A~JST~N 11.TEXAS

JOEIN BEN SHEPPICRD A3"cORN~Y

n=NsRAL February 26, 1953

Hon. Robert S. Calvert Comptroller of PublicAccounts Capitol Station Austin, Texas OpinionNo. S-13
Re: Legality of the same person being paid both as consulting 'architect and as associate architect in connectionwith the Basic Science Building for Southwestern Dear Sir: Medical School.

You have requested an opinion on the following questions:

"Can the same person act in the capacity of ConsultingArchitect and also as AssociateArchitect and charge fees therefor in connectionwith the erection of the Basic Science Building for the Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, Texas?
"Ifyou answer the foregoing question 'inthe affirmative; then can the Consulting Architect's fees and the associateArchitect's fees exceed the amounts;..sbhedfll~d'~in the appropriationbill?" Section 3 of ArticleVI, Chapter 499, Acts 52 nd Legislature 1951, page 1228, at page 1478 provides that the State will furnish the architect "a limited cons.ulting

service consisting of a complete site survey, soil analysis, and a program of thework authorizing in detail the space requirements and their general arrangements, and the standards& types of constructionand Desip". This consulting servicemust be furnished the associate architect in order for him to properly carry o~ut

his duties.
We have been informedby officials of the University of Texas and the State Board of Control that thevarIous: State, agencies;:do

noit-,havb

the:pehsonneltoHon. Robert S. Calvert, page 2 (S-13)

furnish architectswith this service. Therefore, the consulting servicerequired to be furnishedby the State must be providedby one of the followingmethods:

1. The State agency contractswith a q,ualified "consultingarchitect" to conduct the necessary tests, and the informationobtained is furnished the 'associate architect" in charge of the actual construction.

2. The architect in charge of the actual construction ("associatearchitect") contracts directly with a qualified "consultingarchitect" to conduct the necessary tests, and is reimbursed by the State for the expenses so incurred.

3. If the "associatearchitect" is q,ualifled to conduct the tests, he will do so, and charge the State for such services in addition to his regular architect fees.

It has not been questioned that the first and second methods constitute an expense authorizedby the GeneralAppropriationAct. It is noted that such contracts have not been limited by the Legislature. The limitation of the amount of architect's fees that may be charged refers only to the fees for servicesrendered for the following:

"(A)The necessary conferences, and the preparation of preliminary studies. "(B) The production of complete architectural,mechanical, and struct,uraldrawiw , and specifications,and then proper correlation. "(C)The GeneralAdministration and supervision of the work."
The voucher for the "consultingarchitect" is for servicesrendered under contract dated July 13, 1951. The services rendered under this contractwere those consulting serviceswhich must be furnishedby the State to the regular architect in charge of construction (the "associateArchitect").

The voucher for the "associatearchitect"was for services rendered ,underthe contract dated April 16, 1952. Since the contracts create an "independentcontractor' relationship, Sections 33 and 40 of Article XVI_

Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 3 (S-13)

of the Constitution of Texas., prohibiting the payment of compensation ,toa personholding at the same time more than one.office or position of emolumenthave no application to your question. Att'y Gen. Op. 2671 (1927) found in the biennial report of theAttorney General 1926-1928 at page 406 and Att'y Gen. Op. V-345 (1947)
. We cannot determine any conflicting interests in the two contracts,sirice nei@er the %onsultlng architect"nor the "associatearghitect" exercise any supervision over the other, neither job is subordinate to the other, neither job duplicates the other, neither is antagonis'tic

to the other,peither has 'anypower to appoint or remove any employee of the other, and neither audits the books of the other. Therefore, there is no incompatibilityin thework of hconsultingarchitect" and "associatearchitect",Att'y'Gen. Op. V-345 (1947). (Copiesof such opinions are enclosed.)

In view of the foregoing it Is our opinion that the services to be performedunder the existing contractsmay be performed ,bythe same person. If the same person acts In the capacity of "consultingarchitect" and also as "associatearchitect" the fees that may be paid him can exceed the amounts scheduled in Section 3 of ArticleVI, Chapter 499, Acts 52nd Legislature 1951, page 1228, provided the fees for services rendered as "assoclate,~architect" do not exceed the amounts so scheduled. You are therefore advised that you are authorized to issuewarrants in payment of the two voucher claims enclosedwith your request.
SUMMARY
Contracts for the:~performance of services as "consultingarchitect" and "associate architect" in connectionwith the .constr,uction

of 'abuilding for the~‘Southwestern Medical School of the University of Texas may be entered into by the same architect. If the same person'acts in the capacity of "consulting,architect"and also as "associatearchitect" the fees that may be paid him can exceed the amounts scheduled in Section 3 of ArticleVI, Chapter 499, Acts 52nd Legislature, 1951, pageHon. Robert S. Calvert, Page 4 (S-13)

1228, provided the fees for services rendered as "associatearchitect"do not exceed the amounts so scheduled.

APPROVED:
J. C. Davis, Jr. County Affairs Division Yours very truly,
JOHN BEN SHEPPERD Attorney General

Willis E. Gresham Reviewer
Robert S. Trotti Flrst Assistant Assistant

John Ben Shepperd Attorney General
JR:am