the project.

KEEPING RECORDS AND FEEDING BACK

Whether you are dealing with a domestic client or a large organisation, good
record-keeping is essential. Notes of meetings should be sent to the client
representative, who can then decide who should be copied in. One of the benefits
for the client of undertaking a feasibility study is to be able to discuss ideas and
have strategies challenged. In meetings where complex issues are discussed, it is
possible that you may record a detail of the client’s brief inaccurately. Providing
notes of the meeting in a timely manner allows the client to reflect on what has
been recorded and clarify points as necessary, or even to change their mind.

It is good practice for every meeting to have an agenda which is issued in

advance, allowing time for the client and stakeholders to consider the issues to
be discussed and gather any information they may need. These meetings can be
quite fluid, especially when you are dealing with less experienced clients. It can
be best to allow the discussions to take their course in a natural way, and then to
use the agenda as a checklist to pick up on any loose ends. Allowing the client or
stakeholders to ‘offload’ issues that they may have been grappling with for many
weeks or even years can be very helpful to them, and sometimes provides
essential information that has not been described previously.

Case Study 1 required the architect to consider how different parts of the
church were used at different times of day. The client’s project committee
sent copies of the liaison meetings to the various subgroups (crèche,
concerts, activity groups, evening lectures) to ensure wide consultation and
that all aspects of the brief had been covered.

Different approaches may be needed when dealing with experienced professional

clients compared to less experienced people. Community groups might for
example include representatives who make important contributions but are
unfamiliar with the way formal meetings are conducted. Some patience and a
flexible approach will be needed from whoever is chairing the meeting. For
institutional clients, beware of silo thinking and encourage a collaborative
approach.

‘It’s useful to listen to the diversity of the stakeholders’ views and

allow voices to be heard; it’s also important to speak to the people
who will run the building.’

Ruth Butler, Ruth Butler Architects

SUMMARY

Good communication is an essential part of the architect’s job. A feasibility

study, by its nature, may be a short, sharp commission. Nevertheless, being clear
about how communication will work is important. It is sometimes necessary to
help the client by setting up a structure. Communications can be haphazard
within some organisations, and it is easy to get caught in the crossfire between
different stakeholder groups. Encouraging a single point of client contact avoids
confusion, and places the responsibility for filtering the information on the
client’s representative. Finally, remember that the project is bigger than any one
party. Building managers and specialist stakeholders come and go over the years,
and relying on one person’s view on the best strategy can be short-sighted.

‘It’s important to establish who can take decisions and who can make
it happen and then ensure continuity of participants between the
feasibility study and final commission. Nobody owns the project, not
even the client in the future.’

Ian Ritchie, Ritchie Studio

WATCH POINTS
■ Agree how communication will work at the outset of the
commission.
■ Try to have a single point of contact with the client.
■ Keep notes of all meetings and issue them promptly.
■ With a larger organisation, establish who is entitled to know what,
and consider having a client ‘chaperone’ when meeting with
stakeholders.

CASE STUDY 6
EMERGENCY SERVICES CENTRE
 Sector: Public

Client: Local authority

Function: Joint operation centre

Construction value: £3 million

BRIEF
A local authority client wanted to bring the three ‘blue light’ (emergency)
services together on a single site to explore the operational benefits.

CLIENT AND STAKEHOLDERS

The client’s in-house project manager acted as a facilitator, and was experienced
in dealing with the emergency services and with how logistics work at an
operational level. The project manager liaised with the three organisations and
was also able to provide the architect with a clear brief. Direct liaison with the
stakeholders was required, and the facilitator was able to assist with
communication and overcome any ‘silo thinking’. Expert advice was provided
by a security consultant.

DESIGN AND PROCESS

Survey information was available, and from the detailed brief it was possible to
arrive at a viable solution. Movement of vehicles was an important aspect, as
well as considering ‘normal’ times and ‘emergency’ situations, including terrorist
incidents.

The project was run efficiently by the client’s project manager, who attended all
meetings with the stakeholders and chaired key presentations to the elected
members. There were no local authority planning or land ownership issues.
However, the project did not move forward to implementation. While the
operational challenges were resolved, there were political issues in bringing the
three organisations together, which were outside the control of the project
manager and the architect. The final decision rested with the elected members of
the council.
KEY POINTS

■ An independent client adviser or facilitator can be useful at Stages 0 and

1 to help communication with stakeholders.
■ Having an audit trail provides a record of the process as well as
explaining the rationale behind the final proposals. This can be useful if
the recommendations are challenged later.
■ It is important to know who will make the final decision, especially
where political considerations are significant.
 CHAPTER 7
GATHERING AND ASSIMILATING DATA

DOI: 10.4324/9781003343769-7

The outcome of a feasibility study is only as good as the data on which it is

based. Feasibility studies are often short commissions. Whether you are
working at risk or as a part of a paid commission, there is often pressure
from the client to limit the fee – and therefore the time and resources
available to carry out the study. This sometimes means that surveys are
limited and some data is unavailable. Deciding what is essential and what is
desirable is critical, and it is important to make the client aware of the level
of information included in the study and for them to take ownership of the
associated risks.

‘There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also
know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are
some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns –
the ones we don’t know we don’t know.’

Donald Rumsfeld

In this chapter we consider:

■ Sources of information, including surveys and other studies; implications

of gaps in the information and the associated risks
■ Local authority planning issues – the limitations of pre-application
feedback
■ The implication of any gaps in the information and the associated risks
SOURCES OF INFORMATION

In an ideal world, the client’s brief for the feasibility study will include plans and
other information to enable you to make a start. In reality this seldom happens,
and the first stage of the feasibility study is often putting together existing survey
drawings as well as considering details of the brief.

Establishing the quality of information needed to carry out the feasibility study
can be a difficult balancing act. The client may not want to invest too much at
the early stages in detailed surveys and other assessments, which can restrict
information gathering to high-level exploration or desktop studies. Discussing
with the client what information is needed is important, as well as explaining
why certain elements are critical to establish the viability of the brief. Sometimes
it becomes clear part way through a commission that more information is
required, and additional surveys or specialist appointments are made.
Nevertheless, it is important to consider the requirements at the outset and
provide a recommendation to the client.

Case Study 11 involved a small housing scheme in a rural location. Initially

the architect worked for no fee, and so used free resources to establish the
planning history, flood risk and tree preservation status, basing the
preliminary layout on the Ordnance Survey plan.

Information comes from a range of sources, including desktop studies, Ordnance

Survey plans, physical surveys and ground investigations, specialist surveys and
heritage assessments. This data requires interpretation, and different types of
information have varying levels of accuracy and associated risk. Any
information provided by the client may also need to be checked for accuracy.

Where a number of specialist consultants are involved, it may be necessary to

establish a responsibility matrix. Where appointments are dealt with by the
client, this can take time for them to organise. Commissioning surveys and other
reports also requires a brief to say what quality of output is required and the
purpose to which it will be put. Specialist advice may be needed to interpret the
data. Chapter 4 reviewed the pros and cons of subconsultants in more detail.
Case Study 4 involved multiple specialists, including environmental,
arboricultural, topographical, highways and conservation. The client
required these to be subconsultants to the architect and, while their fees
were reimbursed, considerable time was needed for the architect to manage
the team.

Desktop studies

Site information available without the need for a visit can come from Google
Earth and other free-to-view platforms with satellite and street views. These can
be extremely useful as a first pass and to get a general idea of the locality.
Digimap and Ordnance Survey plans are available for a fee, and these are an
invaluable and reliable source of information. Digimap can also provide useful
historical data. Nevertheless, total reliance on this type of site information is not
advisable – boundaries are sometimes unclear or in dispute, and errors are
occasionally found.

Substructure information including details of underground services and drainage

is also available from the relevant service provider, or via a subscription service
which trawls various providers. This service is extremely useful for practices
who carry out regular site appraisals in the housing or commercial field and need
the information to be available quickly. However reliable the service can be,
physical checks will still be needed at at a later stage if the project goes ahead,
and the risk of inaccuracies should be explained to the client, as the financial
implications can be considerable.

Some environmental assessments can be undertaken online, but interpreting the

data may be beyond the skills of a non-specialist architect. For example, accurate
assessment of flood risk, sufficient to justify the viability of a proposal for a
planning application, may need specialist advice.

‘It’s important to have an appropriate level of information. We use

 Resmar database, which is essential to our type of work. All the main
risks are in the ground, including services drainage and
contamination. We always request clarification from the client on
[the] site boundary, as there can be multiple absent ownerships on
any one site.’

Dave Rudkin, Halsall Lloyd Partnership

Physical surveys and investigations

For many types of project, a topographical survey is essential in order to provide

a reliable baseline for the feasibility study. For domestic extensions and other
types of refurbishment project, a measured survey is often the first activity that
must take place. Without accurate information it is difficult to assess what is
possible. In some cases, an appraisal of the condition of the property is
important, as this can affect the feasibility of remodelling and repair as well as
impact on the costs.

For an inexperienced client, commissioning a professional survey can seem an

unnecessary expense, particularly if they only require a preliminary strategic
overview or sketch scheme. It is important to explain what level of survey
information is needed for the output to be reliable. The cost of the survey can be
significant and, where appropriate, this should be identified in the initial fee
proposal.

Heritage assessments

Feasibility studies associated with ecclesiastical and historic buildings may

require a heritage assessment or conditions survey as the first step in the process.
The level of detail needed at the feasibility stage depends on finely balanced
judgement. Some churches have regular or quinquennial inspections (every five
years) to record the condition of the building and the need for any repairs.
Sometimes an architect will form a relationship with a church over a number of
years and will have a working knowledge of the condition of the building.
Where this is not the case, an assessment of the property’s condition can be quite
onerous and time consuming. A heritage assessment places the building within a
broader historical context, including its significance locally and nationally. A
conservation heritage management plan is often the starting point for a
feasibility study and allows the client to move forward with confidence. These
types of assessment require specialist skills and may involve archive research. A
non-specialist architect may need to recommend the appointment of a specialist.

‘Before any proposals for the future of a historic building are

formulated, a conservation management plan should be prepared, so
that change can be planned and informed by an understanding of the
building’s significance. A general practitioner should employ an
experienced conservation professional to assess a building’s
architectural, historical and cultural significance. The written record
is not usually sufficient, and an expert is needed to “read the
building”.’

Tony Barton, Donald Insall Associates

Case Study 1 involved alterations to an existing church, and the heritage

listing provided the starting point and datum for subsequent negotiations.
In this case the architect liaised with the local authority conservation officer.
Because the alterations were fairly minor, a specialist was not required.

Information provided by the client and stakeholder meetings

Ideally, the brief and other information about the site will be provided by the
client. On a small-scale or domestic project this might be from meetings with the
client. Chapter 5 discussed the importance of structuring meetings so that the
briefing occurs in an ordered way. The validity of the information provided by
the client may need to be checked. Sometimes the client will provide site and
other ‘as existing’ information, and it can also be useful if a building manual is
available as a result of a recent project undertaken under the Construction
(Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015). The RIBA Plan of
Work recommends that the performance of a completed building at Stage 7, In
Use, is used to provide feedback on the effectiveness of the design and how the
building works.

Case Study 6 involved the extension and remodelling of existing buildings

for which CAD drawings were available, making the task much easier to
tackle. Nevertheless, site information needed to be checked where it was
critical to the proposals.

When dealing with larger or more complex projects, briefing information may be
the result of stakeholder meetings. Organising these meetings can be difficult
logistically, and it can be helpful to establish early on in the project who it is
necessary to consult and arrange a schedule of meetings in good time. Chapter 6
discusses the importance of the client representative filtering this data to confirm
that it is reliable and in line with the overall project strategy.

Precedent studies and visits to similar buildings

Determining the quality of a proposed development can be difficult to discuss

with a client, but it has a big impact on the budget. It is possible to refer to
various cost-per-square-metre rates, but what these mean in practice can be hard
for a client to understand. Referring to precedents, as well as organising visits to
similar facilities, can be a useful way of establishing the quality the client has in
mind, as well as providing an opportunity to discuss operational issues. Such
visits can also be a way of engaging a client and help to raise other issues.
Sustainability, running costs and maintenance may all be important to the client.
In the context of a limited feasibility study, comparison with other facilities can
be a quick way of considering the options.

Case Study 3 involved the architect and client committee visiting recently
completed community halls to see the quality of design, finishes and
components. These visits also highlighted operational issues and reminded
the client about the importance of providing sufficient storage.

Land ownership and legal issues

Land ownership, site boundaries and access issues can affect the viability of a
proposal. These can be difficult to establish, and are often outside the scope of
the architect’s expertise. Nevertheless, it is important to flag up any issues and
point out their impact on the proposal. An expert client will usually be familiar
with dealing with such matters, and will have their own agents and legal advisers
to consult. For less experienced clients, it can be useful to have a checklist,
putting the responsibility and associated risk back in their court. Issues to
consider include the precise extent of the site boundary, what it comprises, and
the legal implications of any development on or close to it, rights of access to
and across the site, ownership of adjoining land and any covenants that might
exist. Rights of light can also be a complex issue, particularly in London, as well
as any wayleaves associated with services on or around the site. Land value is
also likely to be a significant factor in determining if a proposal is viable.

Case Study 7 involved the reuse of a building as a primary school. Disabled

access could only be gained to the rear of the property via an alleyway,
which was not owned by the client. Obtaining a licence to use the alley was
critical to the viability of the project.

‘In areas like Islington, “sustainability upgrades” are of growing

importance but can be tricky because of the heritage issues, so our
feasibility studies sometimes incorporate a pre-application
submission to establish the planners’ attitude to retrofit in sensitive
conservation areas.’

Jo Day, Langstaff Day Architects

LOCAL AUTHORITY PLANNING ISSUES

Establishing the likelihood of a project gaining LPA approval can be one of the
most critical aspects affecting viability, and it will be important to consider the
proposal in the context of the Local Plan and LPA guidelines. Ideally, some sort
of consultation will take place with the local authority planning officer as part of
a pre-application submission. This process normally involves submission of
information, and then a consideration period by the LPA before a meeting can
take place. There is normally a fee involved, and the time frame for getting a
response can vary in different parts of the country.

This process is a good way of testing the waters and establishing the likelihood
of success. However, the LPA has no obligation to adhere to its own pre-
application advice, and it is prudent to explain the status of the feedback
received to the client. For this reason, some clients prefer go straight to a full
planning submission and rely wholly on the advice of their architect or planning
consultant.

‘Feasibility studies tend to include a meeting with the planners, which

is invaluable to the client. It’s all about the site.’

Paul Monaghan, Allford Hall Monaghan Morris

SUMMARY
Ensuring that the right level of information is available at the right time is an
important part of a feasibility study. Knowing what information is desirable and
what is essential allows you to advise the client accordingly. Ultimately, it is for
the client to decide how far to go with surveys and specialist consultants.
Nevertheless, it is important to give clear guidance as well as identifying the
risks and explaining why a particular approach is recommended. Keeping a
record of your communications with the client ensures that there is a audit trail
should problems occur later on.

‘It’s important to caveat everything based upon the level of

information available.’

Chithra Marsh, Buttress Architects

WATCH POINTS
■ Establish what information is essential and what is desirable.
■ Consider the time needed to organise surveys and the associated
costs.
■ Check the validity and accuracy of any information provided by the
client.
■ Provide caveats to clarify the status of the feasibility study output,
based on the quality of information available.

CASE STUDY 7
REUSE OF HERITAGE BUILDING
Sector: Education

Client: Institution

Function: Primary school

Construction value: £2 million

BRIEF

An institutional client wanted to test the viability of locating a single-form entry

primary school within two existing Grade 2* listed Georgian town houses.

CLIENT AND STAKEHOLDERS

The client was a member of an academy trust exploring a new primary school
venture. Within the client organisation were educational experts and the head
teacher. A single landowner controlled the majority of properties in the square
and was supportive of the initiative. The local authority planning department and
conservation offers were important stakeholders.
DESIGN AND PROCESS
Checking the capacity of the building to accommodate the school was done with
reference to British Standards. Pre-application discussions with the local
authority established that the change of use from office to educational was
acceptable, because only minor changes to the internal layout were needed.

Surveys showed that the structural alterations were viable but the timber floors
were not up to current loading standards. Upgrading was expensive and difficult
to agree with the local authority conservation officer due to the intrusive nature
of the work.

Access for disabled pupils needed a ramped approach to the rear, over land
outside control of the building owner, requiring a licence.

The intrusive surveys were expensive and time-consuming. Nevertheless, it was

the structural aspect explored in the feasibility study that made the project non-
viable.
KEY POINTS

■ Accurate surveys are essential to establish the constraints of the site or

existing buildings.
■ Sometimes it is the detailed elements that effect the overall viability.
■ Land ownership and other legal issues should be flagged up for the client
to consider.
 CHAPTER 8
DEVELOPING THE CLIENT'S BRIEF

DOI: 10.4324/9781003343769-8

Depending on the type of project and level of experience of the client, the
brief can come in many forms – from a simple verbal description to a
complex document setting out the operational parameters. The feasibility
study is a way of testing and challenging that brief. This process of checking
the viability tends to be incremental. Carrying out an initial review and
considering what additional information is required is a good starting point.
Looking for the gaps, exploring the context and understanding the business
case are all important considerations, as well as looking at the big picture in
terms of sustainability.

‘Often the problem for architects is that the brief is fixed at an early
stage and is then difficult to change. There is a design quality
conundrum – design just drips out of the process at every work stage.’

Flora Samuels, University of Reading

In this chapter we will consider:

■ Reviewing the brief and identifying any gaps

■ Considering the business case; KPIs
■ Defining quality – impact of quality and sustainability on budget
■ Understanding clients’ attitudes to costs and risk
■ Procurement and implementation – the impact of different procurement
routes
REVIEWING THE BRIEF

Chapter 3 discussed the benefits of carrying out a feasibility study to establish

the viability of a proposal. The guide to the RIBA Plan of Work recommends
that a brief is established at Stage 1, prior to any design work taking place. In the
case of a small-scale domestic project, this may be communicated verbally by
the client, and much thought may have gone into the proposition. For a large
institutional client, the brief may be represented by performance criteria and
space standards, with general guidance on quality of spaces required or
sustainability standards.

Reviewing the brief is a two-stage process. First, you will need to get up to
speed, and consider if there are any gaps in what the client is asking for. Second,
the brief will be tested and developed by a series of proposals to see how it
works. Going beyond what has been asked for and thinking strategically
provides an opportunity to exceed client expectations.

Defining the brief may require you to go back to Stage O and ask why the client
is considering the project. Does it make financial sense? What are their plans
over the coming years, and is a new building or an extension the right solution?
While this may seem counterproductive in terms of securing a commission, it is
better to establish the overall viability of the project at an early stage, rather than
have the commission stall because the client has not thought through some of the
big questions. Of course this approach may not be appropriate when dealing with
an expert client, unless you have been brought on board specifically to challenge
their development strategy.

‘It’s important that the architect is involved at the early stages since
we have a different type of perspective on the problem and can help
bring things together in terms of a concept design. Even if we are
commissioned for the whole project we still tend to treat Stages O and
1 as feasibility in order to test the brief.’
 Jo Day, Langstaff Day Architects

When reviewing the brief from a design perspective, it is necessary to identify

gaps in the information provided and seek clarification. The client may have
been considering the proposal for some time, and it is possible that there are
many more issues than they have set out in their initial brief. Experienced
architects are generally good listeners, and in the initial meetings it should be
possible to tease out aspects of the brief not previously mentioned. Some
elements of the client’s requirements might seem illogical, and there could be
political issues that need to be understood. At times it may be necessary to
challenge the brief, and where this is done in a constructive way it is generally
appreciated by the client; after all, you have been employed as an expert. For a
less experienced client, providing advice on briefing methods can also be
helpful.

Case Study 1 started as a mini competition, with architects providing initial

design ideas. While it was useful for the client to see how different firms
approached the problem, it was also important for the winning architect to
challenge the brief once their appointment was secured.

When working for a larger organisation, it can be useful to see the bigger picture
to appreciate how the proposal fits into their overall plan. Questioning the
client’s strategy can be helpful, but it may also be necessary to agree what
aspects are outside the scope of the feasibility study so that you have a clear
remit and understand the boundaries.

CONSIDERING THE BUSINESS CASE

Whether you are dealing with a domestic client, a commercial organisation or an

institution, the business case will normally be a key factor. Understanding why
the project is happening and the budget constraints is important in order to avoid
abortive work. For a domestic client, there will almost certainly be limits to what
can be afforded. There will also be practical considerations about what it would
be sensible to invest in a property given its location and potential resale value.
Some domestic clients prefer to take a long-term view and argue that the quality
of space provided is more important than worrying about the financial return on
the investment. Nevertheless, it is important for you to flag these things up to
discourage an overly ambitious client from pursuing options that cannot be
justified.

A community client, making a bid for funding, will need to be aware of any
strings attached. Grant funding can come with strict criteria and may also require
the applicant to consider the ongoing running costs. In terms of sustainability,
there may be a balance between capital costs and operational costs. If the client
is considering BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental
Assessment Method) sustainability accreditation, the ‘early points’ could be
critical to meeting the criteria and may involve community consultation.

Case Study 3 involved multiple applications for grant funding for the
replacement of a community hall. Making a sound business case and
considering operational issues was critical to the proposition and required
expert help.

Institutional clients may have KPIs which dictate how the building must perform
and its operational capacity. It is important for the architect to know about these
things early in the briefing process so they can be incorporated within feasibility
proposals and reflected in budget costs. Funding bodies also have strict criteria
on which the whole viability rests, and it may be that these are simply not
achievable. Some bids require that the feasibility study be taken to a high level
of detail to demonstrate compliance with statutory approvals. On other
occasions, funding will be possible only within strict time limits, in which case
the procurement method and programme may be critical factors.

Case Study 5 involved a bid for funding for new laboratories. The funding
was granted with strict time limits for the implementation, requiring any
potential programme delay risks to be addressed.
Commercial clients tend to be in control of costs and have experience of how
their business case works. However, it is still important to understand any
criteria to be met, as this may affect the assessment of risks and margins of error
in the feasibility study. For example, if the number of units that can be placed on
a site is critical to the business case, it will be important to ensure that the client
is aware of any issues affecting the viability of the layout and the likelihood of
obtaining planning approval. Alternatively, when carrying out remodelling of an
existing building, if the net floor area created is critical to the finances, you will
need to be confident about the information provided and the quality of surveys
on which the layouts are based.

‘Everything is driven by land valuation, with overestimates on

financial return. We need a different methodology, because it is often
too late to change anything by the time the architect is engaged.’

Flora Samuels, University of Reading

DEFINING QUALITY
As architects, we are aware of the importance of design quality and the
difference it can make. Good design does not necessarily cost more money, but
in terms of the quality of construction, components and finishes, there can be a
close correlation. Initiating a discussion about quality early in the briefing
process is useful, especially where broad-brush figures are used to estimate
costs. Dealing with inexperienced domestic clients can be particularly
challenging, especially if they are fans of TV programmes where the makers are
sometimes a little coy about the costs associated with their projects.

Case Study 2 involved a domestic client with fixed ideas about the right
solution to their house extension but less understanding of the associated
costs. Providing costed alternatives allowed the client to arrive at an
objective assessment.

‘With community groups it’s good to allow the client to see actual
examples of similar facilities in order to determine quality; this also
encourages a conversation.’

Ruth Butler, Ruth Butler Architects

Sustainability is important, and many clients have this high on their agenda
when developing their brief. Some aspects of sustainable design can have
substantial cost implications, and these costs cannot always be justified by
reference to pay-back periods. This is not a reason for excluding such measures,
but the client will need to understand the impact on their business case. Going
for a BREEAM rating or one of the other sustainability/wellbeing certifications
may also have fee implications as well as requiring expert advice.

UNDERSTANDING CLIENTS' ATTITUDES TO

COSTS
Money talks, and for most clients the budget is one of the most important factors
to consider in terms of the brief and developing design. For a feasibility study,
while clients may profess to have a fixed budget, this is not always the case –
sometimes ‘blue-sky thinking’ results in proposals far beyond the original stated
budget, but additional funding is found. Understanding the client’s attitude to
costs is important, as it affects how risks are assessed and how ambitious you
can be with the developing design ideas. For a domestic client, it is particularly
important to establish the working limits. Developing proposals that far exceed
the client’s budget can be a waste of everyone’s time and can legitimately result
in non-payment of your fee.
Whether or not there is a cost consultant involved, it is important to explain the
level of accuracy of any figures presented, as well as discussing the volatility of
the market and the premium sometimes placed on awkward small-scale
developments in challenging locations. Usually, estimates are calculated on a
cost-per-square-metre basis with allowances for extraordinary site costs and
preliminaries. Where a greater level of accuracy is required, it will be necessary
to discuss how this might be achieved.

Case Study 5 involved highly specialised laboratories, and there were

limited precedents of a similar type on which to base cost-per-square-metre
rates. Specialist services consultant advice was needed at the feasibility
stage to determine costs with a sufficient level of accuracy.

‘Budget costs are always important to a client, but it’s necessary to

explain the basis of the calculation and the volatile nature of the
market.’

Luke Butcher, Butcher Bayley Architects

Understanding the underlying business case is valuable – for example, the ability
to provide extra accommodation within the site may mean that the budget can
increase while still providing a good return for the developer.

‘Developers tend to know the value of the site; they just need you to
test out the viability. They do their own costings. There is always an
emphasis on the area of accommodation that can be fitted on the site,
which becomes very important later, so it is best to build in some
tolerance.’

Adam Hall, Falconer Chester Hall

Depending on the type of client, the balance between the initial capital cost and
ongoing operational costs can be important. These things are generally discussed
later on in the design development process, but thinking holistically about life
cycle costs can sometimes be useful at the feasibility stage.

PROCUREMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

How the client sees the project being implemented can affect the viability. Even
if this does not form part of the initial brief, it is sensible to raise the issue for
consideration. For example, if a developer client owns a construction company,
issues concerning cost and programme can be referred to them. Where a
domestic client already knows the builder they wish to work with, involving the
company early on can give access to valuable practical and financial advice.
Some projects start off with the client assuming that their project will be
traditionally procured and it then changes to a design and build route, causing
difficulties for the design team. The transition from the design stages to
implementation is different with these alternative procurement routes.

Where programme is a critical factor for the feasibility study, understanding the
RIBA Plan of Work and the impact of different procurement routes is important.
The balance between time, cost and quality and the client’s attitude to risk
provides a complex set of variables.

SUMMARY

A feasibility study involves a balance between working within the client’s

criteria and challenging the brief. By its very nature, it tends to be a preliminary
exercise to establish the viability of a proposal as a stepping stone to the next
stage. Helping the client develop the brief provides a firm footing for the project,
and gives the client the confidence to proceed.
 WATCH POINTS
■ Look for gaps in the client’s brief and seek clarification.
■ Understand the business case and the client’s attitude cost and risk.
■ Agree with the client the methods for calculating budget costs, and
the level of accuracy required.
■ Consider sustainability and the impact of the proposals.

CASE STUDY 8
HOUSE ON GARDEN PLOT
Sector: Housing

Client: Owner end user

Function: Single dwelling

Construction value: £1 million

BRIEF

A domestic client purchased the garden of an adjoining property with a view to

obtaining planning permission for a new dwelling. The brief was for a four-
bedroom house taking advantage of the river aspect.
CLIENT AND STAKEHOLDERS
The purchaser of the site was a relatively inexperienced client but they had a
clear idea of the maximum budget. Owners of the adjacent sites were important
stakeholders. The local authority accepted that a case for planning permission
could be made on condition the scheme was of sufficient design quality.
DESIGN AND PROCESS

Establishing the likelihood of obtaining planning approval was done by

reference to other plots developed in a similar manner. The steeply sloping site
required a two-storey retaining wall which was expensive, making the project
non-viable. The client invited a civil engineering design and build contractor to
price the wall. By dealing with the retaining wall as a separate contract, the
client agreed to take responsibility for that element of the work. The wall was
constructed in advance of the main building contract, requiring a considerable
amount of time for the architect to coordinate.

The client refused to commission a topographical survey. A boundary dispute

arose during the construction phase, requiring changes to the planning-approved
design, which had been based on Ordnance Survey information.

KEY POINTS
■ Impartial and professional advice allows the client make an informed
decision, even if this results in the project not progressing.
■ Ideally a topographical survey will be carried out. If this is not possible,
advise the client about the potential risks.
■ Beware of elements being taken out of the contract, as the design
coordination still takes time.
 CHAPTER 9
OPTION APPRAISALS

DOI: 10.4324/9781003343769-9

Option appraisals involve exploring a number of scenarios or design

solutions as a way of arriving at a proposal that most closely meets the
client’s requirements. They are also a great way of engaging the client in the
design process and testing the brief. Clients sometimes have difficulty
expressing their views on design matters and describing in the abstract what
they want. Providing several alternatives is a way of discussing possible
solutions, as clients tend to find it easier say which option they prefer and
why. This process has some advantages: it can help you avoid focusing on
just one solution; it allows radically different options to be presented, even if
some solutions fall far outside the client’s stated brief; and it provides an
audit trail, not only for the final solution, but also for the options that are
discarded. Many practices use ‘optioneering’ to explore design solutions,
but the process is not that common for studio design in schools of
architecture, so some students and architects in their early years of practice
are unaware of the benefits of this approach.

In this section we will consider:

■ Option appraisals as a way of engaging the client

■ The client’s brief and KPIs – the importance of an audit trail as a record
of design decisions
■ Presenting to the client – techniques to avoid ‘information overload’
■ Client sign-off

OPTION APPRAISALS
Whether you are dealing with an inexperienced domestic client or the governing
body of a large institution, communicating how design proposals relate back to
the brief is important to get buy-in and ensure the feasibility study is moving
forward in a rational way.

Sometimes you will see potential solutions that are outside the client’s brief.
Providing a series of options is a good way of presenting ambitious or innovative

‘Feasibility studies are all about listening – but sometimes even the
client doesn’t know [what they want], and presenting options helps to
avoid the spiral of indecision. Presenting options and visualising the
brief is often the key.’

Jo Day, Langstaff Day Architects

solutions in a safe environment, without the client feeling that you have gone
‘off message’. Not all architects like this optioneering approach, instead
preferring an extended dialogue that results in a single design solution. Option
appraisals are included in this book because they enable the architect to
demystify the business of design and involve the client more closely. The system
can be particularly useful where the brief is broad or ill-defined. The client may
have aspirations that could be addressed in different ways. Money is normally an
important factor, but this is not always the case, and providing options with a
broad spectrum of ambition can help focus the mind. Communicating with a
larger group can be difficult, particularly if there is no clear management
hierarchy, and in this case providing options may encourage debate and help
develop consensus.

‘Option appraisals are a good way to involve the client in the

decision-making process and to show that we can work
collaboratively. This is important in order to communicate intentions
 and also how the design process works.’

Paul Monaghan, Allford Hall Monaghan Morris

THE CLIENT'S BRIEF AND KPIS

Throughout this book, we have stressed the importance of establishing the brief
before design work is carried out, which is particularly important when carrying
out an option appraisal. Some aspects of the brief may be critical to the operation
of the facility; others may be more concerned with the client’s personal views or
the politics of the organisation. These less rational elements of the brief are
important, particularly when dealing with the home of a client whose lifestyle
and values may be quite different from your own. With each design option, it is
possible to record the extent to which the brief has been met. The criteria might
be concerned with practical or operational things, as well as cost and programme
where applicable. More detailed criteria might include future-proofing, as well
as local authority planning issues and quality.

Case Study 2 describes an option appraisal for a domestic house extension,

where the client had preconceived ideas and a proposal that was way over
their budget. By helping to define the brief more carefully the architect was
able to put forward an alternative solution that met the brief and the
budget.

Developing and reviewing options

Having established the ground rules, it should be possible to develop a number

of options that meet the briefing criteria. Ideally these will represent different
approaches, perhaps exploring variations that may not meet all the client’s
criteria but have other potential benefits. For each option, state the advantages
and disadvantages together with the implications for cost and programme.
Chapter 8 discussed the importance of defining the accuracy of any cost
information and providing an appropriate ‘health warning’. With some projects it
is useful to explore radically different approaches, some exceeding of the client’s
budget, to test out aspects of the brief as well as the client’s capacity for risk and
innovation. It is important to explain what the various options can achieve so the
client understands the benefits. It may also be appropriate to review options
relative to criteria such as life safety, sustainability and inclusive design.

SWOT analysis

Some scenarios lend themselves to a SWOT analysis, where the Strengths,

Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats are considered. This analysis can also be
applied to the client’s initial proposal and associated challenges. It is a way of
reviewing the key issues in an objective and transparent way. It may be that the
most sensible solution is to reuse, remodel or refurbish an existing building,
though this option may not have been considered by the client or form part of
your brief. Nevertheless, there can be substantial benefits from an environmental
point of view, as the most sustainable solution is almost certainly to use the
building that already exists. From a site appraisal perspective, detaching the
analysis of the elements from the opportunities they present can be extremely
useful, and will allow you to discuss development options before putting forward
design solutions.

‘With our domestic clients we often use option appraisals to provide

an audit trail for the decisions made by the client, which can be very
useful later on.’

Helen Reid, ABHR_A

PRESENTING TO THE CLIENT

Chapter 11 discusses monitoring and reporting back to the client. There are a
number of important dos and don’ts associated with presenting option appraisals.
You may have prepared many alternatives, which have been investigated in great
detail back in the office. For a client presentation, however, it is sensible to
restrict the number of options to avoid overloading the client with information.
Of course, projects vary in type and complexity, so there is no absolute rule on
this, but three or four options would normally be the maximum.

There are two key things to remember: first, you could be dealing with a non-
expert client who is not proficient in reading drawings. Second, you will have
worked with these options for some time and will therefore be familiar with the
proposals and the orientation, while your client may not be. It is important for
your presentation to be clear; if necessary, carry out a test run in the office with
someone unfamiliar with the project. Allow time for the key points you are
making to sink in; if the client finds it difficult to understand the options
presented, they may switch off, and you will lose them for the remainder of the
presentation. Generally speaking, people do not like admitting that they can’t
read the drawings or don’t understand the proposals, and they will be more
inclined to sit passively and wait for an opportunity to study the information
privately in their own time. While this may be a sensible strategy for the client, it
does mean that the discussion following the presentation will be limited.

Exploring the preferred option with the client is useful, because it will allow you
to discuss the client’s developing brief and the extent to which there is flexibility.
Where the preferred option represents a radical departure from the brief, it is
prudent to flag this up so that the issues can be discussed. From a preferred
option, it will be possible to carry out further explorations or options in order to
arrive at a final proposal.

Case Study 9 describes an option appraisal to determine the location of a

new teaching block within the school campus. While the option appraisal
approach was useful in the meeting with the senior management team, the
final presentation to the governing body included only the preferred
solution, on the basis that the reasoning behind the siting could be provided
if challenged.
CLIENT SIGN-OFF

Dealing with the intermediate steps of a feasibility study in a consistent way can
help move the project forward and ensure that the development of the design is
recorded. Sometimes a client will wish to consider the proposals presented and
reflect on them after the presentation. In this situation, it may be sensible to wait
to receive the client’s feedback to record the preferred option and why it was
chosen. Recording the decisions made and sharing this while it is fresh in
everyone’s mind is good practice. Chapter 1 discusses the importance of
providing caveats, with the data supporting the options to ensure the client is
aware of the unknowns and associated risks in more detail.

Audit trail

Having a record of what was chosen and why other options were rejected is
useful in case the client or another party later questions why a particular solution
was pursued: the reasons behind it can be shown. Details of option appraisals
can be included in work stage sign-offs as an appendix where necessary. Chapter
6 explained that some projects have multiple stakeholders with varying degrees
of accountability. However, it is recommended to have a single point of contact
with the client, because it can be difficult to be sure who has ultimate
responsibility for a project. Keeping a record of key decisions helps ensure that
you have done your best to communicate effectively. Being able to show that
other options were considered and rejected on an objective basis can be used as
supporting evidence in a design and access statement associated with a local
authority planning application at Stage 3.

‘We use option appraisals as a good way of moving the project

forward. Sometimes they result in the client choosing the more
expensive option, which previously they said they couldn’t afford!’

Luke Butcher, Butcher Bayley Architects

SUMMARY

Option appraisals are a way of testing the brief and developing viable solutions.
They represent a useful technique when dealing with both large and small
projects. Involving the client in the design process helps you to get buy-in, and
provides an audit trail. Presenting a wide range of solutions can sometimes give
surprising results, and allows the client to think ‘outside the box’.

WATCH POINTS
■ Agree with the client the criteria against which the options will be
assessed.
■ Try to limit the number of options to avoid information overload.
■ Keep a record of the preferred and rejected options and the reason
behind the choices.
■ Explain the benefits of the various options and what they can
achieve.

CASE STUDY 9
CLASSROOM WING
Sector: Education

Client: Secondary school

Function: Art classrooms

Construction value: £2 million

BRIEF

The secondary school wanted to replace four timber ‘mobile’ classroom units at
the front of the site that were in poor condition with four new classrooms, and
proposed to create a new art teaching wing.

CLIENT AND STAKEHOLDERS

The feasibility study was commissioned directly by the school, and the
governing body was the client. Briefing and day-to-day instructions came from
the headteacher, with the head of department providing technical input. Other
stakeholders included the support and administration staff, the children and the
wider community, as the facility would be used out of hours.
DESIGN AND PROCESS

The feasibility study looked into the viability and costs associated with replacing
the old classrooms. Criteria for the location of the new classrooms were agreed
with the headteacher. Three options were identified, and advantages and
disadvantages for each were listed relative to the school’s criteria. A presentation
to the governing body included the cost and programme implications. Option 2
was chosen because the school felt that it celebrated the new art wing, placed
prominently at the front of the site. This option was the most difficult to
implement, however, because it required the demolition of the existing mobile
classrooms first, causing accommodation issues. The feasibility study enabled
the school to secure funding.

KEY POINTS
■ Option appraisals allow you to engage the client in the design process and
help them reach an informed decision.
■ Get buy-in from the client for the preferred option relative their own
 briefing criteria.
■ A professionally prepared report can make a difference when bidding for
funding, by demonstrating viability and showing that cost and
programme issues have been considered.
 CHAPTER 10
MONITORING AND REPORTING BACK

DOI: 10.4324/9781003343769-10

Feasibility studies are all about communication. Whether you are dealing
with a single client or a large organisation, keeping the key stakeholders
informed and on board is essential. This is part of the normal business of
being an architect, but feasibility studies can be particularly challenging due
to their fast-tracked and fluid nature. Dealing with a busy client, for whom
the project you are looking at may be peripheral to their ‘day job’, can
mean that important points of information are not shared, leading to a gap
in understanding. This can result either in abortive work or, worse still, an
unsuccessful outcome to the study. Providing feedback on a regular basis is
a good way to prompt the client to provide clarification where necessary.

In this chapter we will consider:

■ Why communication is important to encourage client buy-in

■ Communicating with stakeholders and providing regular updates
■ Tips for client presentations
■ The format of the final report

WHY COMMUNICATION IS IMPORTANT

Chapter 8 discussed the developing brief, which is often poorly defined at the
start of the commission. Bringing the threads together, and in some cases
challenging the client’s brief, can mean the study does not move forward in a
linear way. If there are multiple stakeholders, keeping everyone informed can be
challenging – there needs to be a balance between the day-to-day
communication and more formal stopping-off points. At the end of the study
there must be a record or report, even if this is in the form of an extended email.
After completion of the feasibility study, there may a delay before the project
goes ahead. This could be weeks or even years, so having a record of the key
recommendations and the reasoning behind the proposals is important.

Case Study 11 involved affordable housing in a sensitive rural location.

There were four years between the initial study and the project going ahead,
during which time there were various changes in the client’s personnel.

‘Formalising the feasibility study provides a datum later if the

proposals change substantially when the project moves forward to a
full commission: 80% of our new work starts with a feasibility study;
of those, 60% are then wrapped up into the main commission.’

Simon Knight, Simon Knight Architects

Communication is a two-way affair with a feasibility study. It is important to

ensure that the client not only understands what is happening, but also agrees
with the direction of travel. Of course it is the client’s prerogative to change their
mind, and this sometimes happens when they have had the opportunity to reflect
on what has been presented. Encouraging feedback is important, to arrive at the
best possible solution. Allowing the client to feel they can change their mind,
and that this is part of the feasibility study process, is what makes it different
from the later work stages. The interim reports and stopping-off points provide
structure, so that you can build on what has already been agreed.

‘We have a template for the key issues to address in a feasibility study,
resulting in a final report. The majority of these feasibility studies go
on to a full commission.’

Ian Bramwell, Mole Architects

COMMUNICATING WITH AND UPDATING
STAKEHOLDERS
Keeping track of the developing design and brief on a day-to-day basis can be
difficult when you dealing with multiple topics. Depending on the type of client
and the scale of the project, there are many ways to record the information flow.
Ideally it will be in a form that allows you to extract the key pieces of
information later, without having to wade through numerous emails. Key issues
relating to the brief, associated costs and programme can be recorded using a
standard format (described later in this chapter). If your commission is based on
an hourly charge-out rate, or you have agreed a fee ceiling, then it may also be
necessary to update the client on a weekly or monthly basis about how your time
is being spent. This will allow them to put the brakes on if they feel the study is
moving too fast or costing too much in terms of fees.

Case Study 4 started off as a sketch scheme for a new boat house to support
a grant application. Addressing all the bid criteria required the engagement
of a number of consultants to provide a more detailed appraisal. The final
fee was over three times the original lump sum figure quoted. The architect
obtained authorisation for the additional expenditure at each stage as the
scope and fee increased.

INTERMEDIATE STOPPING-OFF POINTS

The RIBA Plan of Work and sign-off process allows the project to progress in a
rational way and avoid abortive work due to late design changes. For a
feasibility study, you will need to judge the intermediate stages. Ideally, updates
to the client will include costs and programme implications to provide context as
a reality check.
For a small domestic project, it might be appropriate to restrict the flow of
communication in the interests of efficiency and to limit the fee. For a large,
complex project with multiple stakeholders the emphasis will be on ensuring that
everyone is ‘on message’, so that the brief and proposals are developed in a
rational way. Chapter 5 discussed the importance of setting out a programme for
the study, to ensure everyone understands the intermediate reporting points and
that key meetings are all in the diary. The hierarchy of disclosure is also a
consideration. It may be that the client only wishes to present proposals to
stakeholders after the endorsement of the board or governing body has been
secured.

Case Study 9 involved a new classroom block, and meetings were organised
with different groups including staff, heads of department and governors.
There was also a ‘town hall’ presentation to the parents and pupils. The
headteacher chaired all the meetings and advised the architect on what level
of information should be shared and the purpose of the presentation.

Where the feasibility study is being carried out at risk, for example supporting a
commercial client or housing trust with a land purchase bid, there will be an
incentive for you to minimise the time spent. While a formal report may not be
appropriate, it is important that you have a record of key decisions and the basis
on which they were made.

TOWN HALL MEETINGS

Town hall meetings are an opportunity to present the proposals and the
principles behind them to a larger audience. The people attending may not be
directly affected by the project, but it is important to keep them informed. Large
projects involving design proposals in the public realm are outside the scope of
this book, and practices working in the housing and urban regeneration field will
understand the importance of public engagement and the impact it can have on
securing local authority planning approval. Typical examples of town hall
meetings might involve a school or college considering alterations and wanting
to communicate these with staff and students, or a community project involving
a new village hall, which would need support from the community at large. A
commercial organisation may wish to share development proposals with their
production staff to communicate what is about to happen, and also to ensure that
everyone has been consulted. Sometimes a town hall meeting is simply a PR
exercise, and it is important for you to understand the political dimension and
what your client is wanting to achieve. These types of meetings need to be
managed; ideally, the architect will present but not actually lead the meeting.
The chairperson will need to ensure that any discussions are kept within
manageable limits and that the information provided is on a ‘need to know’
basis. Only the client can make these judgement calls, and you need to
understand what is to be shared and what not to be shared.

TIPS FOR CLIENT PRESENTATIONS

Formal client presentations need to be carefully choreographed, even for a
modest scale of project. Whether you are using a digital format, a table-top talk
or pin-up presentation boards, the story must have a beginning, a middle and an
end. Restating the brief and explaining the journey will provide context for those
not closely involved. Chapter 9 discussed the danger of ‘information overload’,
and to avoid this is it a good idea to practise the presentation with colleagues
who are unfamiliar with the project. Fortunately, architects have years of
experience of giving presentations and sitting through design reviews at college,
so they should be well aware of the key dos and don’ts. Resist handing out any
bits of paper such as reports or figures before or during the presentation.
Watching people leaf through documents rather than listen to your carefully
prepared presentation can be annoying and distracting. Any cost information is
best left until the end of the presentation, or some of the financially driven
members of the audience may switch off if they don’t like the figures rather than
listen to the whole story.

Case Study 5, a new research facility, involved a presentation to the

governing body of the institution at the end of Stage 2. The client’s project
manager chaired the meeting and advised the architect about the level of
information required. The purpose of the exercise was to obtain the
governors’ approval to allow the project to proceed to the next stage, with
the emphasis on ‘keeping the message simple’!

Encourage the audience to save questions for the end to avoid interrupting your
presentation. When dealing with difficult questions, offer to come back to the
client within a day or so to avoid giving cause for concern over any vagueness in
your reply. Of course you will wish to encourage questions and open debate in
intermediate presentations, but this may not be appropriate when trying to get
sign-off at the end of the study with an audience comprising new members.
Where discussions take an unpredictable turn, try to get agreement on the key
issues, ring-fence the outstanding items and agree to look into these matters
further. Sometimes it is unreasonable to expect the client to sign off the
proposals there and then in the meeting, but it is best to try to put a time frame
into the consideration period to avoid the feasibility study dragging on.

‘Sometimes clients want the process to go on and on, but it is

important to bring things to a conclusion.’

Paul Monaghan, Allford Hall Monaghan Morris

THE FORMAT OF THE FINAL REPORT

Feasibility studies are a process for testing the viability of the client’s brief and
what is possible, to provide a stepping stone to the next stage. There may be an
assumption here that this is a self-contained commission and a means to an end.
It is therefore important to have a document that brings all the threads together
and summarises the outputs. The form of this final report will vary depending on
the type of commission. For a commercial client, the output may be a simple
sketch scheme to show how many units can be accommodated on the site. For a
community group, it might be in a very prescriptive format to enable them to
apply for grant funding. For a school, it might be a diagram showing more
efficient clusters of subject groups and departments. Whatever the output there
needs to be a record of how the proposals were developed, the final brief, and
the cost and programme implications. Given that the feasibility study is a limited
investigation, there is also a need to qualify the status of information on which
the proposals are based. Chapter 7 discussed the importance of caveats and
highlighting the risks and unknowns. The report should be an objective record of
the process, with a recommendation describing the best solution. Where the
client favours a particular approach for political reasons, this will need to be
recorded in some way.

Case Study 6 describes a joint emergency services centre, for which a

formal report was provided. Even though the client chose not to proceed
with the project at that time for political reasons, the project may be
resurrected at some point in the future and then the information contained
in the report will be relied on, possibly without the original architect being
consulted.

The output of the feasibility study can vary, depending on the commission and
the client. Consider who the report is aimed at, and whether an executive
summary is required. It is helpful to restate the brief and what you have been
asked to do, as well as describing how that brief has been developed. With a
large study it may be useful to refer to the outcomes of intermediate stages and
confirm your understanding of the client’s criteria on quality, cost and
programme. It may be necessary to give the local authority planning
department’s perspective on the project, together with a commentary on this
advice. If recommendations are appropriate, ensure the necessary qualifications
are included. Chapter 11 discusses the next stage, moving to a full commission
for the implementation of the project. It may be appropriate to have a section of
the report covering this together with options for procurement. When dealing
with a domestic client, the final sign-off may be very informal. Nevertheless,
some sort of confirmation is important, and is a precursor to submitting your fee.
 ‘At the end of each work stage we produce a report. If the
assumptions made in the original appointment have changed then this
would be flagged up to the client. Changes in brief may also result in
a review of our fees.’

Helen Roberts, Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios

If the practice is carrying out a number of feasibility studies of a similar nature,

it may be useful to have a standard report format. A report that easily morphs
from Stages 1 to 2 to 3 can allow you to show how a project has evolved. Where
this evolution has involved major shifts in brief or direction, it can also allow
you to demonstrate that you have had to commit additional professional
resources, with an implication for the fee.

‘The ongoing service should be based on the outcome of the feasibility

study – a complete rethink would warrant a different fee.’

Chithra Marsh, Buttress Architects

With a larger project there may be a lot of supporting data, minutes of meetings,
plans and cost estimates. These are best placed within a properly indexed
appendix. Bear in mind that the report may be accessed many years later when
all the supporting files have been lost, so it is important to include all the
relevant information.

‘We use a pro forma for initial enquiry (two sides of A4) and then a
formal report at the end of the feasibility study which then easily
transforms into a Stage 3 report, since it has a similar format. We
tend to split the report into brief and then feasibility study.’

Luke Butcher, Butcher Bayley Architects

Issues for future consideration

There will be many things not covered as part of the feasibility study, but which
are important for the client to consider at some stage as part of the ongoing
project if it proceeds. Life safety has been highlighted as a result of the 2017
Grenfell Tower disaster, and it may be appropriate to flag relevant points relating
to this as well as broader health and safety issues. Equality, diversity and
inclusion are also important issues for any organisation to consider, and
accessibility can be a critical factor in attracting grant aid.

‘We use a fairly formal output for the feasibility study, which sits
alongside the RIBA Plan of Work, [and this] is then something that
you can revisit with confidence.’

Ian Bramwell, Mole Architects

SUMMARY
Feasibility studies can be fast-tracked commissions. There is sometimes a rush to
move forward to the implementation stage, and it is easy to overlook the
importance of the final report. It may appear that viability has been established
and everyone has agreed to the strategy. However, having a record of how the
final proposals were arrived at, and the discussions that formed part of the
process, is important. Should the project stall for any reason, the final report will
be a record to refer to. If the project proceeds, it may be that senior members of
the organisation, who were not involved in the feasibility stage, later question
how and why a particular strategy was implemented. Referring to a report that
summarises the feasibility strategy and its outcomes can be invaluable.
 WATCH POINTS
■ Summarise the key outputs as well as the backstory in the final
report.
■ Restate the brief, as the final report may be read by those not directly
involved.
■ Provide qualifications for the data supporting the report as
appropriate.
■ Include supporting documents in an appendix.
■ Have a document (or some other form of communication) that you
can revisit with confidence in the future.

CASE STUDY 10
OFFICE DEVELOPMENT

Sector: Commercial

Client: Private developer

Function: Commercial offices

Construction value: £4 million

BRIEF

The developer wanted to establish the potential of a city centre site it was
considering acquiring. It provided a brief including the lettable floor area to be
achieved as well as a time frame for the development. The architect, together
with a structural and services engineer, worked for a nominal fee on the basis
that they would be appointed on the project if it proceeded.

CLIENT AND STAKEHOLDERS

The experienced private developer required the architect to work at risk initially.
The local authority planning department was not supportive of the proposal due
to the scale of the development. A planning consultant was engaged as well as
structural and services consultants to develop the proposal in detail.
DESIGN AND PROCESS

A planning consultant became involved because the local authority would not
support the scale of development required to make the scheme financially viable.
Service supplies and ground conditions needed to be professionally assessed
because they involved large sums of money and were high risk.

The client proceeded at its own risk. The planning application involved a
substantial financial investment in fees and surveys.

The architect agreed to work ‘at cost’ on the planning submission, but tried to
safeguard their position by stating a sum of money for the copyright licence.

The scheme did gain consent, but the client then sold the site on to a new
developer who proceeded with a different firm of architects, making minor
modifications. ‘Discussions’ on copyright are ongoing.

KEY POINTS
■ Reporting on substructure and service supply issues needs specialist
advice. All the main risks are in the ground.
■ Weigh up the client carefully before undertaking work at risk – consider
the likelihood of the project moving forward and the potential benefit to
the practice.
■ Copyright may protect your position if the project proceeds without your
involvement, but not in all circumstances.
 CHAPTER 11
THE NEXT STAGE

DOI: 10.4324/9781003343769-11

Completion of a feasibility study may provide an opportunity to secure a

commission for the implementation of the project, and for most architects
this is the natural transition. Chapter 2 explained the benefits to the client
of carrying out a feasibility study, including the ability to stop the project,
or for them to use a different consultant for the implementation. This can
therefore be a risk for the practice. In some sectors, there is also a
requirement to demonstrate best value as the project moves to
implementation, and as the associated fees become more significant.

‘FCBS have excellent ongoing relationships with established clients

and are on their frameworks. But still, having been commissioned to
carry out a feasibility study, a project will sometimes move forward
with a different firm of architects.’

Helen Roberts, Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios

Throughout this book we have stressed the importance of professionalism and

providing impartial expert advice. Hopefully, the quality of service and trust
built up over the period of the study will mean that the client will wish to stay
with your practice for the next stage.

In this chapter we will consider:

■ The next stage of the project

■ Negotiating a fee for implementation
■ Competitive fee bidding and the associated risks
 ■ The professional services contract and copyright

‘It would be rare for us not to proceed with a full commission

following the feasibility study. On some occasions, of course, projects
do not proceed.’

Paul Monaghan, Allford Hall Monaghan Morris

THE NEXT STAGE OF THE PROJECT

There are a number of possible outcomes at the end of the feasibility study. The
client may proceed with the original practice, or they might consider using a
different architect for the implementation, put the project on hold, or abort it.
Reasons for the project not moving forward may include non-viability, lack of
funding or noncompliance with statutory requirements. It may be that the
feasibility study was a self-contained commission to establish viability and has
nothing to do with a specific development or project. Whatever the situation, it is
useful to discuss the options with the client and the reasoning behind the
decision. If a project is going to be implemented, the appointment for the next
stage can be dealt with in a variety of ways. The architect might be engaged for a
full-service commission from Stages 2 to 7, or just Stage 3, to submit a planning
application.

There are also several procurement routes, and these will affect the way in which
the architect is appointed. These include the traditional route, where the
information is taken to a good level of detail and then tendered to a number of
contractors; design and build, where the architect may be working for the
contractor, who takes ultimate design responsibility; management contracting,
where information is prepared in a series of work packages; and self-build,
where the client manages the construction process via a series of subcontractors.
Whatever procurement method is chosen, the new commission is an opportunity
to develop the relationship built up with the client during the feasibility study.
You will be well informed about the issues affecting the project, and the key
stakeholders. There will be no need for a familiarisation period, so the practice
can make a prompt start.

Sometimes there is a gap between completion of the feasibility study and the
project moving forward. This could be weeks, months or even years, requiring
you to refresh your memory about the key issues and any recommendations.
Keeping in regular contact with the client in the interim is good practice, and
will also allow you to remind them of the benefits of retaining you for the next
stage.

NEGOTIATING A FEE FOR IMPLEMENTATION

In an ideal world, you will negotiate a fee for your ongoing involvement in the
project. This will be particularly appropriate where there is a long-standing
relationship and a high level of trust. Many practices enjoy repeat-order work,
and their clients appreciate the level of service they provide and their track
record. However, it may be necessary for the client to justify retaining the
architect, and in this case a more formal process is necessary.

Whatever the circumstances, it is important to clearly set out your fee, the level
of professional service and the project scope, as well as your understanding of
the client’s brief. If necessary, to prepare a matrix showing what you are
responsible for and what will be dealt with by others. The benefit of having
carried out the feasibility study is that you will have a good understanding of the
project, including the backstory and budget. This information should enable you
to tailor the fee much more accurately to the professional service required.
Traditionally, fees have been calculated as a percentage of the construction costs.
However, calculating your fee on the basis of the actual tasks, the outputs
required and the person-days needed to deliver the project is more precise. If the
client insists on a percentage fee, the figure calculated can be converted to a
percentage based on the estimated construction cost.
COMPETITIVE FEE BIDDING AND THE
ASSOCIATED RISKS
For many public sector clients, and also some in private sector organisations,
procurement rules require them to demonstrate best value by inviting a
competitive fee bid. This process may also be part of a longer-term framework
arrangement for consultants, where fee levels are agreed at set rates based on the
type and value of work for a period of years. If it is a one-off fee bid for a
specific project, there are a number of issues to consider, especially for the
practice that carried out the original feasibility study. The final report prepared
for the feasibility study also provides a useful way of briefing prospective
architects. If you were responsible for preparing this document, you will also be
aware of what the report includes and what was left out, possibly for political
reasons. You will be familiar with the client, how well organised they are, and
any difficulties in dealing with stakeholders and the local authority. This can
mean that you allow a disproportionate amount of professional resources to
deliver the project, resulting in a high fee.

When bidding in competition, it is important to base your fee and service

proposal only on the information provided by the client. Work out objectively
the amount of time required to provide the professional service described in the
client’s invitation to tender document, and consider what level of staff will be
needed. If necessary, qualify the fee by stating what you are, and what you are
not, going to do. In certain circumstances, it may be helpful to calculate the fee
associated with any ‘extra’ services. Whether you disclose this information with
your bid or choose to discuss these things with the client after your appointment
depends on how secure you feel your position is.

The above approach may seem unhelpful. However, where a proscriptive

procedure is involved, the client’s assessor will have to justify their selection on
a like-for-like basis, and in an auditable way. If discussions are needed after
appointment, and in the light of additional information, these things can then be
reviewed. Where additional fees can be shown to be justified, a revised fee can
be agreed.
Understanding the basis on which your fee and service proposal will be assessed
is important. Bids are often judged using a quality/price proportion of 30/70 or
40/60, but it is important to understand how the client assesses ‘quality’ of
service and then provide the right evidence. For more experienced clients, the
importance placed on the ‘chemistry’ between the stakeholders and the design
team who carried out the feasibility study should not be underestimated.
Sometimes clients include a kind of ‘beauty parade’, allowing consultants to
present themselves to the stakeholders. When making presentations, it is
important to remember the client’s aspirations – what they consider to be
important – as well as to be clear on roles and responsibilities within the client’s
team.

‘Many public sector clients are governed by procurement restrictions,

when it comes to instructing our services for the following stages of a
project. We will often re-tender for the ongoing services relating to
that commission.’

Chithra Marsh, Buttress Architects

It can be frustrating for a small firm that has carried out a successful feasibility
study to be told that they are not big enough to deal with the implementation
phase. In this case, it may be possible to team up with a larger practice that can
demonstrate the appropriate right track record.

When bidding for work where another practice was responsible for the early
stages, there may be professional issues involved in taking the work over. Prior
to your appointment you will need to understand the basis of the previous
practice’s involvement and the status of any drawings or other information made
available to you by the client. You will also want to carry out due diligence
checks to ensure its accuracy and legitimacy.

Even when you are not successful, the intelligence gained in preparing the bid
can be useful – you should always ask for feedback from the client.
Case Study 5 involved new laboratories, and because this was in the
education sector the institution was governed by public procurement
protocols. After the feasibility study was completed, the architect’s report
was included in the package used to obtain competitive fee quotations from
firms of architects. The original firm lost out to one of its competitors.

THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT AND

COPYRIGHT

Details of the architect’s professional services contract is outside the scope of

this book. However, the RIBA suite of documents and the guidance notes that
accompany them provide a good basis for the agreement. Many practices choose
to use their own agreements, and often clients have their own bespoke contracts.
The RIBA agreement provides an excellent checklist of things to consider and
ensures that the client understands the issues involved, providing a datum for
any issues that may occur later on.

‘Sometimes the fees involved in the feasibility work are wrapped up in

the main commission if the client’s bid is successful.’

Adam Hall, Falconer Chester Hall

Copyright

It is sometimes said that copyright is the final bargaining tool where there is a
dispute regarding non-payment of fees, because withdrawing the licence means
that the client cannot legitimately use the drawings. While this may be the case
for an ongoing project where there is a professional services contract in place, it
is not always as clear when a feasibility study proposal is taken forward by
another client or practice. What constitutes breach of copyright can be open to
interpretation. It is likely that you have only taken the design to Stage 2. Another
client or architect making minor alterations can make it difficult to prove breach
of copyright.

Case Study 10 involved a speculative office development and, following a

successful planning application, the original client sold the site to another
developer who proceeded with a new architect. The relatively minor
subsequent design changes nevertheless made it difficult for the original
architect to make a case for breach of copyright.

SUMMARY

Whether the feasibility study is a standalone appointment or part of a larger

commission, many architects see the completion of Stages 0, 1 and 2 as a
watershed. Client sign-off at Stage 2 provides a useful datum to define the scope
and brief prior to more detailed design work taking place. Formalising the
transition to the next stage can be useful if major changes in brief and strategy
are required at a later stage, especially if these variations have resource and fee
implications. Where a formal review of the architect’s appointment is required at
the end of the feasibility stage, it is important to remember that the ‘friendly’
relationship built up over many weeks or months may not be the deciding factor
in your appointment for the next stages.

WATCH POINTS
■ Keep the implementation stage in mind when preparing the final
report.
■ Explain the benefit to the client of retaining the original team for
implementation.
■ If fee bidding, calculate the fee based on the briefing information
provided by the client, rather than detailed knowledge acquired as a
 result of the feasibility study.

CASE STUDY 11
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Sector: Social housing

Client: Housing association

Function: Affordable housing

Construction value: £3 million

BRIEF
A housing association needed a capacity study to establish the viability of a site
offered for affordable housing (the adjacent site having been developed for high-
value private housing). It provided a brief for the mix of housing required.
CLIENT AND STAKEHOLDERS

The housing association was the overall client, but its procurement method
required that the architect should be employed via one of the design and build
contractors on its framework.

Homes England was a key stakeholder in establishing what level of grant might
be available. Discussions were also needed with the local authority’s rural
housing officer to see if they would support a Rural Exception for the
development. The local authority planning department was consulted as part of
the pre-application process, as well as the Parish Council.

DESIGN AND PROCESS

The study was done in two stages, with initial work undertaken at risk. The
architect used free resources to check the planning history, flood risk and tree
preservation issues. The site was not designated for housing in the Unitary
Development Plan. A sketch layout showed that 28 dwellings could be
accommodated based on Ordnance Survey plans. The housing association
established that the project was viable, and took an option on the land subject to
planning permission. The housing association’s design and build contractor then
sourced costs for relevant surveys, and fees for the architect to prepare a more
accurate pre-application submission. The local authority supported the
application subject to local consultations. The plans were then developed further
and submitted to the Parish Council prior to a full planning application. It took
several years to implement the project.

KEY POINTS

■ Keep monitoring the progress of the project to ensure you do not lose out
due to changes in client personnel.
■ Caveat information contained in the feasibility study if it is prepared
using limited data and resources.
■ Reassess the layout following technical surveys, taking account of ground
conditions, substructure services, easements and ownership.
 CHAPTER 12
SUMMARY

DOI: 10.4324/9781003343769-12

The RIBA Plan of Work Stages O to 7 cover the whole spectrum of a project
from inception through to completion. In its latest iteration, sustainability is
considered at every stage of the RIBA Plan of Work. Considering the
environmental, social and economic impact of a proposal begins at the
inception stage of a project.

It is sometimes said that there is no need for the client to employ an architect at
Stages 0 and 1. However, Stages 0, 1 and 2 are where all the big decisions are
made and the strategy for the project is set. Architects are uniquely placed to
deal with these early work stages, with a combination of strategic thinking,
problem-solving and design skills. Encouraging clients to view these early work
stages from the perspective of a feasibility study, with a beginning (Strategic
Definition) a middle (Preparation and Briefing) and an end (Concept Design)
means that the project can start on a firm footing. A feasibility study also helps
the client approach the project in an open-minded way: what sort of facility is
needed? How can their aspirations be met?

This book has shown that many sectors use a feasibility study as a way of
starting off a project in order to test the brief, and to provide a stepping stone to
the next stage. Having the right strategy at the beginning of a project allows it to
progress in a rational and sustainable way.

‘In the future we will need to demonstrate “value” and “social value”
as part of an integrated approach to decision making and
procurement.’

Flora Samuels, University of Reading

THE CLIENT'S PERSPECTIVE
There are many reasons for carrying out a feasibility study, and clients come to a
project from a range of standpoints, depending on their level of experience and
the sector they are working in. Most clients have a clear strategy for what they
are trying to achieve, but need professional help to realise their vision. Chapter 2
looked at the different sectors and how they work, as well as the expectations of
clients in terms of fees and professional service. Experienced clients know the
value an architect can bring to a project and often rely on the advice received,
even if it shows a proposition is actually not viable. Less experienced clients can
be apprehensive about engaging an architect and may be unsure what services
are available. A feasibility study can provide a way forward, and can give the
client the confidence to commit to the project.

‘We find a feasibility study will tend to sort things out and overcome
the client’s reluctance to commit.’

Jo Day, Langstaff Day Architects

THE ARCHIECT'S VIEW

Feasibility studies can be a great source of work. In some cases, architects are
providing a specialised and expert service, and there is an opportunity for fees to
reflect the high value of the advice given. The output from a feasibility study
provides a greater level of definition for a project, allowing the subsequent fee
and professional services proposal for the main commission to be prepared with
more confidence. Chapter 3 showed the importance of setting out boundaries for
the scope and output of the feasibility study so the client’s expectations are
managed. Architects can be great enthusiasts, and it is important to have an
agreement in place before starting work and to then monitor how the office
resources are being used relative to the plan.

Feasibility studies can also be fast-tracked and chaotic. It is important to manage

the situation and also to describe the design process to the client. The RIBA Plan
of Work provides a useful framework for this, and explaining how procurement
works is also helpful, particularly if the client has not experienced a building
project before. With larger projects, it is important to set out a programme and
explain how communication will work to avoid crossed wires and ensure
everyone is ‘on message’.

Chapter 5 discussed the benefits of a project programme so that the client can
see how the feasibility study will pan out, setting down dates for meetings and
other activities. Client organisations with multiple stakeholders need to be
managed so that the right information is communicated to the right group.
Chapter 6 covered the benefits of having a single point of contact with the client
to avoid mixed messages.

COMMUNICATION AND DATA

The output from a feasibility study is only as good as the data on which it is
based. It is important to establish which surveys and other information are
essential and which are desirable. It may be necessary to programme in the time
needed to commission the investigations. Sometimes feasibility studies are
carried out at risk or for a low fee, using free resources and relying on Ordnance
Survey maps rather than measured surveys. In these circumstances is important
to explain to the client the risks associated with the level of information
available and caveat the feasibility proposal output.

The client’s brief is the starting point for any project, but often this is an
aspiration statement rather than a formal document, and it may be poorly
defined. Many clients find it difficult to describe in the abstract what they are
trying to achieve, and the feasibility study is a way of helping them define the
brief. The business case will normally be critical to viability and may require the
involvement of other specialists. Chapter 8 described budget costs and ensuring
the client understands the level of accuracy of any figures quoted. Different
clients and sectors vary enormously in their attitude to risk. Meanwhile Chapter
9 explored the use of option appraisals as a way of developing the brief and
involving the client in the design process.

Feasibility studies are all about communication, in terms of listening and also
providing feedback to the client. Chapter 10 explained the importance of getting
client buy-in to ensure that the study is moving in the right direction. This
process occurs at various levels, from day-to-day communication to more formal
presentations to the board. It is important to have an audit trail to record how
decisions are made, as well as the recommendations. The final report needs to be
a document you can revisit with confidence, years later if necessary.

IMPLEMENTATION
Feasibility studies can be interesting to carry out. Ideally, a study will result in a
commission for the design of the building, forming a natural transition to the
implementation stage. Procurement rules sometimes require that the main project
commission is tendered to consultants after the completion of the feasibility
study to demonstrate a ‘best value’ fee and service proposal. Chapter 11 covered
the different work sectors and the challenges associated with them. Being aware
of these alternative approaches is important, because although the design process
may be similar, professional environments can differ enormously. Keeping the
implementation stage in mind is important, to ensure that there is an appropriate
balance between the time invested in the feasibility study and the potential fees
for the whole project. Considering the longer-term benefits to the practice may
also be key, particularly if the initial work is undertaken at risk.
SUMMARY

Feasibility studies are a great source of work and can be incredibly rewarding.
Examples might include helping a community group to attract grant funding,
working with a housing association to create affordable housing, or assisting an
institution to justify the viability of a new facility. The process sometimes allows
a client to arrive at a solution that far exceeds their expectations. However,
managing the commission requires skill and patience, as well as the ability to
hang in there if the feasibility study moves in unexpected directions. Reminding
the client of the importance of cost, programme and quality should ensure the
study remains grounded.

Architects are trained to see the big picture and to challenge assumptions. We
care about quality and also safeguarding the environment. For these reasons,
involvement in feasibility studies is important if we are to have influence over
the big decisions and help our clients make the right choices.
INDEX

adding value 26
additional services 101
affordable housing 104–5
alternatives see option appraisals
architect’s appointment 32–9, 99, 102
architect’s role 54
audit trail 66, 84

BREEAM 72, 74
brief 22, 26–7, 45, 70–7, 81–2, 93, 108
budget 18, 24, 34, 74
build quality 18, 64, 73–4
building information modelling (BIM) 6
business case 72–3, 75

capacity studies (housing) 13, 73, 75, 104–5

case study
1: church reordering 8–9
2: house extension 20–1
3: community hall 30–1
4: rowing centre 40–1
5: research laboratories 48–9
6: emergency services centre 58–9
7: reuse of heritage building 68–9
8: house on garden plot 78–9
9: classroom wing 86–7
10: office development 96–7
11: affordable housing 104–5
charge-out rate 26, 32, 35–6
charging methods 35–6
charity sector 14–15, 36
church projects 8–9, 14–15, 63
classroom wing 86–7
clients
brief 22, 26–7, 45, 70–7, 81–2, 93, 108
care letter 35
communicating with 50–6, 83, 88–95
feedback from 43, 52, 84, 89
information provided by 64
meetings with 25, 43, 45, 55, 64, 90
presenting to 83, 91–2
representatives 52, 53, 54, 56, 84
review and sign-off 4–5, 84, 93
stopping-off points 90
types 11–18
commercial sector 16, 96–7
commissions 22–8, 38, 99
communication methods 50, 83, 88–95
community engagement 52, 91
community hall 30–1
community sector 14–15, 30–1, 36, 40–1, 55, 72
competitive fee bidding 18, 24, 100–1
condition surveys 62–3
confidentiality 54
conservation management plans 63
construction budget 18, 24, 34, 74
construction costs 74–6
construction programme 34, 76
contractor-led projects 18, 27
copyright 102
costs 18, 74–6 (see also budget; fee calculation)

design and build contracts 6, 18, 76

design options see option appraisals
design quality 18, 64, 73–4
desktop studies 61–2
developer clients 16–17, 96–7
development potential 13 (see also capacity studies)
documentation see brief; record keeping; reports
domestic clients 11, 20–1, 23, 74, 90
drainage 62

ecclesiastical work 8–9, 14–15, 63

educational clients 24, 86–7
emergency services centre 56
environmental assessments 62, 72, 74
exemplars 64, 74
expenses 36

fee bidding 18, 24, 100–2

fee calculation 32, 35, 100–1
fee ceiling 35, 36
fee negotiation 13, 16, 100
fee proposal 34–5
feedback from client 43, 52, 84, 89
fees 24, 26, 32–9
fixed fees 14, 24, 36
flood risk 62
framework agreements 12, 13, 18
full commission 38, 99
funding see grant applications

grant applications 15, 31, 36, 72–3

heritage projects 14, 26, 63, 68–9

house extension 20–1
house on garden plot 78–9
housing associations/trusts 12, 104–5
housing schemes 12–13, 104–5

implementation 98–103, 108–9

information format 6
invoicing 37

key performance indicators (KPIs) 73

land ownership 65
local authority
planning applications 34–5, 44, 66
planning issues 65–6
pre-application discussions 44, 66
lump sum fee 34, 35, 36

measured surveys 62
meetings with clients 25, 43, 45, 55, 64, 90
meetings with stakeholders 64, 91
mini competition 18

office development 96–7

operational costs 72, 76
option appraisals 80–5
owner/end user client 20–1, 78–9

payment terms 35, 35–6

planning applications 34–5, 44, 66
planning issues 65–6
precedents 64, 74
presentations 83, 91–2, 101
private housing developers 13
procurement 6, 26–7, 76, 99
professional services (see also architect’s appointment)
adding value 26
full commission 38, 99
proposal 24, 34–5
scope of services 24–5, 32–4, 36, 46–7, 101
programme 34, 43, 45, 76
project brief 22, 26–7, 45, 70–7, 81–2, 93, 108
project programme 34, 43–5
project scope 24–5
public engagement see community engagement
public meetings 91
public sector clients 13–14, 18, 52, 58–9

quality of build 18, 64, 73–4

quality of service 101

record keeping 54, 66 (see also audit trail; resource monitoring)

refurbishment 62, 82
remodelling of existing building 82
reporting points 90
reports 92–4
research laboratories 48–9
Resmar 62
resource monitoring 37
responsibility matrix 61
reuse of existing building 68–9, 82
RIBA Plan of Work 1–5, 44–5
RIBA professional services agreement 102

scope of services 24–5, 32–4, 36, 46–7, 101

services see professional services
sign-off 4–5, 84, 93
site access 65
site boundary 62, 65
site information 61–2, 64
staff resources 24, 25, 37
stakeholders 14, 51–2, 53, 64, 89–90
statutory approvals 73
stopping-off points 90
subconsultants 37, 44, 61
surveys 37, 61, 62–3, 108
sustainability 5–6, 72, 74, 82
SWOT analysis 82

time, cost and quality 18–19

time-charge fee basis 32, 33–4
topographical surveys 62
town hall meetings 91

underground services 62

value, adding 26

work stage sign-off 4–5

working at risk 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 27, 33, 36