I recently worked with a contractor to help compile a tender for the construction of a new three-storey building. The client was a local Council. When I initially started reading through the tender documents what caught my attention was the number of contractor-design elements. Over recent years the extent of contractor-design elements has undoubtedly increased, but the extent in this tender seemed excessive. Items listed included architectural, structural, civil, services, and landscaping. The multi-million-pound project was procured using an NEC Option A contract, though it was not a Design & Build or a Develop & Construct project.
Interestingly, I subsequently read an article in the CIOB’s Construction Management magazine which included a piece by Maurice McCann MCIOB, Director of McCann Estates. His company acts as development manager, pulling together and delivering projects to help public sector clients achieve better outcomes from their investments. Maurice makes a good point,
“Too often consultants tendering for work will increase the number of contractor-design portions to keep their fees low. This is counterproductive for clients who end up paying for the lack of clarity through quality of the product. We have an obligation to ensure the specification is clear so contractors price product rather than risk. Contractors are good at buildability and logistics, not sorting out a design that hasn’t been put together properly. Because we put the work in before we go to tender, we tend to achieve a better quality of product at a more economical price.”
I think Maurice has described this issue very well. There are so many risks that contractors must account for when pricing a project including inflation, material price rises, labour rates, and the ongoing outworkings of Brexit to name just a few. Surely clients, as well as the consultants who are advising them, need to take a more long-term view and limit the number of contractor-design elements to an absolute minimum.
Comments