Dear friends and colleagues of the architect, I felt it necessary to give an explanation about this letter and protest to Tehran Municipality. The fact that Tehran Municipality has closed the possibility of registering our reports as architects in the first four stages of construction operations does not reduce our responsibility in these stages, but it is possible to register these reports in the country’s engineering system, because this is the legal right of the engineer. He is an architect, and this is another disgrace of the municipality, which has inspired the architect engineer that because it is not possible to register a report in these stages, the architect is exempt from any negligence in possible accidents in these stages. This is despite the fact that articles 22 and 23 of the law clearly hold you responsible in these steps, and within the limits of the architect’s competence, we must submit a report.
Architects are withdrawing from their legal duties in supervising projects, and this neglecting and handing over the duties of the architect, which is in accordance with the expertise and knowledge of our field, leads to the definition of these duties under the title of services provided for other fields. and this service description is exactly the basis for calculating the percentage of architects and engineers and their fees. The impossibility of registering the architect’s report at the start of work means that the architect has accepted the following
The architect has accepted that it is not the architect’s responsibility to control the compliance of the dimensions of the architectural plan with the land that the surveyor has taken.
The architect has accepted that it is not his area of expertise to communicate the agenda of compliance with safety points.
The architect has accepted that he does not have the ability to request the introduction of an executive from the owner and cannot report the prevention of operations.
The architect has admitted that he cannot measure the depth of the pit.
The architect has accepted that he cannot determine and check the position of the foundation based on the number of the drawings.
The architect has accepted that he cannot report the non-observance of the earthen shield and compliance with the order of execution of the truss structure.
Well, if the architect cannot report these things and these can be provided to other engineers, what is the reason for the architect to receive this 22% of the total cost of supervision? When the description of his services is so low and he has the same things, he gives away 10% is too much.
It is naive to be happy that we cannot register the progress report of the project and not to sign a protest letter so passively. I am addressing each and every member of this group, most of whom are so-called architects and are not willing to accompany us for our collective rights.
This post is written by tutor_karami