Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-06-24
. Us N
ARCHITECTS FEES.

THE contract with Snider & Rotz calls
for per cent fee on the mechanical
installations. The standard fee fol-
architects is now per cent on the con-
tract price Of the building BY with
drawing the mechanical features from the
supervision Of the architect this fee is re-
duced to per cent, and the board thus
saves 1 per cent on the contract price Of
the building. The saving in architects
Tees thus effected amounts to thousands
OF dollars
Early IN 1920 the school board was
confronted with the necessity OF passing
on many plans and specifications In
volving great mass Of technical detail
1t was necessary to go into these plans
and specifications very thoroughly IN
order to build economically and efficient
". Out Of this situation arose the I'M
animOus action OF the school board in
employing L. A. Snider as professional
advisor-or building advisor. The school
board making this unanimous decision
was composed OF Mr. Crippin, Mrs.
Tutewiler. Mr.. Barry, Bert s Gadd and
W. D. Allison. Mr.. Snider was one OF
the committee that had studied modern
school buildings Of other cities and had
drafted the Indianapolis Standardized Re
quirements.' As professional advisor he
receives no fee on engineering work
supervised by Snider & Rotz. but re-
ceives a fee OF l per cent on the archi-
tectural work. Mr.. Snider's work with
the architects, and his efforts in CO.
Ordinating their work to fit the
standardized requirements, together with
his technical advice to the school board,
has save several hundred Of thousand OF
dollars in the building program-many
times the fees incurred.
The school board has not been forced
to incur the expense Of employing special
inspectors, for in addition to the archi-
tects inspectors. there has been the con-
slant inspection Of experienced men In
Mr.. Snider' employ who We're paid by him
out Of his fee. Had the school board
followed the old practice Of employing
inspectors which was in vogue for years,
the cost OF the inspection by that method
would have been in excess Of the total
paid Mr. Snider.
For example: The school No. IS lob
required S59,454 for general construction
and S24,329 for mechanical installation
The architects fees were So, 567 81, Snider
& Rotz's fees were S1216.00 Mr.. Snl-
der's fee as technical advisor was 1884, "a
The total architects and engineers fees
were S5.02614. Under the old system the
architects 1eeS alone would have been
S5,02644 In addition to this there would
have been a cost Of S1.3S333 for inspec-
tors fees. based on the current rate Of
pay for inspectors. The total under the
old method would have been $3.50. IT.
Under the present system Of architectural
and engineering supervision, the school
board saved S9S1.99 over the old method
on this one job. At the same time that
this inspection costs less it has been
closer and more satisfactory.
"As building advisor. Mr.. Snider fur
nishes, without fee, his services on all
repair or alteration work done by work
men in the employ Of the school board
direct. This work has amounted to sew
eral hundred thousand dollars On nu-
merous occasions Mr. Snider has advised
the school board to do certain plumb
ing, electrical or other engineering work
with Its own force of workmen instead of
by contract. Under the terms of the
agreement with his firm, Snider & Roltz,
they were entitled to handle the work
and earn a fee thereon. This saving has
been considerable.
do you know that for years the SCHOOLS
of indianapolis have not received as large
a share from the total taxes paid as other
cities of its class?
do you know that in some cities 81