At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
For the purpose of budgeting for capital projects, the estimated value of the Architectural/
Engineering (A/E) Basic Services fee (Exhibit A) can be determined by use of these guidelines.
These fee guidelines are divided into three levels determined by the type and complexity of the
building, and are to be used for preparation of capital budget requests for Washington State
public works building projects under the jurisdiction of the Department of General
Administration, universities, natural resource agencies, and the Department of Transportation.
A/E Basic Services are defined in this document.
The payment of A/E fees represents some of the most important dollars spent on a project.
These funds are an investment that affects both the quality and successful completion of a
project. Recognizing this, calculation of a fee structure to obtain quality design at a reasonable
cost presents a challenge. There are pros and cons associated with any system used to set fees,
and there is great variation in the types and complexity of state construction projects.
These fee guidelines originally were the outcome of a study coordinated by the Office of
Financial Management (OFM), which included the Washington Council of the American
Institute of Architects, the American Council of Engineering Companies of Washington,
universities, and other state agencies, which reviewed other fee guidelines and contacted other
states to identify approaches used. Also, within state government, state agencies documented
examples where the existing fee system posed problems, and they developed specific suggested
changes that would improve the state system. Higher education agencies provided evaluations
of the scope, magnitude, and methods used to establish fees for design services at peer
institutions. Updates to the fee guidelines have considered issues