This is a scenario in which a church hires an outside organization to act as their representative to the entire project team. Some churches do not realize that the architect is contractually obligated to be the owner’s representative. Hiring an owner’s representative in addition to the architect is both a redundancy and a waste of money. An example would be a client who feels the need to hire a second attorney in order to keep an eye on their first attorney. The architect cannot reduce their scope of work with the presence of an owner’s representative. Since the architect’s seal is on the drawings, they are still obligated by the governing agencies to be sure that the construction is in conformance to the contract documents. Furthermore, financial institutions require the architect’s signature on the applications for payment. The architect is also more qualified to act as the owner’s representative because they will naturally be more familiar with the construction drawings. Hiring a representative in addition to the architect often confuses the roles and responsibilities of all of the members of the project team, and often creates an adversarial relationship between the church and their architect. 

Trackback URI | Comments RSS