30/01/2026
https://www.facebook.com/share/1APDvEb3ET/
How DAEDS Created the Misconception That the Architect’s Fee Includes Engineering Services — And Why It Is Professionally and Legally Wrong
In Philippine practice, it is now commonly assumed that the architect’s percentage-based fee already includes engineering design services.
This assumption is often linked to the historical use of DAEDS (Detailed Architectural and Engineering Design Services), where a project phase describing integrated deliverables gradually evolved into a perceived bundled compensation. This article examines how that shift occurred, how it blurred the distinction between project scope and professional fees, and why — under both professional standards and Philippine law — the architect’s fee has never included engineering design services.
What DAEDS originally meant — and what it never meant
DAEDS originated in older UAP practice documents and government procurement systems as a project delivery phase, not a compensation model.
In pre-2010 UAP Standards of Professional Practice — particularly UAP Document 202 (Regular Design Services) and related government procurement terminology — DAEDS referred to the stage where:
• architectural design
• allied engineering design
• coordinated drawings
• technical specifications
were completed and issued for construction.
Crucially, DAEDS described deliverables and timing, not professional engagement or compensation.
Even under DAEDS:
- architects remained responsible only for architectural services
- engineers remained responsible only for engineering services
- each professional:
• entered into a separate professional engagement
• signed and sealed independently
• carried independent professional liability
At no point did DAEDS merge professional responsibility, liability, or compensation. It merely grouped the design outputs into a coordinated project phase.
How a project phase became a fee assumption
The confusion began when DAEDS was casually described as “architectural and engineering design services” delivered as a single package.
Over time, this phrasing produced an unintended inference:
if the phase includes both architectural and engineering design, perhaps the architect’s percentage-based fee already covers both.
This interpretation gained traction as:
• scopes were loosely defined
• contracts failed to clearly separate services
• architects acted as coordinators for engineers
• design-and-build marketing promoted bundled services
• and explicit minimum fee tables were removed from SPP after 2010
What began as shorthand for a design stage gradually hardened into a fee belief — not because it was supported by doctrine, but because it went unchallenged.
Why the belief is professionally incorrect
The professional framework of Philippine practice already makes this belief untenable.
Under SPP 2010, Document 202 – Regular Design Services, the architect’s scope is expressly limited to:
• architectural design development
• preparation of architectural drawings and specifications
• coordination of consultants
• assistance during procurement
Coordination is explicitly distinguished from authorship.
SPP 2010 recognizes:
• Allied Professional Services (structural, electrical, mechanical, sanitary, etc.)
• rendered by separately licensed professionals
• engaged either directly by the client or through separate agreements
Nowhere in SPP 2010 does it state that:
the architect’s professional fee includes the professional fees of allied engineers.
On the contrary, the SPP structure presumes:
• distinct scopes
• distinct professional responsibility
• distinct compensation
If engineering services were already included in the architect’s fee, there would be no professional basis for:
• separate engineering contracts
• separate seals
• separate professional liability
• separate disciplinary jurisdiction
Yet all of these exist — because the professions remain legally independent.
Why the belief is legally incorrect under RA 9266
The legal framework makes the separation even clearer.
1. Exclusive scope and authority
Under RA 9266, Section 20 (Seal and Use of Seal):
“All architectural plans, designs, drawings, specifications and other contract documents prepared by, or under the direct supervision of, a registered and licensed architect shall be signed and sealed by the architect…”
This provision establishes that:
• architects are responsible only for documents they personally prepare or supervise
• authority does not extend to engineering designs
Engineering documents must be:
• prepared
• signed
• sealed
by the corresponding licensed engineer under engineering laws.
If the architect’s fee truly included engineering services, the law would logically allow architects to:
• sign engineering plans
• assume engineering liability
• collect engineering professional compensation
RA 9266 does none of these.
2. Professional responsibility and liability
Under RA 9266, Section 37 (Civil Liability):
Architects are liable for:
• architectural plans and specifications
• errors and omissions in architectural services
Liability is tied to:
• personal authorship
• personal supervision
• personal professional judgment
Nowhere does the law impose liability on architects for:
• structural calculations
• electrical design
• mechanical systems
• sanitary systems
Those liabilities belong exclusively to the corresponding engineers.
And in professional law, liability and compensation always move together:
• you are paid for what you are responsible for
• and responsible only for what you are paid to do
To claim the architect’s fee includes engineering design would require:
• transferring engineering liability to architects
• which the law explicitly does not do
Pre-2010 UAP fee doctrine confirms the separation
In pre-2010 practice — especially UAP Document 202 (Regular Design Services) and related fee tables — the structure was explicit:
- percentage-based fees applied to architectural services only
- allied engineering services were:
• separate professional services
• separately compensated
• never embedded in the architect’s percentage
Older UAP documents consistently treated:
• architectural fees as one category
• engineering fees as another category
DAEDS never altered this fee doctrine. It merely grouped the design stage.
The disappearance of the fee tables after 2010 removed visibility — but not doctrine.
The structural error: confusing phase, scope, and fee
The core mistake is conceptual.
DAEDS answers:
• What stage of the project are we delivering?
SPP and RA 9266 answer:
• Who is rendering what professional service?
• Who signs?
• Who is liable?
• Who is paid?
When a project phase is mistaken for a compensation model, three distinct systems collapse:
• project delivery
• professional scope
• professional fee
And once those collapse, professional boundaries disappear — at least in perception.
Why the misunderstanding persists
Institutional factors reinforced it:
• removal of published minimum fee tables after 2010
• increasing bundled procurement models
• design-and-build marketing language
• weak contract drafting
• repetition by senior practitioners without legal review
Over time, a professional myth formed:
“The architect’s fee already includes engineering.”
Not because it was ever written in law, SPP, or UAP doctrine —
but because no one systematically re-anchored the profession to its legal foundations.
The correct professional and legal interpretation
The defensible position remains unequivocal:
- the architect’s percentage-based fee compensates architectural services only
- engineering design services are:
• separate professional services
• governed by separate laws
• separately contracted
• separately signed and sealed
• separately liable
• separately compensated
Even when:
• the architect leads the design team
• coordinates consultants
• submits consolidated drawings
• or the project is labeled “DAEDS”
The separation of:
• scope
• responsibility
• liability
• and compensation
remains intact.
Final reflection
DAEDS was never intended to redefine professional compensation. It was an administrative convenience — not a legal doctrine.
But by quietly blurring the boundary between project delivery and professional fees, it reshaped how many architects came to understand their own role, their own value, and their own contracts.
Correcting this misunderstanding is not merely about restoring proper fees.
It is about restoring:
• professional boundaries
• legal discipline
• accountability
• and respect for the distinct professions that make coordinated design possible
Because in regulated practice,
integration must never erase identity,
and coordination must never dissolve responsibility.
