Top issue: Procurement and project delivery
When it comes to designing public buildings, fair competition results in better projects. Hiring the most qualified architects protects the taxpayers’ return on investment. An investment in quality design offers large and long-term returns. These are just a few of the principles that shape our actions on procurement and project delivery.
Making it easier to compete—and win
Many government contracts put cumbersome rules in place that drain firm resources and limit fair profits. That is why we fought to get legislation signed into law that improves the federal government’s selection process. We’re also pressing agencies to review their compensation practices including the federal statutory fee cap, an arbitrary limit that compromises quality.
Putting quality work first
Would you choose your surgeon based on price alone? Of course not. Unlike shopping for soap or light bulbs, selecting a skilled professional like a doctor or an architect requires looking beyond just the price. However, many states start the procurement process for architects with fee negotiation, when expertise and ability should be the guiding factors in choosing services. We work toward getting states to use Qualifications-Based Selection, which returns the focus on quality work and to limit design competitions that force architects to provide their services and expertise for free.
Oversight for public-private partnerships
Interest in public-private partnerships (P3) is on the rise and government agencies are increasingly recognizing their potential as a way to offer the best value for cities, communities and architects alike. When used appropriately, P3 enables government to achieve value for money. We work to ensure states use P3 the right way—taxpayers deserve it.
Amplify our efforts in procurement and project delivery and put the focus back on quality of work and the value of architecture.