Opinion Pre-tender partnership
Many of the problems arising between building services engineers and building services quantity surveyors could be resolved through greater collaboration, argue Joe McCaffrey (left) and Trevor Schwer
T
he design and procurement of services are unquestionably two of the most important aspects in the construction process. As building engineering becomes more complex, building services engineers will need to rely more on specialist sub-contractors and suppliers to provide solutions. It is often the case that the BS engineers will meet
with a specialist sub-contractor pre-contract, to develop the client brief into a design. The BS engineer then takes this specialist design input, includes it in the design, and this then forms part of the overall tender document. The issue for the QS is that s/he is now procuring a design that possibly only one specialist subcontractor/ supplier can provide – and this is generally reflected in a higher price. The QS’s role is to try to introduce competition to achieve a fair and reasonable market price, and this is hampered by getting specialists to design pre-contract – which can give the specialist sub- contractor/supplier an advantage during tendering. If the BS engineer and the QS work more closely together, perimeters for the specialist design input could be agreed upon, and a fair market rate could be ensured. The issues surrounding services design development
have never really been tackled by the construction industry, but the opportunity exists between the engineering and the surveying professions to make improvements in the future by working collaboratively and sharing knowledge. From our viewpoint as QSs, the services in an existing building are often a ‘black art’ in terms of designing and cost planning, as often very little is known about the condition of the existing services. QSs tend to price out the risk and BS engineers try to put the responsibility on the contractor in terms of completing the design. In a perfect world, the existing design records would be available, with a full detailed maintenance regime in place detailing any changes since the original installation. However, it is rare indeed to see this happen. The flow of communication and knowledge transfer depends hugely on the individuals involved in the project. Generally at pre-contract stage there is not enough discussion and interaction between the BS engineer and the QS. Part of the issue is the sequencing of services
22 CIBSE Journal September 2010
in relation to the architectural design. However, at cost- planning pre-contract stage, the BS engineer is waiting on the architect, and the QS is at the end of the line waiting on the BS engineer’s design. By the time sufficient detail is shown on the engineer’s drawings, there is little time to value-engineer the services because the client wants to go to tender – so value-engineering happens during or after the tender process, which is not ideal. A possible solution is the inclusion of a longer design period, but generally people just then prioritise other projects, resulting in the same issues. From our experience, there is
a sense of ‘don’t give the QS too much information as they will only highlight the deficiencies in design’. Building services engineers must realise that the QS
For quantity surveyors, the
services in an existing building are often a black art
is looking at the design from a procurement and cost- management perspective, so that variations/changes are reduced post-tender. Again, more collaborative working and communication pre-tender could seriously reduce the amount of work post-tender for both parties. A watertight tender document and design needs far less management post-tender. While the QS profession recognises that it has a
lot more to do in terms of education, training and improvement of core skills in relation to building services, it is also necessary for the relationship between BSEs and QSs to improve from a knowledge-transfer and communication point of view. An open relationship between these two professionals
could go a long way to improving the cost and design issues often incurred on construction projects, with the result of increased demand for both professionals in a future where sustainability and building services are significantly increasing. l
Joe McCaffrey MRICS is course director, College of Estate Management,
j.mccaffrey@
cem.ac.uk Trevor Schwer MRICS is commercial director, Update Technology, Gulf,
trevor@lunar.ae
www.cibsejournal.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88