- 11 -
evidence to establish average hourly rates. Mr. Hom did not
refer to any specific documents to support his testimony, and he
appeared to be offering only rough estimates. We give little
weight to Mr. Hom’s unsupported testimony.
Even if Mr. Hom’s estimates were reliable, the estimates
appear to be applicable only to projects where petitioner billed
its clients at an hourly rate. Petitioner’s contracts
demonstrate a variety of billing methods, including fixed fees,
hourly fee agreements, and hourly fee agreements with maximum
total fees based on the usable square footage of the project.
Mr. Hom testified that only 40 to 50 percent of the contracts
billed for services at an hourly rate. We do not believe that
petitioner’s approach provides an accurate measure of the time
petitioner’s employees devoted to the performance of
architectural services, particularly considering petitioner
billed no more than half of its clients at an hourly rate.
Even if Mr. Hom’s estimates could be used to determine time
spent, regardless of the billing method, the revenue summaries
still would not provide an accurate measure of the time spent by
petitioner’s employees during 2002. For example, petitioner’s
January 2002 revenue summary lists revenue from 28 projects.7 Of
7 The following project numbers appear on petitioner’s
January 2002 revenue summary: 00137.00; 00184.00; 00203.00;
00209.00; 00223.00; 00268.00; 01014.00; 01049.00; 01070.00;
01089.03; 01089.04; 01097.00; 01133.00; 01134.00; 01147.00;
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007