Appreciate each other’s difficulties

However, I have worked with large, medium and small building services consultants and I find the article somewhat distorted.

Under the 2006 Part L Building Regulations, architects have to involve the M&E consultants at the planning application stage. Previously, they would not involve M&E consultants until buildings were designed, then advising them where space had been allocated for plantrooms and riser shafts based on the architect’s “rule of thumb” sizing method, normally half of that actually needed.

A building’s orientation and shape can have a significant influence on the M&E equipment sizing. The principles of the 2006 regulations are to prevent equipment over-sizing and reduce buildings’ carbon footprints. Some architects are starting to understand this and to involve M&E engineers at the inception.

A further aggravation is the tendering method. The client employs a QS to produce a bill of quantities. The main contractor cuts and carves this until it gets the figures it needs, so by the time the M&E consultants see the final price they do not know what the specialist has included but get a list of exclusions.

On top of this, the design team agrees to freeze the design prior to the tender issue date, only to find there has been alteration to the building halfway through the tender period with no extension to the return date. While the QS can easily amend the cost schedules based on the B of Q, the usual way to amend the M&E cost is to re-tender the works or issue variations, which all parties dislike.

There are some good architects and some bad M&E engineers. Until they understand each other’s difficulties, we will always have arguments on how to proceed.