BCD 2019

12 T H E B U I L D I N G C O N S E R VAT I O N D I R E C T O R Y 2 0 1 9 C AT H E D R A L C O MM U N I C AT I O N S It is increasingly accepted that the early engagement and integration of conservation advisers into project work is a positive step that can achieve better conservation and project outcomes for the client. Get the wrong advisers and the results can easily compromise the values and special interest of our built heritage, while burdening their employers with a plethora of unnecessary, unforeseen and unexpected risk and challenges to overcome. The misapprehension that ‘only the outside of a building is listed’ or ‘it’s Grade II, so only the front elevation is listed’ is still a worryingly commonplace misconception held by non-specialists, including both professionals and contractors, as well as by those that appoint them. The consequences of misguided advice forming the foundation on which projects are planned and progressed are all too common. Given the extent that flawed counsel continues to influence projects, it must be questioned whether the true ramifications of doing so are truly understood by private owners and public bodies. THE TENDERING PROCESS In construction, tendering is usually a competitive process where bids from companies are sought by invitation to carry out specific packages of identified work, observing key values of fairness, clarity, simplicity and accountability. It is a process primarily associated with the procurement of contractors, but the process is also relevant to the appointment of professional consultants. The principle of tendering is to ensure that true competition is achieved by applying various criteria. Generally, the three most important factors are finance, quality and time frame. Financial criteria are commonly used to evaluate tender responses and may comprise a simple assessment of a tender sum, or a more complex financial evaluation of projected costs over the life cycle of a completed project. Assessment will sometimes be based solely on cost. Other criteria used in conjunction with financial measures, often referred to as quality criteria, address factors such as the level of capability and previous experience of a contractor or consultant. Time frame is another important criterion. Work and services needed within the historic built environment are incredibly diverse and are habitually complicated by commercial pressures such as budget constraints, functional requirements and inflexible deadlines. Inevitably these pressures influence the prioritisation given to criteria used to select and procure specialist advisers. Obtaining a balanced and appropriately weighted assessment matrix is however essential to make sure the most competent and appropriately skilled conservation advisers are selected. One person’s specialist is another person’s generalist. Financial factors such as available funding and associated constraints and limitations are of course a primary concern and consideration for building owners and clients. Indeed, where grant-aid is sought for project work there is an express requirement of procurement regulations that value for money is achieved for all goods and services acquired. However, value for money is regularly misinterpreted and misunderstood, viewed simplistically as representing the cheapest offer and often confused with the term best value. This is borne out in invitations to tender for specialist contracting and professional services that procure based on financial criteria alone or where the financial element makes up the substantial part of a scoring matrix. While commercial pressures may be present, experience shows that the cheapest cost for the provision of services on conservation projects rarely equates to being value for money. In a tendering or appointment scenario where costs returned by those competing to provide a service are closely aligned, there is less risk associated in selecting the cheapest offer when the appropriate quality assessment and tender and appointment information has been compiled. However, great care and scrutiny is required where a significant spread in costs are returned for the provision of a service, as commercial pressures may make it tempting to select the cheapest offer. A wide-ranging set of costs could be an indication that the information used to inform the offer (such as a brief or a set of drawings) is unsatisfactorily vague and unclear (possibly due to an inexperienced and inappropriately skilled design team), ultimately leading to uncertainty in pricing. On the other hand, where a brief or design information is clear, well defined and unambiguous, a broad range of costs may be more indicative of a lack of understanding and experience by some respondents. Clearly, there will be occasions when a respondent may take the decision to submit an intentionally low and therefore exceptionally competitive proposal (from a cost perspective) to generate new work opportunities. If effective quality assessment is in place and confidence sought and gained that the respondent fully understands the project requirements and scope of service, then advantage can be taken. Contract documentation and work specifications have an important role in ensuring the most appropriate contractors are appointed and that the desired outcomes are achieved. Specifications are a vitally important tool for the management of construction work and are generally prepared using either a prescriptive or performance approach, or a combination of these. Prescriptive specifications are more detailed than performance specifications and are in effect precise method statements leaving little open to interpretation. They are well suited to conservation work because of their precise and detailed descriptions of work methods and processes and their ability to be customised and tailored to conservation work. However, their success relies extensively on the experience and proficiency of the designer. While this might be unnecessarily detailed when working with specialist and experienced conservation contractors, the benefits of providing a precise method statement are clear when the focus is on seeking the lowest cost and where there is a risk that inappropriately skilled contractors might be selected. Performance specifications such as the National Building Specification (NBS) present criteria and principles for how work should be completed, often defining minimum standards. As the information presented about working methods and practices tends to be limited, these specifications place greater reliance on the contractor to determine what is most appropriate, based upon their experience, The most important criteria for assessing a tender are usually cost, quality and time frame. Where historic buildings are concerned, quality is a particularly complex issue, encompassing not only technology and traditional materials but also philosophical issues such as significance.