Driver Trett Digest Issue 26 - Flipbook - Page 27
DIGEST | ISSUE 26
Everything then changed (starting in the 1980s); gone largely were the days of fully
compliant designs and bills of quantities being prepared for projects and design and
build, with outline designs and minimal quantities becoming the norm – a Design and
Build Procurement.
Unless the tendering contractors agreed to have a bill of quantities jointly prepared,
every tender would be submitted in a different format, with varying quantities and
extent of pricing information, making the adjudication and review of the tenders more
challenging. Without a common basis for pricing, the phrase 'comparing apples and
pears’ springs to mind.
There are also advantages and disadvantages of using a design and build contracting
procurement strategy:
Advantages
Disadvantages
Enables contractor buildability input into
design.
Less flexible / more costs associated
with post-contract changes.
Has programme advantages as enables
tendering earlier and design can
continue during construction.
Less suited to more complex design
and stakeholder engagement projects.
Greater risk transfer and single point of
responsibility during the construction
phase.
Reduced pre-contract fees / costs for
client.
Risk of disjointed approach to design
due to split preparation of same / or
change of client mid-project (if design
team novated).
Client expectations of a gold service;
with contractors having priced for a
bronze one.
The move away from traditional procurement to a design and build approach has been
seen by some in the industry as part of efforts by parties to work more collaboratively
and proactively, as advocated within the Latham Report.2
The increasing use of BIM ought to further enhance collaborative working, with
projects at Level 3 being fully integrated, utilising 4D construction sequencing, 5D
cost information and 6D project lifecycle management information. Tender analysis
can then be focused on comparative rates, overheads and preliminaries costs as
all contractors will be using the same base information for pricing and planning
purposes.
My personal feeling is that the procurement process in general has changed over the
last two to three decades for the following reasons:
Clients no longer wish to go to the time and expense of producing a full design and
bill of quantities to put out to tender their projects.
Design teams no longer as a matter of course carry out the full-design work and
have less expertise in producing a complete design package.
Fewer surveyors are having to produce detailed measures and full bills of
quantities and may even just work on discrete packages rather than projects as a
whole, leading to their skills / ability to measure lessening.
Software development, including BIM, is making the design process more
integrated, where changes are identified immediately, making for what should be
a smoother executed and better administered project. This does, however, have
its own costs / challenges in that new investment in IT and associated skills is
required.
Having spoken recently
to two large national
contractors, engaged in
both civil engineering
and building works, they
have made the following
comments in respect of
traditionally procured
projects:
"Two Nr. projects
recently completed
which have been
a challenge since
commencement as no
one takes responsibility
for discrepancies or
changes."
"No-one wants to provide
the complete design and
bill of quantities due to
the ‘blame game’ where
liability sits squarely for
errors with the design
team."
The traditional
procurement approach
obviously worked and
operated for a long
time before Latham
and Egan.3 Done
correctly, it ought to,
in my experience,
lead to less design
and scoping issues
arising throughout the
course of a project, but
it requires a full and
complete design and
tender preparation to
be commissioned and
paid for at the beginning
by the Client. Could
it be that traditional
procurement now
actually fits better with
Latham and Egan?
As stated above, cost
surety was given with
traditional procurement.
The design was “audited”
through the production
of the BQ and everyone
priced on the same
basis.
3. Rethinking
Construction, Sir John
Egan November 1998.
27