Gripes of wrath

“Have you heard the one about the really awful services engineer? Well if you’ve got one, hang to him because he’s got to be better than the rest.” Unfair and inaccurate? Certainly, but almost every architectural practice we meet identifies with the sentiment.

Is it that smaller consultancy firms are unable to provide a comprehensive service? Not really; most of the worst offenders seem to be the big names with hundreds of staff offering a supposedly multi-disciplinary service.

This could be just a case of one profession slagging off another, but we meet a lot of architects and it does not happen to any other member of the building team on anything like the same scale. If this is not of concern to building services engineers as a profession, then it ought to be.

The main gripe is the process of change management and co-ordination. The architect develops a scheme to the point where services input is required. This is normally schematic and largely concerned with establishing riser sizes and zones for plant space. If the building is to have sophisticated systems, these need to be identified and where necessary the fabric design adjusted to integrate them to best effect. The scheme then develops to the stage where hard-line drawings are needed for costing and preliminary tender. The services engineer produces a set of drawings and a specification that should allow the building to perform within the given parameters. Often this information is used as the tender package.

Now things start to wobble. The design of the building continues to be refined as prices are received and the client/QS adjusts the budget. The architect may make modifications to improve the performance or appearance and input from third parties such planning, fire officers and building control all influence the final appearance and configuration.

No other member of the building team gets slagged off as much as the services engineer

Adjustments to the services tend to be along the lines of ‘that should work okay but the subcontractor will sort out the detail.’ Well yes, he might, but what usually happens is that on site nothing fits, carefully resolved and often planning-critical elements sprout additional ducts, ceilings get lowered, bulkheads burst out, access panels appear in pristine walls, the overall design is compromised and the QS has to find somewhere to offset a 20% costs hike.

There seem to be a real reluctance by services engineers to revisit a design once it is drawn, coupled with a reliance on the specialist contractor sorting it out. When challenged on this, most services engineers suck their teeth and cite low fee levels. This isn’t good enough. If fee levels are so bad that you cannot do the job properly, then something is massively out of kilter and will end up costing someone a lot more. One practice we worked with was so reluctant to revisit the design that the stand-by generator was undersized by 50%. This was discovered post-installation and an additional generator and enclosure had to be put in the car park at a cost of £500,000. They are still arguing about who is paying.

If fees really are the issue, there are ways to reduce re-draw/amendment costs. Outsourcing is an option that works well in architecture. This allows practices to retain control without radically changing their working methods. Parametric building information modelling is likely to be the single biggest driver in getting services input fully integrated with the rest of the design team. Having all parties contribute to one continuously updated 3D model means there is no place to hide.

We have worked with a few innovative and proactive services engineers who are key members of the design team. The result is vastly better and getting there was fun rather than a fight for information followed by a rearguard action during construction. These were all small practices who treated their clients properly. When are the rest going catch up? n