We should accentuate the positive, and see the above as an opportunity. The next time you get a call from the project architect during construction, asking why such-and-such product is in the specifications, the appropriate answer now is “It’s just a placeholder.”
Speaking of placeholders, the topic came up in today’s webinar. I have to agree with the presenters on a certain level that it is good to challenge the status quo which has fostered a race to the bottom. But I’m not sure it is wise to put A/E’s into the category of services which have a fiduciary duty, since A/E’s do not have the power to act on behalf of the owner precisely in the manner that professions like financial managers do.
There is a very huge problem that needs to be addressed, though. For me the verdict is still out on how that should be done. And for the legal system it appears to be as well. http://www.lockton.com/Resource_/PageResource/MKT/fiduciary%20duty%20-%20an%20explosive%20liability.pdf
Presently, fiduciary duties for A/Es seem to apply only to those who have entered a project agreement with such wording. One of the presenters, Ujjval, I think is suggesting that such agreements are taking over and may be better for project participants since the A/E must then step up their game instead of offering the usual “place-holder” type stuff and getting paid for it.
If owners are willing to pay for the much higher cost of transferring that risk to the A/E and if the A/E’s insurers have a different type of policy which can cover it, AND if the A/E has a staff and consultants who can do the level of perfection that owners seek (needs definition), AND if the owner will LET them do it, then yes I think we should be all for it. Right now that’s a lot of ifs.