好色先生TV

The two principal architectural bodies came to blows this week in a row over rival sets of standard contract for professional architects.

The RIBA, which has 40,500 members, reacted angrily after the Association of Consultant Architects (ACA) branded the institute鈥檚 client agreements 鈥渁n accident waiting to happen鈥�.

The ACA, which represents 250 UK architectural firms, this week launched an alternative contract. It said the RIBA agreement 鈥� launched last year 鈥� was a 鈥渃omplete bungle鈥� and accused the institute of failing to consult the industry properly.

Stephen Yakeley, member of the ACA council, said: 鈥淭he new documents are internally inconsistent and complex. The whole thing has been done in an extremely clumsy way and has had a flawed and toxic outcome.鈥�

His criticisms focused on a clause within the RIBA contract which he said bound architects to the client鈥檚 timetable and budget and left them at risk if circumstances beyond their control lead to project overruns.

鈥淚t鈥檚 like a lawyer saying, 鈥業 guarantee you will win this case鈥� or a doctor saying, 鈥業 guarantee you will be cured鈥�,鈥� he said. 鈥淧rofessionals just don鈥檛 do that and insurers don鈥檛 like it.鈥�

But the RIBA said its agreements were 鈥渞eliable, trusted and independently ratified鈥�, and accused the ACA of confusing the market.

Richard Brindley, the RIBA executive director of professional services, said: 鈥淲e are disappointed that the ACA has decided to publish its own set of documents, particularly as it was extensively consulted.

鈥淎 plethora of different standard contracts is certainly not helpful to either architects or clients, especially as the ACA form appears to follow the lead of RIBA鈥檚.鈥�

He added that it was appropriate for architects to take some responsibility for time and costs. The ACA denied the RIBA鈥檚 claim that it had been consulted in the development of the institute鈥檚 documents.