There has been a general welcome for the government’s announcement of post-Brexit procurement reform, now that we are unbound from OJEU rules. Some Remnants want to fight yesteryear’s political battles, claiming that reform could have happened under the old rules anyway.
This scarcely matters. The fact is that, for the first time in decades, we have an opportunity to rewrite the method by which public sector procurement takes place, without being told what to do by Brussels. Now we are free to make our own mistakes or, to take a more optimistic view, to rewrite our rules in the light of prolonged experience of a relatively complicated regime which the UK, as usual, interpreted rather strictly, often to our own disadvantage.
The big question for architects, particularly smaller practices, is whether we can create an environment in which design competence can be given greater priority, rather than the endless requirements for ISO certificates and over-egged liability insurance cover.
Moreover, whether we can insist that appointed architects see jobs through to the end, whatever the construction contract, providing the ‘golden thread’ of continuity, attention to detail and acceptance of appropriate liability throughout. Grenfell has made everyone aware of this.
How can we ensure high standards of design, whatever the scale of project? It will mean rewriting selection criteria to incorporate a very substantial weighting being given to (my favoured phrase) ‘demonstrable design quality’ – whether in relation to previous work, or in respect of a specific proposal.
Would it be absurd to suggest that design should attract at least 50 per cent of any marking system? My personal experience of selection processes – in private, public and quasi-public sectors – is that any shortlist will comprise architects perfectly capable of delivering a building. In which case, why not simply focus on their design talents as a selection method?
All too frequently, project managers try to inject factors which are thought to be more ‘measurable’ (ie it suits their own professional world-view) because they are frightened of creativity – and, sometimes, their own shadows. Pernickety procurement freaks try to use the process in a way that eliminates the non-standard and finds excuses to exclude, rather than find, the best practice for the job. How the procurement process for the London 2012 Olympic Stadium managed to restrict the client’s ‘choice’ (ha ha) to a single architect/contractor consortium is an interesting story, which will one day be told, one hopes.
At worst, the attitude that, if you haven’t done a particular sort of job before because of its scale or building type then you are a ‘risk’, neatly ignores the entire history of architecture (and, indeed, every other profession), which shows that big firms started life as small firms. (Some big operations are better at taking over talented smaller brethren than actually producing great work, but that’s another column).
Apart from a focus on quality of design, rather than the number of people in the office, what else might smaller practices gain from a rethinking of current procurement procedures?
A small practice can always invite a big one to join them where this seems sensible
It would be good to think that the design of schools and medical facilities would be the occasion for using many, varied practices, rather than dishing out mega-jobs to big boys with the firepower to produce 12 schools at once.
A far more locally or regionally based attitude would be more than welcome. After all, a small practice can always invite a big one to join them where this seems sensible.
Let’s watch with interest the responses to the government’s suggestions, forget rancorous debates over Brexit, and use our new-found procurement freedom to promote the cause of architecture. Construction and infrastructure spending is increasing; this is a time of opportunity.
Recent Comments