‘We are our own worst enemy’

The best practice movement is in danger of petering out because BE, Constructing Excellence and the Strategic Forum have lost momentum and because efforts to enforce it have been undermined by onerous targets, European Union procurement processes, and a government with other priorities. As a profession, we seem to have accepted the consequences.

Those in charge of procuring our services seem to ignore Office of Government Commerce standards and appear to have the upper hand. Procurement managers are as concerned about accountability as delivery, believing they cannot be held accountable for poor delivery when they have selected the most “cost-effective” bid on an agreed specification.

Steve Hindley, chairman of contractor Midas, blames this price war trend on QSs and accuses the profession of being in the “cheapest price Dark Ages”. While I agree with much of the substance of his claims, the attack is unfairly directed. QSs are hampered by the industry, processes of selection and the procurement managers’ focus on initial tender price.

If more enlightened managers are involved, it is often a different story. A collaborative approach with the client and professional team makes everyone willing to explore materials and construction methods to ensure the job meets the budget. It also gives certainty on the quality standards and timeframe requirements.

The profession is not completely innocent, though, and there is action that we should be taking to help change and challenge this cheapest price mentality. It is up to us to educate on the difference between procurement costs, which are purely financial and largely theoretical, and out-turn costs, which are factual and take quality and time into account.

If the design team, consultants and contractors are involved from the start at the right fee, and do their jobs well with appropriate resourcing levels, the construction process is more straightforward. BRE has proved that a well-organised site can increase productivity, leading to dramatic reductions in labour costs.

Indeed, Stanhope has proved that at least 2% can be saved with earlier investment. If the job is budgeted properly and meets the investment target, then it is money well spent. Chipping away at up-front cost, on the other hand, leads to unbudgeted costs later on.

The biggest problem QSs face is positioning, and the profession is certainly guilty of perpetuating a poor image

QSs must also find tools to support this contention. It would be interesting to compare project delivery statistics following a competitive tender price war with those from partnering and best practice. I would guarantee that the latter would win hands down in terms of costs, time and quality. This kind of data would enable us to prove that buying on the cheap is directly related to poor delivery.

The biggest problem QSs face is one of positioning, and the profession is guilty of perpetuating a poor image. I am sure we have all lost competitive tenders against a company that has reduced its fee. The DTI says that in more than half of these cases, the job is not properly resourced and fails on time, cost and quality.

In these situations, we are our own worst enemy. By undercutting to secure turnover, the profession is in danger of going the way of fit-out contractors; creating businesses that are unsustainable and go bust.

We must do away with price wars and defend our position as experts. If clients want cost certainty, quality and delivery within an agreed timeframe, then it is our duty to provide these.

It is time to stop the downward cycle, take control of our own destiny and refuse to compromise our professional integrity.