Disclaimer: This post represents my views and not that of the firm I am employed at.
Recently the architecture firm I work for submitted what is known in the Architecture and Engineering (A/E) community as an RFQ (request for qualifications) for the City Colleges of Chicago's new Malcolm X College. An RFQ consists of sheets detailing relevant work that the firm has engaged in recently, proof that the firm is insured, forms signaling that the firm doesn't have conflicts of interest, financial statements going back several years, etc. You get the point. It's a lot of information. I was in charge of putting together the RFQ for my firm along with the fifteen other firms we partnered with.
The project itself is an educational facility that has a teaching hospital component and a budget of $251 million. My firm designed two of the three hospitals that Malcolm X College has a partnership with, so we're familiar with the area and its stakeholders. We specialize in healthcare, teaching hospitals, high rises, corporate centers, and higher education.
The A/E team that won the contract can expect to see maybe 4.5%-6.5% of the $251 million budget, so the design fee will be roughly $12-$15 million which gets split between more than a dozen professions - structural engineers, architects, geotechnical engineers, etc. It's the kind of money that allows you to expand your office and hire additional staff.
Submitting for these RFQ's is a gamble. They consume a lot of time and energy that could go towards billable work. I personally put in well over 160 hours for this proposal and there were multiple people who worked with me. The document we produced is 290 pages and was coordinated between sixteen separate consulting firms. The submission required multiple physical copies in addition to electronic copies that had to be couriered over to the CCC's headquarters. All of this is done at our expense. We aren't reimbursed for anything. I would conservatively place the cost to my firm, not including the cost to our consultants, at well over $10,000 and probably closer to $20,000 or more. To be clear, we are aware that this is a gamble and typically only go after jobs that we think we are highly qualified for and have a good chance of winning.
We were selected for a call back after the initial submission, so we had to produce yet another set of booklets and show up for an interview. This requires more preparation, more printing, and more hours. We then had a second call back that was followed by more questions:
"Does your firm have enough people for a job of this size?"
"We have nineteen people in our office and we've partnered with another firm that is similarly sized. We also plan to hire additional staff." And the truth is that today's software (BIM, Revit) is so powerful that really this project could be done by maybe less than ten people in our office if they worked on it full time. We've designed buildings that were many times this size (Water Tower Place, Prudential Plaza/Tower, Old Orchard Shopping Center, etc.)
"Your team is very diverse but what about your firm?"
Crickets. How do you tell a review committee that your firm went from roughly 65 people to nineteen in the matter of a couple years? Architecture is feast or famine and right now we're starving. We used to be diverse and to some degree we still are. We're just not the kind of diverse they're looking for.
It was announced (source) that Moody Nolan, a firm based in Columbus, Ohio, won the contract. Their Chicago office has nine people (related). They also happen to be the largest African American owned architecture firm in the US; a fact that both the mayor and CCC are very proud of.
Moody Nolan is qualified to do the work and I harbor no ill will towards them, but why did the CCC pick a non-Chicago based firm? Especially since they keep touting how many jobs the project will bring to the Chicago area. Why did they question our size if they picked a firm that's local office is less than half of our size? This contract is for design development and construction documents (the design was done by Canon Design) so it will have to be handled locally with feet on the ground. Why did they question the racial makeup of our firm if we exceeded the MBE/WBE requirement (25% minority, 7% female) by almost three-fold? Are you really telling me they couldn't find a qualified architecture firm in Chicago?
I call shenanigans.
Many of the RFQ's we submit for are to some extent a ploy. The agencies asking for them are largely going through the process to satisfy legal requirements, but then choose not the most qualified firm but the one that fits whatever profile it is that they're looking for. And that's to be expected, but don't drag us along and waste our time and money. We don't have any to spare.
After the announcement my firm had a very terse Monday morning meeting. We were told that five people would be laid off by the end of the day and everyone else's hours would be cut by 20%. Just fourteen more people and an almost century old Chicago architecture firm will be out of business.
abraham lincoln
abraham maslow
academic papers
africa
aging
aid
alexander the great
amazon
america
android os
apple
architecture
aristotle
art
art institute chicago
astronomy
astrophysics
aubrey de grey
beck
beer
berlin
bernacke
bicycle
BIG
bill murray
biophilia
birds
blogs
bob dylan
books
bourdain
brewing
brian wansink
buckminster fuller
bukowski
cameras
cancer
carl jung
carl sagan
cemetary
change
charter city
chicago
china
christmas
church
civil war
climate change
cologne
construction
coop himmelblau
copenhagen
cornell west
cps
craigslist
crime
crown hall
cyanotype
cyrus
dalai lama
darkroom
data
dbHMS
death
design build
dessau
detail
Diet
dogs
dome
dongtan
douglas macarthur
drake equaation
dresden
dubai
ebay
eco
economics
economy
education
einstein
emerson
emily dickinson
energy
experiments
facebook
farming
finance
finland
florida
food
france
frank lloyd wright
frei otto
freud
frum
funny
furniture
games
gay rights
gdp
george w bush
george washington
germany
ghandi
glenn murcutt
goals
good
google
government
graphic design
guns
h.g. wells
h.l. mencken
hagakure
halloween
health
health care
henri cartier bresson
herzog and demeuron
honey
housing
human trafficking
humanitarian efforts
hydroponics
ideas
iit
indexed
india
industrial design
industrial work
internet
investments
japan
jaqueline kennedy
jim cramer
john maynard keynes
john ronan
john stewart
journalism
kickstarter
kings of leon
kittens
krugman
kurt vonnegut
kurzweil
lao tzu
law
le corbusier
ledoux
leon battista alberti
links
LSH
madoff
malcolm gladwell
marijuana
marriage
masdar city
math
mead
medicine
microsoft
mies van der rohe
military
milton friedman
mlk
money
movies
munich
murphy/jahn
music
nasa
nervi
neutra
new york
nickel
nietzsche
nobel prize
norman foster
nsa
obama
occupy
open source
paintball
palladium print
paris
parking
party
passive house
paul mccartney
persia
philip roth
philosophy
photography
picturequote
pirate bay
pirating
plants
poetry
poker
politics
portfolio
potsdam
predictions
prejudice
presidents
process photos
prostitution
psychology
public housing
q and a
quotes
rammed earth
randy pausch
reading
reddit
regan
religion
rendering
renewables
renzo piano
restaurants
revolution
richard meier
richard rogers
robert frank
rome
rubik's cube
rule of 72
rumi
san francisco
sartre
sauerbruch hutton
saule sidrys
schinkel
school
science
screen printing
seattle
sesame street
seth roberts
sketch
social media
soviet
sparta
spider
spinoza
sports
stanley kubrick
stanley milgram
statistics
steinbeck
sudhir venkatesh
suicide
sustainable design
switzerland
taxes
technology
ted
teddy roosevelt
tension
terracotta
tesla
thanatopsis
the onion
thomas jefferson
thoreau
time lapse
tommy douglas
transportation
travel
truman
tumblr
unemployment
urban design
van gogh
venezuela
vicuna
video
video games
wall street
war
werner sobek
wood
woodshop
woodworking
ww1
ww2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment