42
unsure as to whether lack of clarity on responsibilities was in fact the key issue.
Dame Judith Hackitt found a fragmented picture when assessing the accountability within construction project teams, and our survey results bear this out when it comes to architects’ views. One anonymous survey respondent put the accountability problem in supply chains as follows: “Everyone is trying to pass liability down the line for completing the design.”
EXPERT VIEW
Architect Richard Harrison of the Association of Consultant Architects comments on how architects have a special but undervalued place in the supply chain, in being able to take a holistic view of specification: “Architects or ‘designers’ are in a unique position to take full responsibility for the selection of all materials in combination, and in delivering the specification. Encouraged by design and build contracting however, the specifier’s role has become diffused by a myriad of ‘specialists’ introduced at the pre-construction and construction stage, which has resulted in ‘accountability confusion.’ It has been a trend over the past 30-40 years and the public inquiry into the Grenfell tragedy has identified a very alarming variety of appalling practices in the building industry.”
Key challenges
The survey found readers highlighting a number of challenges hampering accountability currently within projects, which the new regime is intended to address. Top of the list was value engineering, tackled within the Building Safety Act by means of a provision where contractors need to justify any change to a specification as being a ‘material change.’ For 42% of our respondents, this was the biggest issue, but in a later question, we’ll see that they didn’t believe the Act would be the panacea for this problem. It also ties into the lack of protection of the original design, which the Golden Thread is hoped to address; architects have also expressed their keenness to see it extended to (often elusive) post-occupancy evaluation.
Specification switching The ‘switching’ of product specifications is an endemic problem within the construction industry, whereby contractors, during the so-called ‘value engineering’ phase of a project are able to replace materials originally specified by an architect with a product deemed ‘equivalent,’ an ambiguous term often used in contracts. There is likely to be little verification of whether it is indeed a like-for-like replacement in terms of performance, or something inferior for the purpose, done as a cost-cutting exercise. We asked our readers whether contractors would still be able to successfully switch specifications post-Building Safety Act, and a substantial number – 53% – believed this would still occur.
“Despite the Act’s changes, will contractors still be able to switch product specifications based on ambiguous ‘or equivalent’ contract clauses?
A glaring example at Grenfell Tower, the inquiry was told, was that the original cladding specification for the refurbishment was zinc with a fire retardant core, but this was reportedly switched to ACM (Aluminium Composite Material) for cost reasons. With clients unable to provide the expert insights into materials’ performance, it’s essential that a robustly evidence-based specification is not compromised on such projects.
EXPERT VIEW
Regarding specification switching, Richard Harrison of the ACA believes that the onus is on specifiers not to allow ambiguity, but that if this was the case, switching was not a ‘given’:
“It’s not, unless specifiers abrogate their responsibility for clear and unequivocal specification of products and avoid the use of ambiguous “or equivalent” clauses. Specifiers must be required to formally re-assess alternative products proposed by others and take clear responsibility for the change after due consideration; and time expended reviewing alternatives should be paid for.”
Another respondent said that specification switching was potentially down to lack of testing data: “Testing by the BRE or other establishments needs to speed up and become more economical if we are not to end up with architecture that consists of two storey brick boxes.” One other anonymous respondent asserted that manufacturers “need to be accountable so that specifiers have the confidence to select the correct performing materials and components.”
Product testing
The testing of products used on Grenfell Tower has been under the spotlight during the enquiry, with issues around practices
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
ADF SEPTEMBER 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 |
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 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
