Some Response IIA has done, since no other choice to evade as being ignored in the Conduction of Election.
However, IT GROSSLY FAILED TO EMPHASIS STRONGLY on the detestable choice of Selection Method adopted for such ‘STATE-OF-ART Projects. APPROPRIATE APPEAL should have been otherwise addressed to the point as follows:
- Financial Turnovers cannot be a Scale for measuring Creativity & Technical Capabilities of Professionals / their Firms. (And quoting Rupee vs Dollar is not correct)
- Non-Consideration of Level Playing Field would only detrimental to Indian Architects. (just look at a simple example of an entry ticket-fare, why is it fixed high for Foreigners many times more than the Indian Fares).
- Failed to emphasis that it is an ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES which can only be done by Architects. The actual ROLE & EXTENT of other Technicians / Engineers shall be based on the Architectural Concept & Design Solutions as conceived by the Architect.
- Failed to pinpoint that the Architectural Services means inclusive of Complete Parts and Pieces of Built-Environments (Built-up Spaces), which invariably contains all technical matters.
- Inviting Non-Architectural Firms and/or making the Architects compete with Non-Architects for Architectural Services is illogical and illegal, (by saying the majority of non-architect stakeholders unacceptable itself give a room for acceptance of fewer non-architects in the Organisation)
- Failed to state emphatically that SELECTION OF BEST DESIGN SOLUTION SHOULD BE THE GOAL and for which ARCHITECTURAL COMPETITION IS THE ONLY FAIR OPTION, which is readily AVAILABLE under the Law.
Being a Professional of Body of Architects, it is very much necessary to put our Points vehemently and more preciously. But not done to the mark.
PLEASE NOTE: As some of you would have seen MY SUGGESTIONS for CoA, it was indifferent style and tone on the same matter, being a Statutory Authority.