Call in the specialists

How many times have you had problems with M&E costs on your jobs? M&E tenders come back miles over budget, with variations and claims on the M&E services after completion, and a client that feels it is getting a pretty raw deal out of the whole thing. Maybe it is age, experience or both, but I seem to hear these stories with increasing regularity.

Buildings are getting more complex. With a few exceptions, M&E is the largest single element of capital cost on most projects. It can range from 25% of the capital value on speculative office work, to 75% of the total cost of internet co-location space. Clearly, neglecting the cost and procurement of the services element of a project will represent a serious risk to cost certainty and to successful project delivery.

Why am I so concerned with horror stories about M&E cost problems? Having been an M&E QS for many years, I find it surprising that the industry seems intent on making the same mistakes time and time again. When projects turn into disasters and M&E is at the heart of it, the only resolution seems to be either a punch up between the contractors and the client, threats of adjudication and arbitration, or worse. There must be a better way.

The key is to get things right from the start and to make sure that one party in the design team takes responsibility for looking after M&E cost and procurement issues. It doesn't matter who does it, as long as they do it well. It could be the building QS, an M&E QS or an M&E consultant. However, in my experience the M&E QS invariably has the right blend of skills and experience to undertake the role.

So why do we need specialist M&E QSs? Is there not enough experience and technical expertise in the design team already? Apparently not – and this is where the problem starts.

Perhaps it is the technical nature of the subject and the poor coverage of M&E on QS degree courses, but most QSs still tend to think of M&E as a separate discipline within the QS profession. Despite some good-quality literature on the subject, badly procured M&E is still a feature on too many jobs. Many building QSs are uncomfortable with M&E, and don't feel that they understand the technicalities adequately enough to be able to provide appropriate cost and procurement advice.

Many QSs are uncomfortable with M&E and don’t feel that they are able to provide relevant cost and procurement advice

If the project QS doesn't understand M&E services, he or she will look to offload the responsibility onto the most obvious member of the design team – the M&E consultant. But M&E consultants are not cost managers, they are first and foremost designers. Although some M&E consultants are capable of performing the M&E cost-management function, most of them quite simply do not want to. It is not part of their core business, and many will only consider the role if they are coerced into it. I hear the same view from nearly every M&E consultant I work with.

This is a depressing picture for a client that believes someone in its professional team is looking after one of the largest elements of its cost and programme risk.

I am not saying that having an M&E QS on board will guarantee a successful project but I do believe that involving an M&E cost and procurement manager at the right stage of a project will bring benefits. At the very least, the client will have someone who can provide independent, objective cost advice at the right time and ensure that the M&E is procured as efficiently as possible.

So how does the industry change things for the better and prevent the disasters from happening in the first place? Well, clients need to understand exactly what they are buying from their consultants. They need to make sure that whoever promises to look after the M&E budget has both the resources and the experience to do it.