Pay-discrimination evaluator
This tool has a deliberately narrow scope. It is not a fee calculator for any profession, nor a simulator of indicative tariffs. It serves a single purpose:
To assess, from the Execution Cost Budget (PEM) of a building, whether the fee offered or awarded for an architect’s project drafting and/or site supervision — in a public tender or a private-sector commission — shows indicators of undervaluation incompatible with the anti-discrimination floor of Minimum Equivalent Fees (MEF).
It does not calculate “recommended” fees and does not replace any fee scale. It compares a specific figure (the one offered or awarded) against two objective reference floors, derived from regulatory and cost sources, not from professional-association criteria.
If what you need is to calculate in advance a reference band for a commission — instead of evaluating a figure already offered — use the fee band estimator →.
Scope
- Commission: project drafting, site supervision, or both, with or without health-and-safety coordination.
- Procedure: public tender or a direct private-sector commission.
- Building type: based on its PEM, use (residential, educational/ healthcare, cultural/social, administrative/security, industrial) and degree of complexity.
- Not covered: urban planning, expert reports, valuations, or commissions in other professions.
Methodology
Hour estimation (HME). Unlike an earlier version of this tool, the commission’s hours are not requested as a subjective user estimate: they are calculated automatically from three objective facts about the works:
- PEM (V) — the value of the works.
- Building type and degree of complexity — determine parameter G (grado di complessità), read from Table Z-1 of DM 17/6/2016 by broad category (residential, educational/healthcare, cultural/social, administrative/security, industrial).
- Scope of the commission (drafting, supervision, or both, with or without safety coordination) — determines ΣQ, an aggregated approximation of the phase incidence in Table Z-2 of the same decree.
With these three inputs, the DM 17/6/2016 formula is applied — CP = V·G·ΣQ·P, with P = 0.03 + 10/V^0.4 and flat-rate expenses according to the V bracket (art. 5) — and the result is converted to hours by dividing by €60.5/h (the lower end of the band under art. 6.2, updated by Italian CPI 2016→2024). This is exactly the method already used to calculate the “implicit design hours” of the reference case (Ripollet / Santa Margarida) shown below, which had already been validated against real data before it was automated here. Anyone who prefers to apply their own professional judgement can switch on the manual hours adjustment.
The tool requires choosing a reference year (2024–2027) first, because the collectively-bargained salary, the SMI (national minimum wage) and the Deltek utilization rate vary by year — unlike the Italian model or SEGIPSA. Once the year is chosen, it calculates two floors of its own and places the evaluated amount against them:
- Cost floor (€58.23/h, currently the same across all four years in the selector): estimated commission hours (HME) × hourly cost rate, derived from the average ACE 2020 remuneration between public-sector employment and private-practice management, with 13% overheads and 6% industrial profit (by analogy with art. 131 RGLCAP).
- MEF floor (€31.08/h on the collectively-bargained salary across all four years; between €21.59/h and €22.49/h on the SMI, depending on the year): HME × MEF hourly rate — the actual anti-discrimination floor. See the technical methodology for the exact value for each year and why some figures stay constant for lack of a more recent official figure.
The SEGIPSA and Italian DM tables shown alongside the result are for manual reference and are not applied automatically in the calculation. The SEGIPSA brackets are verified directly against the Resolution of 11/5/2015 (BOE 27/5/2015) — see Legal Framework. The building-type/complexity categorisation used for G is an indicative simplification by broad groups of the full Table Z-1, just as ΣQ is an aggregated approximation of Table Z-2, not the decree’s line-by-line breakdown.
Every input (reference salary, operating costs, utilization rate, overheads…) has a different origin and status — regulatory, collectively-bargained, industry benchmark, or an editable working assumption. Full detail, with the step-by-step derivation of both floors, is in the technical methodology.
Diagnosis
| Result | Diagnosis |
|---|---|
| Above the cost floor | Adequate |
| Between the MEF floor and the cost floor | Borderline — review |
| Below the MEF floor | Indicator of pay discrimination |
Reference case
The model has been validated against two real project-drafting contracts recorded by COAM’s Fee Observatory (26/5/2025) — they correspond to year 2025 in the tool’s year selector:
| Item | Ripollet (Library) | Sta. Margarida (Police station) |
|---|---|---|
| PEM | €2,966,214 | €1,287,888 |
| Awarded drafting fee (% of PEM) | 6.64% (€196,950) | 3.15% (€40,597) |
| Italian reference | 7.12% (€211,302) | 6.73% (€86,654) |
| Implicit €/h paid | €56.4/h | €28.3/h |
| MEF floor | €31.08/h | €31.08/h |
| Diagnosis | Adequate | Indicator of discrimination |
In Santa Margarida, the awarding administration paid less than half of either value reference, and below the MEF floor even calculated with conservative costs.
Caveats
- This tool is not legal advice, nor is it a fee scale.
- Monetary values (SMI, collectively-bargained salary, rates) should be updated periodically in line with CPI.
- The admissible vehicle for a remuneration floor is state regulation or public-procurement oversight (abnormally low tenders, art. 149 LCSP) — never a professional-association-set table.
- A result showing an “indicator of discrimination” does not, by itself, prove an infringement; it is a starting point for reviewing the case.
More information
Fee band estimator → See the calculator’s technical methodology → See the full Legal Framework → Read the academic article → FAQ →