The Specialist Engineering Alliance (SEA)
The SEA comprises the following bodies: n Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE).
n Association for Consultancy and Engineering (ACE). n The Association for the British Electro-technical Industry (BEAMA).
n Building Services Research and Information Association (BSRIA).
n Federation of Environmental Trade Associations (FETA). n Specialist Engineering Contractors’ Group (SEC Group)
Figure 2. Development of design solution – risk assurance and benchmarking
‘Competitive tension’
SEA challenge – process cost
savings Target cost Risk allowances £ Basic cost of
integrated team and its supply chains
‘Best practice’ benchmark – based on recent comparable projects
15 per cent process cost saving 20 per cent process cost saving
Adequacy independently assured (technically and financially)
Design solution and cost plan developed, with facilitation, by the integrated team on an ‘open book’ basis – and progressively reviewed by the financial assurers (including for innovation and sustainability)
does not prescribe a design to the contractor; the design is reached through discussion, always with an eye to the cost benchmark. The role of the independent ‘integration facilitator’ is crucial in reminding team members of Henry Ford’s words: ‘If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got’. Repeating old fragmented practices won’t cut waste! Increasingly, much of this work will be through a Building
Information Model (BIM) – a technology that will greatly facilitate collaborative working. Furthermore, there is no need to worry about
open-ended liability, because the team is working as one and risks are covered by the single insurance. The design and budget
costs of the best solution are then f o rma l l y
submitted to independent risk assurers who, if satisfied, recommend them to the insurers and the client. They are also examined by the client’s cost consultant for comparison with the benchmark. This process gives the necessary ‘competitive tension’ demanded by the Chief Construction Adviser (see Figure 2).
Q. How does the client know the proposed design will deliver real savings? In February, the government published departmental construction cost benchmarks for different project types for comparison with projected costs. In the case of the SEA model of procurement, the target saving will be ‘locked in’ when the IPI policy is incepted and approval to proceed is given.
Q. How does the pain share/gain share element work? Integrated project team members agree to both gain-shares and pain- shares. Typically, the client would take 50 per cent, with the r ema i n d e r being shared amongst the supply chain in
propor tion to the
importance of each member to the project success criteria. Gain and pain
must be equitable. If a company takes 10 per cent gain share it must also take 10 per cent pain share. Pain shares equal the excess on
the IPI, so any cost- overruns will be
50 ECA Today March 2012
SHUTTERSTOCK/ORLA
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