Views

Let us shout about our Olympic achievements

THE NO MARKETING RIGHTS PROTOCOL imposed by the ODA and now LOCOG has had perverse effects (and few more perverse than the Welsh hoardings tale in this month’s vox pop). Now that we’re all used to frantic multichannel communication all day and every day, the remarkably successful media and marketing restrictions have created the sense that the Olympic construction project has been oddly detached from the rest of the industry. As the Games approach, there’s

still relatively little spotlight on the construction industry’s achievements, even though the Olympics has proved to be part of the “more for less” crusade by coming in under budget. Of course LOCOG wants to protect the Games and its sponsors from ambush marketing. Of course it would be inappropriate for a contractor to run a marketing campaign using Olympic imagery and over-blown claims. But the effect has been to deny firms the chance to discuss their work in the media, to share it with their clients or to talk about it at conferences. The amount raised by the International Olympic Committee from the 11 main corporate sponsors across the London and Vancouver Games was US$957m – small compared with the £9.3bn raised from the UK taxpayer to construct the London venue alone. One of the Games’ legacies was to give a boost to the hard-pressed

➜ Online poll

This month Is the government right to scrap site waste management plans for contractors? Vote now at: www.construction manager.co.uk

yes 10 | APRIL 2012 | CONSTRUCTION MANAGER

UK construction industry’s productivity and profitability. So news reports that LOCOG is talking to its lawyers to see if a compromise position can be found are very welcome.

Strategic thinking Given the cross-departmental knitting required on the government’s BIM roll- out, it’s impressive it’s managed to get moving at all. The Level 2 BIM mandate means every commissioning department will have to procure, brief and tender differently and develop new reporting and occupancy procedures. It’s hard to imagine that kind of

co-ordination happening before chief construction adviser Paul Morrell came on board. His integrating role has helped government achieve a clearer view of the scale of its construction spend, and the scale of potential efficiency savings set out in his construction strategy last May. BIM appears to have gained more

traction than other elements in the plan, which include project bank accounts, the PAS 91 prequalification questionnaire and moves to open up government contracts to SMEs. CM and the CIOB have launched an online survey to find out what members think of the strategy so far. Please let us know your views. The results will be published in next month’s issue.

Elaine Knutt, editor

Last month Would your

company be able to tender for a project where using BIM was a requirement?

no

Feedback

Letters, and comments posted on CM’s website over the past month

CITB levy favours larger firms Kathy Bachler, director, BAC Construction On Tuesday 20 March, the CITB Levy Order quietly slipped through the House of Commons General Committee, taking less than half an hour to debate. The new order cuts the levy for the

smallest contractors “in scope” — employers whose salary bill (for staff and payments to labour-only subcontractors) is between £80,000-£100,000 will receive a 50% reduction on their levy payments. Welcome news, but the levy and grant system still clearly favours the larger employer to the detriment of micro and SME employers. The key discrepancy is the substantially higher levy paid by employers who use mainly labour only subcontractors (LOSC) of 1.5% of their salary bill compared with only 0.5% paid by those who employ staff in a PAYE scheme. The grant system also favours the

large employers with the resources to co-ordinate training plans and run apprenticeship schemes to try to reclaim their levy in full. Often, they get more back in grant than they paid in levy. Surely it’s time to abolish this out-dated

system and replace it with genuine employer involvement and decision- making in skills development. Is a fairer system to impose a levy on construction clients, as they do in Australia?

Interviews should remain Robert Hayward MCIOB, senior building control officer, Dudley Building Control I read Alan Crane’s letter (26 January) on changes to the professional review with a heavy heart. I feel disappointed in the move to omit the mandatory interview for candidates wishing to gain full membership of the CIOB. The interview is an opportunity to better understand who the real person is as a professional. Will proposed strengthening of the first

two written parts of the review process be robust enough to find out what is needed from the candidate? Would you employ someone without meeting them in an interview?