Well done to James Nisbet and Roger Knowles: up until now, anyone who has dared to question the new initiatives has been labelled a ‘Luddite’.

On the partnering projects that I have worked on, the detailed design has not been complete at the agreement of the target price date. In this situation, the job is a cost reimbursement project.

The theory of a cap is irrelevant as contractors claim design developments are compensation events that raise the target price, while the pain and gain share system becomes controversial.

When working drawings are produced, it’s hard to assess whether a compensation event has occurred if there’s no equivalent drawing at the target price agreement date. This can be overcome if enough ‘bunce’ is put in the target price to give the illusion of a project with savings and a gain share.

But is this best value? There should be a procurement debate to seek opinions from those involved on a daily basis with construction schemes.

Andy Cowling, Peterborough Council

Source

QS News