It depends on the services that you agreed to with your architect when they were engaged. Your architect is talking about contract administration, and it basically involves having an overview of the project and ensuring that the builder's work has been completed to a satisfactory standard before the architect approves a progress payment from you to the builder. In this role he should be representing your interests in a fair and reasonable manner for you and the builder.

However, not all architects offer this service, and there are plenty of builders who prefer to use a standard builders contract that doesn't include having an architect involved at all! So contract administration by an architect of a building contract can be a good thing to have, especially if you don't understand the building process, or you are not available to attend regular site meetings. The more complex the building the more important it is to have one.

There are lots of good builders who are in demand so they can sometimes pick and chose the jobs that they take on. If their services are in demand they will probably not choose a job that has an architect doing contract administration, and chose a job that they can use a standard MBA or HIA builders contract that is between the builder and the client (without an architect).

While there are lots of good builders there are also a few not-so-good guys, who will take short-cuts, not build to the plans, substitute inferior materials, especially if it is going to save the builder money (but not reduce your costs), and this is where an architect doing contract administration can really help. But hopefully the builder that you are using is one of the good guys!

You may want to make a direct enquiry to the Australian Institute of Architects if you have concerns about the professionalism of your architect and the processes that are available.

Best of luck,

Dr Retro of Dr Retro House Calls/Dr Retro Virtual Visits

Architects are licensed by the Australian Institute of Architects. A professional cannot legally market themselves as providing architectural services without being registered.

"Are architects ever held accountable for their work?".........well, it depends, and it also depends upon what exact defines "work" in the particular situation & contract. What exactly are you getting at here? Are you in the middle of a build with an issue that requires resolution, or are you at the beginning of the design process? Or have you completed a tender process and about to commence construction? I would not necessarily agree with the terminology "mediate", if the building is being administered by an architect, with a set of contract documents that clearly defines the construction work. Rather, the role of the architect is to administer the construction process/contract for the purpose of quality control. When issues arise, it's black & white. Is it consistent with the documentation yes or no? If the documentation is tight enough it's usually pretty clear, but of course that's not always the case and this is where it can get murky. Typically issues in this are usually come about from a communication or interpretation or expectation issue. Sometimes a client misunderstands what has been drawn, and the builder builds it correctly as contracted, but the client is not happy with the result, despite that what is contact, so the architect then has to work out how to negotiate a path through the problem. Sometimes this can involve informing the client of a legitimate variation and extra expense to change something. The client could then argue that the architect hasn't detailed what they wanted in design stage etc etc.....and it can get complex in identifying exactly who is accountable or responsible for what. Yes architects are only architects if they're registered, but that's not to say that Building Designers can't also provide similar degree of contract administration services. It comes down to the particular contract in place. "Registration" is one thing, years of actual on ground practical experience is another. It depends on what your doing and what your needing. We have a project in construction stage at the moment that due to (a) being a reasonably straight forward project and (b) having such a great builder on board, the necessity for (arguably expensive) contract administration services has been mitigated, and so this $$ resource was able to be allocated over the construction cost. At the end of the day these projects always boil always down to trust and communication between the key players.

The Australian Institute of Architects is a voluntary professional association. Not all architects are members of the Institute. See their web site for some useful information on working with an architect.

Each State and Territory has a Board of Architects. Registration with the Board of Architects is mandatory for anyone holding out to be an architect in that jurisdiction. See your state board's web site for the professional code of conduct applicable.

As to the role of the architect in your case, that will depend upon the engagement agreement you have entered into. The range and scope of architectural services is not set in stone.

All professionals are accountable for their work.

If you have concerns, raise them with your architect directly and seek to resolve them before they snowball.