Design and Build - a modern fairytale or just a tall story?

Draw up a chair, pour yourself a glass of wine and let me tell you a tale of how public projects used to be commissioned in the olden days - things are so much better now-a-days, aren't they?

Once upon a time, a long long time ago, when Clients employed Consultants who were respected as professionals and Builders built things, buildings were conceived, designed, tendered and then built and everyone was happy with their lot.

In those days, Clients trusted their consultants to provide professional advice and to steer their particular project towards completion - on time and on budget (hopefully). Everyone in the process knew where they fitted in and what their roles were and, whilst there were risks, everyone took their fair share.

In those fairytale times, Architects and their ilk concentrated on ensuring that their designs were fully considered and resolved in the sure and certain knowledge that, the more confident a builder was about what was required of him (in those days it was pretty much all men), the keener his price would be and thus the Client could be reassured that, by paying some fees before the project hit site, they were getting the best possible value for their money.

Although we didn't know it at the time, those days were soon to be lost to us!

One day someone (probably a Client) wondered out loud why it was that Clients were paying for their consultants and the builder and yet still taking a share of the risks - that seemed somewhat unfair to them!

Shortly after someone else (probably a highly paid consultant from outside the construction industry) suggested a method of transferring the risk away from the Client and minimising the upfront cost - a win/win situation, a no-brainer - get the builder to do the designs and then build them!

And Design and Build was born!

Now, you may have detected a slight tone of cynicism in the story so far - and you'd be right. In my experience Design and Build has neither reduced a Client's exposure to risk nor the final cost of their project.

As a company, we have been fortunate to benefit from some Design and Build projects, doing construction drawings for builders and, in the vast majority of cases, have charged a fee very similar to the fee we would have charged the Client if the project had been commissioned through a traditional procurement route - so no saving there then!

On every single one of those projects the Client has retained an "Employers Agent" to provide the initial designs and to act as Contract Administrator - all roles traditionally fulfilled by the Architect - who's now employed by the builder!

So, just to recap, the Client employs a consultant to fulfill the role of an Architect (apart from the detail design bit of the job) then pays the builder to employ an Architect (or 'designer') to design the building - anyone else spotted the flaw in this 'cunning plan'?

Now, there are 'Employers Agents' and 'Employers Agents'! Most of the time the tender packages that we see, from builders asking us to quote, are little more than illustrated briefing documents with little or no detail and, in many cases, the existing buildings are not even drawn accurately and the proposals are often unbuildable. On these jobs we really earn our fee - goodness knows that the Clients consultants haven't!

Occasionally the tender documents are extremely detailed and our role is reduced to simply providing details of tricky junctions and holding the builders hand during the contract - a role that the Employers Agent would probably happily fulfil if given the chance.

At both ends of the spectrum the Client ends up paying not only for two sets of consultants, where one decent one would suffice, but also a premium for the privilege of transferring an unknown level of risk to the Contractor.

So the question is this: Does the Client really benefit from Design and Build? In my opinion, the answer is 'not really - they just think they do'!

As far as most Clients are concerned they are spending less on consultants and are immunising themselves from cost and time overruns - they are deceiving themselves!

All contracts make provision for extensions of time and for claims for additional costs arising from Client variations, regardless of the procurement route, and Contractors are very skilled at making those claims. Without robust tender documents the Client remains exposed!

My other concern with Design and Build is that the Client often (unwittingly) surrenders any control over the quality of the materials used. If the tender package is weak in detail, the contractor can minimise their exposure to unforeseen costs by down-specing the raw ingredients for the building. The Client may be expecting tiled floors but, if that's not specified, they'll end up with vinyl - but still be paying for that tiling!

In this period of "austerity" it is time that Public Sector Clients started to pay more attention to how they spend their much reduced capital budgets and regain control of their projects.

Employing one Architect, working up a detailed scheme with them and then getting competitive tenders based on quality tender documents has to be more cost effective (i.e. cheaper) than, effectively, employing two consultants and paying the contractor a premium for acting as Client without any real concrete guarantees on time, cost or quality!

If you would like more information on our Design and Build projects, please visit our website and peruse our 'Projects' section.

What price an architectural legacy?

Architecture and buildings have, for some time now, been the darling of the television with programmes ranging from DIY SOS through Grand Designs and now, the latest kid on the block Restoration Man - my personal favorite!

The early incarnations of this genre of popular TV were focused on cheap thrills and the visual effects that could be achieved using Velcro and accesories (remember Changing Rooms?).

Latter attempts to do justice to this subject were much better at dealing with some of the real issues that, as Architects, we face every day - the inconsistancies of the Planning System, the rigidity of the Building Regulations and the unrealistic expectations of our Clients to mention but a few!

Great as these programmes are (I'm still banned from watching Grand Designs because I throw things at the TV in frustration) they fail to focus beyond the "trauma" experianced by the hapless family/couple embarking on the "greatest adventure of their lives".

Then along came "Restoration Man"!

Finally A property programme fronted by an Architect and one that knows what he is talking about! Not only does the programme cover the ups and downs of each project but it also draws out the architectural history of each building.

This weeks episode is a good example of how this genre could be. Yes there were ups and downs, battles with the authorities and the perenial "cashflow issues" that provide the drama, but in addition there was a genuine appreciation of the real craftsmanship on show in how the building was being slowly and sensitively returned to practical useage and an intelligent assesment of the processes and techniques being deployed.

The final result will (when finished) be a stunning home in a stunning location, even more so because of the attention to detail.

In this increasingly consumerist society we are in danger of sacrificing craftsmanship, quality and our architectural legacy in favour of speed and economy.

As an Architect practicing in Harlow, I am all too aware of the implications of such a cavalier attitude to our built environment. Yes our schools and hospitals are undergoing huge investment and renewal - but at what cost?

As an industry we need to exploit modern methods of construction but what's the point if the buildings we create are poorly detailed with an uncertain lifespan?

If we are to leave our great grandchildren a meaningful architectural legacy that can be adapted and restored as sensitively as the buildings featured in Restoration Man then quality and detailling has to be our priority - not just the cost and speed of construction.

As a profession we have a responsability to educate our clients not only about the practical aspects of the process (Planning, Building Regulations, Contract etc) but also the need to focus on the quality of design, detailing and construction of the overall project.

As a society we need to demand the very best of public buildings - not just in terms of environmental performance but in terms of anticipated lifespan, architectural quality and detail and in terms of future reuse. Doubtlessly there will still be bland, cheap, "shiny" new buildings that garner headlines but there also needs to be quality Architecture created that will last the test of time and establish a legacy that future generations want to preserve!

What impact a Hung Parliment?

So the election is finally over (almost) and in theory at least, we know what the next few years holds for us in terms of political leadership. Of course, I am assuming that a coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats will actually happen and will last more than a few months.

The question that we still don't really have any answers to is how the new Government's policies will really affect architectural practices like mine.

One thing that we can probably safely assume is that, in return for supporting the Conservative Government, the Lib Dems will secure a referendum on electoral reform and some sort of input into the reform of the tax system but it is unlikely that they will be able to exert much influence over other areas of policy.

So this leaves us looking at the Conservative Election Manifesto for clues.

On the face of it there aren't that many policy proposals that are specific to Architects, in fact none of the Parties has really set out any "architectural" policy proposals during the campaign. Of the Tory manifesto pledges, I could only really find a few that I thought would have a significant impact on what we do, these are as follows:

- Abolishing Regional Assemblies and Regional Planning, devolving those powers to local partnerships of businesses and Councils.

- Rewarding Councils for building new homes, especially affordable homes.

- The creation of Local Housing Trusts to allow local communities to build the homes they need.

- Strengthening the powers of Local Authorities to stop "infil" and "backland" development.

- Extension of Government procurement to small and medium sized businesses.

The truth of the matter is that the policies outlined above will not really affect the majority of practices  and despite much rhetoric on the doorstep about simplifying the planning process, no specific promises are made within the manifesto, nor is there any statement about design quality in publicly procured buildings.

True, for some practices (and certainly local planners) the abolition of the Regional Assemblies and Regional Planning infrastructure will have a huge knock on effect, but for those of us who have more modest practices, it is likely to be something that will pass almost unnoticed.

The emphasis on local communities building new homes is interesting and could, if implemented, bring a new stream of work into local practices. However, past experience has shown most local architects that their Local Authorities are unwilling to "risk" using small practices preferring instead the perceived security of a "brand" architectural practice. Unless the Conservatives can incentivize Local Authorities to look locally for Consultants, much of this new house building will, once again, be delivered by the mass house builders and their 'designers' and any sense of local character will be sacrificed for standardised house types.

The reality is that, for the last ten years or so, many small architects have increasingly been surviving on a diet of private clients doing small developments - often on backland or infil sites. the loss of these development opportunities could choke that regular supply of work and, unless it is replaced by an alternative source of work, this could lead to the extinction of small, independent practices as they are forced out of the market, merge with others in the same position or are simply swallowed up by bigger firms.

The other great unknown is whether the coalition government will scale back or call time on the Building Schools for the Future programme. For firms like mine this will not have a significant impact as we are already excluded from this work due to our size. It could however force many practices to reevaluate how they secure work and in which sectors they want to be active.

The truth of the matter is that we have no idea what will unfold in the next few months or years, the only thing that is certain is that nothing is certain.

The funny thing is that, as a practice, we have been seeing an increase in both enquiries and actual commissions in the period that led upto the General Election. I think that many people were convinced that, by now, there would be a new government in power and that things would be much more certain than they are, lets hope they don't get cold feet!

In the vain hope that someone with some clout might read this blog, here are my suggestions for policies that a coalition government could introduce to make the business of a local Architect more profitable and sustainable:

Local Authority Projects:

- All Local Authority building projects to be delivered using directly employed consultants to ensure that the Local Authorities retain true control over quality and design.
- All Local Authority consultants to be employed through a simple tender process that recognises the fact that, in the case of "chartered" consultants, a high level of professionalism is guaranteed to ensure that even the smallest practice can compete with confidence.
- Professional Indemnity Insurance levels required on Local Authority projects to be set at a level that is appropriate to the scale of the project to ensure that realistic insurances are held by consultants and that small practices are not excluded from projects that they could otherwise carry out.
- Local Authority procurement guidance to place an emphasis on using local consultants, where possible to ensure that local capital expenditure is reinvested into the local economy rather than being lost to other regions.

Planning System:

- All Planning Officers to hold, or be undergoing training to hold, a design related qualification to ensure that design is at the forefront of the appraisal and decision making process.
- All Planning Committee members to be required to undergo regular CPD and design related training to ensure that the committee have at least a basic understanding of design issues and the construction industry.
- All Planning Applications to be signed, prior to submission, by a Chartered Architect (RIBA), Surveyor (RICS) or member of the CIAT to ensure that all applications submitted are of an appropriate design quality and accompanied by all the appropriate supporting information.
- All Local Authorities to establish design review panels of local design professionals and planning professionals to review all major applications prior to Planning Committee decisions to ensure that elected members have formal access to local design expertise.

Until then, we'll continue to muddle on providing our Clients with the high quality service and professionalism that they have grown to expect from us and hope that, through a growing reputation, we too can grow to compete with the big boys!