Architects, keep the design, delegate the execution
Scope taken over on ACT, EXE, DET, AOR: 4 to 6 months of project management absorbed
Across 64 commercial fit-out projects delivered between 2022 and 2024, the architecture firm that delegates the French MOP assignments ACT, EXE, DET and AOR (tendering, execution design, works supervision, handover assistance) to Kytom recovers 4 to 6 months of bandwidth per 2,000 m2 project, without giving up a single point of intellectual property or a single euro in fees. This is the execution pace Kytom maintains alongside architecture firms, across 12 to 15 technical work packages. The contractual split is clear: the architect keeps the design and the signature, Kytom executes. Fees contractually ring-fenced, intellectual property preserved, ten-year warranty and professional liability insurance carried by Kytom. Since 2006, Kytom has built a stance opposite to that of general contractors who devour the signature in the name of budget optimisation.
The architecture firm hands over a complete DCE (French tender package) or an advanced APD (detailed design), Kytom takes over the ACT, EXE, DET and AOR phases according to the signed mandate. In concrete terms, the scope covers:
- Consultation and negotiation with companies across 12 to 15 commercial work packages (partitions, ceilings, finishes, electrical, HVAC, power and low-current systems, plumbing, joinery, built-in furniture, signage).
- Management of subcontractors and conformity checks against the architect’s EXE drawings.
- Management of visas, OPC scheduling on occupied sites, and clearing of reservations through to final acceptance.
- Interface with inspection offices, the SPS coordinator and the permitting authorities on ERP (public-access building) or IGH (high-rise) operations.
For the agency director: what delegation concretely represents in the operating account. On a 2,000 m² commercial project in Paris, this scope absorbs 4 to 6 months of site management that the firm does not have to carry in-house. The average floor area handled reaches 850 m2 across the observed portfolio. In concrete terms, this is a senior project manager who can be reassigned to design, business development and client dialogue, without additional hiring or recourse to an external OPC to be marked up. The calculation to make in-house: the monthly loaded cost of a project manager reassigned over 4 to 6 months versus the Kytom interface cost (CCTP reviews, weekly reporting, written validations).
Kytom’s position, contrary to the profession’s discourse. Unlike the reflex common among general contractors, we do not claim that delegating execution is always relevant. Below 300 m2, or on operations with fewer than 4 technical work packages, the interface cost exceeds the bandwidth savings. The same applies if the firm already has an in-house OPC unit with more than 2 FTE: delegation then creates a project management redundancy. The tipping point observed in-house sits around 500 m2 and 8 work packages; below that, the firm is better off carrying the execution itself or using a single OPC. We say this directly in the first conversation, even if it means declining the mandate.
BIM level 2 interfaces, reviewed CCTP and NF S 31-080 acoustics
Kytom works in BIM level 2 when the firm uses it, on Revit or Archicad, and delivers execution models that can be used for subsequent maintenance. CCTP documents are reviewed contradictorily, discrepancies between specification and site feasibility are flagged within 48 hours, and never arbitrated without the architect’s written validation.
On the acoustic side, interior joinery between enclosed offices or meeting rooms must reach Rw = 32 dB for standard confidentiality, and Rw greater than or equal to 38 dB for the direct confidentiality level (NF S 31-080:2006, table 1, performance requirements for enclosed offices). Kytom verifies these thresholds at acceptance through in situ measurement.
Weekly reporting pace:
- Progress per work package with a schedule curve.
- Technical or budgetary drifts identified.
- Decisions submitted for validation, with a negotiated response time.
No material decision or execution detail is taken without written validation from the mandated architecture firm, which protects the project’s coherence from APD through to acceptance.
Our reading differs from the dominant BIM discourse. The profession’s orthodoxy pushes for systematic BIM level 2, including on projects where it adds nothing. Imposing BIM on a firm that has not integrated it into its production chain creates a real modelling overcost on the MOE share, particularly when the firm has to subcontract the digital model. On projects under 1,000 m2 without an explicit client requirement, coordinated 2D DWG remains more efficient on a cost-benefit basis. BIM is mainly justified beyond 3,000 m2 or for assets intended for long-term operation with digital FM. We own this: on a 600 m2 single-tenant floor, requesting a complete IFC model is more about marketing than added site value.
Two contractual structures to choose from, three ring-fenced protections
Kytom offers two contractual structures depending on the firm’s preference and the nature of the contract:
| Structure | Holder of the MOE contract | Kytom position | Architect position |
|---|---|---|---|
| Structure 1 | Architect | General contractor, separate works contract signed by the end client | Full project management |
| Structure 2 | Kytom (global design and build) | General contractor | Associate architect under a co-contracting agreement |
In both cases, three contractual commitments protect the firm:
- Fees contractually ring-fenced, independent of site arbitrations.
- Intellectual property retained by the architecture firm.
- Ten-year warranty, professional liability insurance and warranty of completion carried by Kytom.
For the agency director and their legal counsel: what is at stake in choosing a structure. Both options have been deployed across varied typologies: head office, open-space floor, R&D, bank branch. The contractual drafting relies on the CNOA’s project management guide (2022 edition) for the co-contracting agreement, and on the CCAG-Travaux 2021 for the separate contract. The concrete question for the architect is not aesthetic but one of insurance coverage: who carries the ten-year liability within the meaning of article 1792 of the Civil Code, who funds any rework, and at what point in the project the fees are legally detached from the works envelope.
The profession’s orthodoxy underestimates one point. The dominant discourse among professional organisations tends to present the general contractor as a threat to the architect’s signature. Our reading, based on operations carried out in co-contracting, is more nuanced. On formalised public contracts above the European thresholds, architect plus general contractor co-contracting frequently conflicts with the MOP law: structure 2 becomes unworkable, only structure 1 holds. Conversely, on private operations where the client requires a single point of contact with a guaranteed global lump-sum price, structure 1 exposes the firm to a fee renegotiation during the project, and structure 2 protects the signature better than a traditional separate contract. The right structure is decided according to the legal regime applicable to the contract.
