WORKING WITH AN ARCHITECT
The question every client asks - and what it actually reveals
When people say architectural fees seem high, they’re not wrong to ask. They’re just asking about the wrong number.
01 — THE NUMBER THAT SURPRISES YOU ISN’T THE FEE
Construction costs have roughly doubled in most markets since 2020. When an architect’s fee is expressed as a percentage of construction cost — a standard industry structure — that percentage hasn’t changed, but the dollar figure attached to it has. What clients are experiencing isn’t architectural inflation. It’s construction inflation, reflected back through a fee structure that was always transparent.
The harder question is whether the fee represents value. We think it does — and we can explain exactly why.
02 — WHAT YOU’RE NOT PAYING FOR IS THE DRAWINGS
A complete construction document set for a mid-size project may run two hundred sheets or more. But the drawings aren’t the product — they’re the medium. What you’re actually paying for is the judgment embedded in every line: the code compliance verified before the permit application, the structural conflict caught before the steel was ordered, the mechanical system sized correctly so it doesn’t need to be replaced in five years.
Good architecture is characterized by what doesn’t happen. The surprise that doesn’t surface at framing. The change order that isn’t written. The variance that isn’t needed. None of that is visible in a completed building — which is exactly the point.
03 — THE COMPARISON THAT DOESN’T HOLD
Design-build firms and online plan services promise lower upfront design costs. That’s often true. What they’re describing is a transfer of risk — from the designer to the owner. When the building is designed by the entity that also constructs it, the incentive is to build efficiently, not to build correctly on the owner’s terms. There’s no independent professional whose license requires them to tell you when a shortcut isn’t appropriate.
Independent architectural practice exists precisely because owners need someone in the room who isn’t the contractor.
04 — WHAT THIRTY-THREE YEARS OF PRACTICE LOOKS LIKE IN A FEE
CMA’s principals carry licensure in multiple states, LEED accreditation, and credentials specific to federal procurement, historic preservation, and laboratory construction — each requiring demonstrated experience, examination, and ongoing maintenance. When you hire CMA, that depth isn’t an abstraction. It’s the reason a particular detail works, a particular material performs, a particular code question gets answered correctly the first time.
Experience doesn’t simplify what we charge for. It simplifies what you have to worry about.
05 — WHEN THE REVIEWER ISN’T THE CLIENT
Some projects have a third party in the room whose approval matters more than anyone else’s. Federal agencies, grant reviewers, FEMA program offices, and state historic preservation officers don’t just comment on a project — they control whether it proceeds. When a building is funded by NIH, CDBG-DR, or a competitive preservation grant, the architect is no longer designing for one audience. They’re designing for two simultaneously, and the second audience has the power to stop everything.
That changes the work substantially. Agency review cycles introduce comment sets that can run into the dozens — sometimes more — each requiring a formal written response, a documented design decision, and often a revised drawing or specification. The architect doesn’t just revise; they argue, defend, reconcile, and document. None of that appears in the drawings. None of it is visible in the finished building. And almost none of it is reflected in a fee structure designed for private projects with a single decision-maker.
“A well-funded project isn’t a simple project. Federal dollars come with federal oversight, and federal oversight requires an architect who can operate in two languages simultaneously — one for the building, one for the agency.”
There is also a timing dimension that rarely gets discussed. Agency review cycles don’t pause the project clock — carrying costs, escalation exposure, and contractor availability all continue accumulating while a comment response is being prepared and evaluated. The architect’s role during that period isn’t passive. Keeping a project properly positioned for the next review milestone, while holding the design intent intact and the owner’s interests protected, is active professional work whether or not a single drawing changes.
CMA’s experience spans NIH laboratory construction, FEMA replacement facilities, and CDBG-DR funded rehabilitation — each with its own review framework, its own comment protocols, and its own definition of what “compliant” means. That fluency was built over decades of federal work and isn’t available from a firm without it. When a project carries public money, the fee reflects the full weight of that responsibility.
Ready to talk through your project and what a realistic fee structure looks like?
Contact Chase Marshall Architects Click Here to Email or Dial 337.326.4470.