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.