I read with interest various articles in the Nov/Dec edition of CM (Leader, News & Views, Schools Out) and was left with one overarching question: what is the alternative?

John Eynon (ex-colleague at Wates) is exactly right to comment that the construction process is greatly improved relative to the time and effort invested in design and procurement. Having said that, each BSF project is typically 18 months in fruition (Invitation to Participate to Financial Close) and that should be sufficient for a robust design solution to evolve.

So is the problem in how that 18 month period is carved up and used? It appears to me that there is too much focus on getting designs finalised (RIBA stage D) too early in the process and it is absolutely correct that the few meetings with stakeholders are insufficient for this purpose (CM, page 36). While competition necessarily exists at the early stages we need to find a way to bring the provider consortium into exclusive dialogue earlier within the overall process and relax the early demands on design completeness.

What are the alternatives:

  • The RIBA-mooted approach of authorities commissioning a design-only competition followed by a competitive design and build proposal. This has some value but results in a fundamental disconnect on cost which is likely to lead to projects failing or being negatively value engineered.
  • Provide some mechanism for reimbursement of the unsuccessful bidders. This has often been suggested, but I believe it will never find favour with Partnerships for Schools or the Treasury.
Dave Scott, planning and design manager, John Laing Projects & Developments

Source

Construction Manager