D&B or D&D?!

I recall 15 years or so ago when first using design and build (D&B) as a means of procurement. The Employer's Requirements we wrote were worded in a way that gave the Contractor as much flexibility as we could for his design, so he could innovate but (learning the hard way) had to make sure we duly accommodated the operational costs to ensure the solution was based on whole life principles. So, 15 or so years later, how have we progressed these early thoughts? I actually think we have gone backwards. For me, D&B should really be called D&D, which is design and dump. I see a real mess these days (can anyone tell me where this advice is coming from?) in that a client engages his design team who take the design so far then say you pick this up Mr Contractor, finish it off, making sure it all meets some really high level performance specification such as "I want a building that is just what my business needs" and if there are any errors in the original design then that is your problem. For good measure I'll dump these designers on you too. How is this D&B? How is it innovative? Just who is benefitting from this 'modern day' approach? Rob

NEC student research

More student research, where the student is in his final year at Birmingham City University for a BSc Hons in Quantity Surveying. For his Comprehensive Study Project, he has chosen to investigate whether the ‘Spirit of Mutual Trust and Co-operation’ is embraced by the Project Team under the NEC3 form of contract . In terms of research, he has prepared a survey to gather practitioners’ views on this topic. To meet this objective, he invites you to participate in the survey that he has prepared. The survey will take approximately 5 minutes to complete and can be accessed via the following hyperlink....

http://www.esurveyspro.com/Survey.aspx?id=701efd68-a7ff-400b-8120-c3bd4afd1ba0

Thank you, Rob

NEC Student Research

Dear all,

Another student survey to finish the week with, this one is about the effect of NEC on quality management in the UK construction industry. Many thanks in advance.

Rob

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PVTJBXV

Student NEC Research

A busy day for NEC dissertatations from students!

2 more surveys to complete please if users' would be so kind.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NNYYPRN

and

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/samuelmukelabaikashweka

Regards,
Rob

Student NEC research

Hi,

3 further student questionnaires if you could give up 5 mins or so of your time for each of them, they would be extremely grateful.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/W599P6G

and

http://www.eSurveysPro.com/Survey.aspx?id=9c7abb24-fbd0-494c-acb3-7ea37b652f6c

and

http://www.esurveyspro.com/Survey.aspx?id=822d5d59-f1a5-49e7-9c7f-08959089e470

Regards,
Rob

NSCC No Retention Policy

National Specialist Contractors Council (NSCC, see www.nscc.org.uk) launched the NSCC No Retention Policy on 16 February 2011 - see press release below.

http://www.fairpaymentcampaign.co.uk/docs/press/10NSCCCelebratesLaunchof%27NoRetention%27Policy.pdf

All good stuff of course, retention is long overdue an overhaul. Maybe one day we will be defect free, rending all of this debate redundant. If not, contractors will actually do what they promised they would do in accordance with the terms of the contract in the first place (ie fix the defect in a timely manner, assuming of course it is indeed a defect!). Finally, if all else fails, in many instances the cost effective provision seems to be have a retention bond in place to call off. The old fashioned method of tying up retention monies for long periods of time often at a level that is greater than the profit to be gained in delivering the works is crazy, especially as the money is only intended to act as an 'incentive' or 'stick' for the contractor to correct and only therefore only needed towards the end of construction. If you absolutely must have retention, have a look at NEC3 ECC Option X16 which provides for a retention free amount.

My preference is the 1st 2 outcomes, anything else is waste, costs money and gets us pretty well nowhere as an industry.

Rob

Measured Term Contracts - Good Value?

For a while now I've been wondering about the merits of using measured term contracts as the basis for procuring maintenance work. As a QS, I can see the benefits of having an agreed set of rates to cover the types of work likely to be required over the contract period - the contractor's QS measures and values, the client's QS checks. As the Meer Cats say, simples!

But hang on a minute, is that the best we can do in the 21st Century? Does the process of measuring and valuing really add any value to the client or does it just keep QSs gainfully employed? Oh dear, I can almost hear the sharp intakes of breath ... have I offered up the sacred cow?

On construction projects we have become familiar with cost plus arrangements so why can't we apply this methodology to maintenance work? We have the technology these days to be able to handle the large amounts of data that would need processing - operatives using handheld devices to record on / off site times, cost clerks coding and inputting invoices, use of online CAFM systems for managing workload and payments.

I can hear someone at the back saying "but if the contractor puts down that a job took 3 hours, how do we know that it actually did take 3 hours, or if it should have taken 2 hours?". Good question. Surely we could carry out sample audits to confirm that the resources being paid for have been used. Surely we could carry out annual benchmarking exercises to confirm that value for money is being delivered? Couldn't we use KPIs to incentivise improved performance? I'm sure it isn't beyond the wit of man to devise such checks and balances.

I'm convinced that a properly set up NEC3 Term Service Contract could deliver this, now I just need to convince a client to give it a go!!!