The request that quietly eats your CD fee
It rarely arrives as a confrontation. Mid-construction-documents, the client emails: "Small thing — can we just move the kitchen island and reconfigure the pantry while we're at it?" It sounds like a tweak. But you're past schematic and design development; that island move cascades through plans, elevations, the electrical layout, the cabinetry schedule, and possibly structural and plumbing coordination. You either absorb the hours silently — and watch your CD-phase fee evaporate — or you handle it. The friction isn't the drawing. It's the conversation. Most architects and designers under-bill not because they don't know the work has value, but because they dread sounding mercenary to a client they like. The fix is a process you run every time, so the money conversation stops feeling personal and starts feeling procedural.
- A CD-phase change is more expensive than the same change in SD because the documents are interdependent — one move ripples
- The cost of saying nothing is real: unbilled redraws compound across a project and across every project you run
- A repeatable protocol removes the emotional weight — you're following your own standard, not singling out this client
First, decide: is it a correction you owe, or new scope they pay for?
Before you quote anything, classify the request honestly — this is the line that protects both your fee and your integrity. A correction is work required to deliver what was already agreed: fixing your own error, resolving a coordination clash you missed, or completing something the signed scope clearly promised. You owe those, and billing for them damages trust. New scope is a change to the agreed design intent or program: a moved island, an added powder room, a finish-level upgrade, a redesign of something already approved and documented. That's a change in service, and the Owner-Architect Agreement (AIA B101 and its relatives) treats it as Additional Services — work beyond the Basic Services you priced. The honest test: 'Did we agree to this in the signed scope, or is this a new decision?' If you'd have charged for it had it been in the original brief, it's a change now.
- Correction (you absorb): your error, your missed coordination, anything the signed scope plainly included
- Change / Additional Services (they authorize): moved or added program, re-approved-then-changed design, scope the client previously signed off on
- Gray zone: client 'changed their mind' on something already approved — that is a change, not a correction, even though nothing was wrong with your work
- When genuinely unsure, name the ambiguity to the client rather than guessing — transparency reads as fairness
The script: pause, name it kindly, document before you draw
The single most expensive mistake is drawing first and discussing later — once it's done, you've waived your leverage and trained the client to expect free changes. Build the habit of a deliberate pause. When a request lands, don't open the file. Acknowledge enthusiastically, then name the scope reality in the same breath, framed as helpfulness rather than resistance. The phrasing that works: lead with yes, then with cost. 'Happy to make that happen — just flagging that it's a change from the design we approved, so here's what it adds in time and fee. Want me to send a quick Additional Services authorization so we're aligned before I start?' You're not the obstacle; the signed scope is the reference point, and you're simply reading it back. Then document it — an Additional Services authorization (often called an ASR) for design-side changes, or a change order such as the AIA G701 when the change flows to construction cost and the contractor. Nothing gets redrawn until you have written authorization.
- Pause before you draw — the moment you start, your negotiating position is gone
- Lead with the yes ('happy to do that'), then name the change plainly, then propose the paperwork
- Frame the agreement as the authority, not yourself — 'it's a change from what we signed' is neutral, not adversarial
- Get it in writing every time, even with clients you trust — the paper protects the relationship as much as the fee
Email templates you can send today
Two short templates cover most cases. Keep them warm, specific, and free of jargon the client won't parse. Template 1 — the change request: 'Hi [Name] — love the instinct on moving the island. Quick note: because we're into construction documents now, that change ripples through the floor plan, electrical, and cabinetry drawings, so it falls outside the scope we signed. I'm glad to take it on — it's roughly [X hours / $Y] in additional services. I'll send a one-page authorization; once you approve it, I'll get started. Want me to walk you through the trade-offs first?' Template 2 — the correction (when you owe it): 'Hi [Name] — good catch. That's a coordination item on our side, so we'll fix it at no charge and have the revised sheets to you by [date]. Thanks for flagging it.' Sending the second template freely, and promptly, is what earns you the credibility to send the first one without friction.
- Always quantify the change (hours or dollars) — vagueness invites haggling; a number invites a decision
- Offer to talk through trade-offs — many out-of-scope requests shrink or vanish once the client sees the cost
- Send corrections fast and graciously; generosity on what you owe makes the change conversation land cleanly
- Reference the deliverable that changes ('this touches the cabinetry schedule and electrical plan') so the cost reads as obvious, not arbitrary
Why this protects the relationship, not just the fee
Architects often fear that naming scope will sour the client. The opposite is true. Silence breeds resentment on your side and confusion on theirs — clients rarely know which requests are 'free' and which aren't, and an ambiguous boundary erodes trust on both ends. A clean, consistent process tells the client exactly where the line is, which is itself a service: it lets them make informed decisions about their own budget. The firms that lose money and goodwill are the ones that absorb quietly for months, then surface an awkward, oversized invoice at the end. The firms that keep both the fee and the relationship are the ones that name each change in real time, kindly, with a number attached. The Owner-Architect Agreement exists precisely so the CD phase doesn't become an open-ended obligation; using it as designed is professionalism, not pettiness.
- Ambiguous boundaries erode trust; a clear, consistent line builds it
- Real-time, itemized changes prevent the dreaded surprise invoice at project close
- Documenting scope is a service to the client's budget, not a hostile act
- Consistency is the credibility multiplier — apply the same protocol to every change, large or small
| Trigger | Classification | Who pays | Document | Draw before paperwork? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fixing your own drawing error or missed coordination | Correction | You (no charge) | Internal note / revision log | Yes — fix promptly |
| Completing something the signed scope clearly promised | Correction | You (in fee) | None needed | Yes |
| Client moves a previously approved element | Change / Additional Services | Client | Additional Services authorization (ASR) | No — authorize first |
| Client adds new program (room, fixture, area) | Change / Additional Services | Client | Additional Services authorization (ASR) | No — authorize first |
| Change increases construction cost / affects the contractor | Change to the Work | Owner / per contract | Change order (e.g., AIA G701) | No — execute order first |
Frequently asked
What's the difference between an Additional Services authorization and a change order like the G701?
They live at different layers. An Additional Services authorization (often an ASR) is between you and the owner under your Owner-Architect Agreement — it covers design-side work beyond your Basic Services scope, like redesigning an approved layout. A change order such as the AIA G701 modifies the construction contract: it adjusts the contract sum, time, or the Work itself and is executed between the owner and the contractor with the architect's involvement. A moved island that's purely a documentation change may only need an ASR; one that changes what gets built and what it costs will also flow into a G701.
How do I tell a client a request is out of scope without sounding like I'm nickel-and-diming them?
Lead with the yes, then name the change as a neutral fact tied to the agreement you both signed, then attach a number. 'Happy to do that — it's a change from the design we approved, so it adds about [X]. I'll send a quick authorization.' You're not asserting that the client is asking for too much; you're reading back the scope you mutually agreed to. Sending corrections you genuinely owe quickly and for free is what earns you the standing to do this without friction.
Should I just absorb small changes during CDs to keep the client happy?
Absorb genuine corrections — your errors, missed coordination, anything the signed scope plainly included. Don't silently absorb changes to approved design intent, even small-seeming ones. In construction documents the drawings are interdependent, so a 'small' move often touches several sheets and disciplines. The danger isn't any single change; it's the pattern — quiet absorption trains the client to expect free changes and surfaces as a deflated fee at project close. Name each change, even if you sometimes choose to waive the fee as a goodwill gesture.
What if the client refuses to sign an Additional Services authorization but still wants the change?
Then you don't draw it — that's the entire point of authorizing before working. Restate it warmly and factually: the change falls outside the signed scope, and your agreement requires written authorization before you can proceed on additional services. If they want to discuss the cost, walk them through the trade-offs; many requests shrink once the price is visible. If they decline both the authorization and dropping the request, the work simply stays on hold. Drawing unauthorized work waives your leverage and your fee at the same time.
When in the CD phase is the best time to raise scope?
The moment the request arrives — before you open the file. The pause between receiving a request and starting work is your only real leverage point. Once you've drawn it, the conversation shifts from 'here's what this will add' to 'I already did this, can you pay me,' which is weaker and more awkward for everyone. Build the reflex: acknowledge, classify (correction vs. change), and if it's a change, send the authorization before any line moves.