Put the emphasis on good design

Design/build must seem the simplest and cheapest option to government (eg PFI contracts), many clients and project managers. They may also be attracted by the reduced necessity for them to be actively involved with the multidisciplinary design team throughout the development of the project.

This perception is rather short sighted as this procurement method does nothing to ensure value for money; quality of design input; energy efficiency; or longevity of the building.

The design brief and outline drawings are the most important documents included with the tender invitation documentation, and are essential to facilitate competent tendering. It is impossible to formulate a comprehensive multidisciplinary design brief without the direct involvement of a full professional design team from inception. If this requirement is either not recognised, or is perhaps restricted to say an architect or structural engineer, in order to limit fee costs, the resulting design brief and outline drawings will inevitably prove to be inadequate.

As tenders are normally prepared at risk by contractors, the companies tendering endeavour to limit the involvement of design professionals at this initial stage to minimise their overhead costs, and potential loses.

While the tender invitation documents normally advise that all submissions must include design calculations, proposed layout drawings, and equipment/material specifications to demonstrate that proposals satisfy the design criteria, these are rarely provided. This is normally due to the fact that design detailing has been limited and the obvious reluctance to release confidential information at the tender stage.

In view of this, it is usually impossible to compare design/build tender submissions from a technical viewpoint, due to the inadequacies of information provided. As a direct result of this, the tender comparison and report is inevitably restricted to projected capital costs, with little consideration being given to the technical content or value for money.

When the contract is eventually awarded, the contractor is obliged to appoint a multidisciplinary design team. However these appointments are made with the additional profit enhancing objectives of endeavouring to minimise professional fees and installation capital costs, while still satisfying basic tender commitments.

While the design/build procedure may minimise capital expenditure, the design input is restricted and important considerations such as running costs, maintenance involvements and the quality of equipment/materials may have been given scant regard as capital costs are the ruling factor.

From a professional viewpoint, fees have been expended on preparation of the client’s brief, the production of designs for contractor, and probably the vetting of contract proposals. It is probable that different consultants would be appointed for these exercises to avoid problems of vested interests. The combined value of these consultancy fees would almost certainly equate to normal competitive fees for full service.

The proper appointment of a multidisciplinary design team from inception to achieve the evolution of a properly co-ordinated, energy efficient design prior to tender is a much more desirable method. This consequently allows the invitation of competitive tenders for a fully designed project, with all submissions being directly comparable.

There is no comparison in job satisfaction for professionals, and yet we appear to willingly condone and support the design/build process.