14 VIEWS
It can be advantageous to bring in sub-contractors outside of the main contractor’s PCSA, but the latter generally don’t desire this
KAVLI INSTITUTE FOR NANOSCIENCE DISCOVERY © Damian Griffiths
risks and the design overall. Once specialist trades are involved, a PCSA can result in innovative design development while reducing construction risks.
Potential issues
There are several caveats when advocating that clients engage in a PCSA. Firstly it can just be a period of paid tendering for the contractor, and can cause additional work for the design team that has not been envisaged in the initial fee proposal.
There is potential for duplication of work and out of sequence working, where costing of packages is driving the programme. Production of the Employer's Requirements (ERs – sometimes termed RIBA Stage 4a), can end up being duplicated. The architect/lead designer should explain this to the client and agree the principle of pricing (and programming) variations. Also, the process does not always achieve cost saving, especially after the cost of the PCSA itself is accounted for.
There can be insufficient time for comprehensive design development, as the contractor needs the information too early in the process. Clear understanding of (fully resourced) programming of workflow is
essential so the contractor knows when costing can commence which requires more complete information.
Bringing in design by specialist subcontractors can help, but main contractors often don’t want this as they prefer to defer the tendering process to keep pricing keen. It can be advantageous to bring in sub-contractors outside of the main contractor’s PCSA, but the latter generally don’t desire this.
Effectively the project is priced on RIBA Stage 3 information, so any additional details which affect cost are resisted by the main contractor. This can lead to time being spent arguing over what was costed at Stage 3, and design flexibility is lost.
The tendering schedule is typically based on going out with enhanced Stage 3 information, but contractors want final design and co-ordination complete, to minimise cost changes and risk. Even with an agreement in place, this is hard to manage. Value engineering discussion stalls design development and adds pressure on the team later.
Contractor-guided proposals can drive changes that affect the client’s brief and in turn project compliance, however the PCSA
process rarely has sufficient change-control measures to verify what has been agreed. If this is not integrated into the contract documents (or derogated list) the work is lost. Conversely, if this is adopted into the ERs the consequences to client requirements are left for the next stage to reconcile – causing additional work that is not accounted for in the program. PCSA periods sometimes force changes to the design and specification without the requisite time for reflection and discussion with subcontractors, as it can be a time- limited process linked to funding and cash flow. The PCSA process is carried out with the design team which includes the services engineers who only develop a performance MEP design. However most services efficiencies and coordination benefits are only realised later when the MEP contractor is appointed, which can undo or alter key decisions made earlier. Typically the PCSA team from the contractor’s side has dropped away once they are into contract. This leads to a lack of ownership of decisions made from the contractor’s side in the next stage. In next month’s edition I will explain how to get the best outcome from a PCSA.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
• Advise the client of benefits and pitfalls that a PCSA can bring
• Aim to influence the way the PCSA is set up and managed to mitigate potential problems
• At the start of the PCSA, hold a meeting with the contractor and other members of the project team to establish the ‘rules of engagement,’ aims, activities to be undertaken, and the programme – this should form part of tender documents
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
ADF JANUARY 2022
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
