T
Tenchman
Just wondering after a recent negative result on a quote, are Architects a bridge or a Barrier ?
My work as you can see from my albums and website is for restoration mainly on Victorian floors and very often on listed buildings. approx 98% of my work comes into this heading.
There are very few other Co's who have the same level of restoration work and even fewer with a craft/trade background. in the last few years i have lost out more often if an architect was involved than if there wasn't.
One gave the job to a builder who promptly mucked the job up, another was given to a domestic tiler who didn't know how to cut the tiles from the floor.
usually i deal direct with the client and that is why i'm saying bridge or barrier, if an architect is involved they get a percentage of the overall money involved in the job as well as their own fee.
If you are going through the client they get nothing, last three churches i have dealt direct with the diocese or the local pcc, with my references and pics of prvious work job was more or less a shoe in, any churches that i have dealt via an architect they have raised objections to how we get paid when we start and usually the quoted price.
generally i can guarantee if we are dealing with an architect it will end up well before the job starts as being somewhat fraught assuming the job is going ahead.
If i'm nominated via the local council conservation dept or one of the heritage organisations like Historic Scotland i can usually expect a certain amount of annoyance as if the architect is put out.
This despite the fact that there are very few Co's in the UK who carry out my type of work at our level.
Just wondered if it's the same in other areas of tiling like large contracts or domestic contracts big enough to warrant an architect.
IMO more a barrier than a bridge ! what's been your experience ?:frown5:
My work as you can see from my albums and website is for restoration mainly on Victorian floors and very often on listed buildings. approx 98% of my work comes into this heading.
There are very few other Co's who have the same level of restoration work and even fewer with a craft/trade background. in the last few years i have lost out more often if an architect was involved than if there wasn't.
One gave the job to a builder who promptly mucked the job up, another was given to a domestic tiler who didn't know how to cut the tiles from the floor.
usually i deal direct with the client and that is why i'm saying bridge or barrier, if an architect is involved they get a percentage of the overall money involved in the job as well as their own fee.
If you are going through the client they get nothing, last three churches i have dealt direct with the diocese or the local pcc, with my references and pics of prvious work job was more or less a shoe in, any churches that i have dealt via an architect they have raised objections to how we get paid when we start and usually the quoted price.
generally i can guarantee if we are dealing with an architect it will end up well before the job starts as being somewhat fraught assuming the job is going ahead.
If i'm nominated via the local council conservation dept or one of the heritage organisations like Historic Scotland i can usually expect a certain amount of annoyance as if the architect is put out.
This despite the fact that there are very few Co's in the UK who carry out my type of work at our level.
Just wondered if it's the same in other areas of tiling like large contracts or domestic contracts big enough to warrant an architect.
IMO more a barrier than a bridge ! what's been your experience ?:frown5: