sustainable construction - a return to craftsmanship and
professionalism?
With climate change now figuring in many organisations' policies
and the market increasingly demanding energy efficient buildings,
building contractors, architects and engineers are having to take a
serious look at 'sustainable construction' and 'low carbon'
building. For many, this is the opportunity to re-think the
procurement process and get back to school, or risk losing out to
the competition!
The construction industry has been talking about 'whole life
costing' for years. Relatively few projects were procured on that
basis. But even then the emphasis was on value engineering and
(obviously) out turn costs. Although optimising a project's whole
life 'costs' and its 'energy/carbon footprint' could well amount to
more or less the same thing in the long run, now the driver for
many clients is energy economics and not just cost.
For the employer (procuring the new school, headquarters office
or eco home) everything, from seeking and appointing appropriate
professional advisers to making sure the contractor has appropriate
skills to build, should come under scrutiny.
Low carbon construction is all about competent designers, good
design, rigourous site supervision, collaborative working, and an
excellent contractor.
Many builders have yet to get to grips with the training of
their workforce, and whether they have the tradesmen and supply
chain capable of building, for example, to Passivhaus standards.
There's a skills gap at present the industry must address.
Project management won't be just about keeping costs down, it
will be about ensuring strict adherence to specifications and, only
where appropriate, using suitable alternative materials and 'on
site' design details that perform as well as or better than those
specified. Where construction cost is not the driver, builders and
quantity surveyors need to understand the effect of any 'value
engineering' they apply to the performance of the building and its
carbon footprint.
Some designers may need to re-train, so that they understand the
issues in this inevitably more demanding design environment.
Architects, for example, are unlikely to be able to get away with
skimping on the level of detailing required, perhaps to ensure air
tightness and the elimination of thermal bridges.
All of this potentially leaves those responsible for preparing
appointments and contracts with a problem.
The terms of appointment widely used as standard in the industry
(whether they be the RIBA or other terms) do not adequately spell
out in sufficient detail (in the narrative of the 'work stages')
the additional design work inevitably required to produce 'green'
buildings. Particularly whilst architects and other designers
become more familiar with precisely what they need to consider to
produce an excellent, energy efficient building, their appointments
need to spell it out, otherwise employers and procurers will not
get what they bargained for. So the old, well used forms of
appointment need amendment.
From the earliest stages of design, the performance required of
the building needs to be considered. Is the building contract going
to be based on a 'method' or 'performance' specification? What
outcomes are measurable? How can these be expressed in KPI's that
can be built in to the contract as requirements? Can the
performance of the building against the design standards be
measured? If the building does not perform as designed, where
should the liability lie under the contracts?
The relationships between those involved in the build, and the
various appointments need careful consideration. There are likely
to be several different procurement mechanisms that might be
appropriate in the procurement of green projects, from traditional
contract arrangements, to target contracts, (NEC3) prime
contracting or partnering. The best advice is probably to find
someone who has done this before, knows what they are doing, and
doesn't drive the most expensive gas guzzler in the car park!
