DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES

The Latham Report [2] ‘Constructing the Team’ quotes one aspect of the design process crucial for the success of a project as being ‘the co-ordination of the Consultants, including an interlocking matrix of their appointment documents which should also have a clear relationship with the construction contract’. The site manager should remind his contracts manager/director of the need of sight of this document and note any shortfall perceived in the service, for example, what BS elements place a design responsibility upon the installing contractor or any of his subtraders (see also clause 1.5.5, ‘The installer’).

Most BS designs will have been tendered on details that are not fully coordinated, this being left to the installers. The BS designs are therefore very often not much more than numerical solutions waiting to be proven through the working drawings, fit at the construction face, and evaluated post-commissioning. The potential for risk is considerable. In order to mitigate this risk, particularly at the ‘fuzzy edges’ of interpretation of consultants’ and installers’ responsibilities, the BSRIA led the production of their Technical Note TN8/94 The Allocation of Design Responsibilities for Building Engineering

40 Risk and its mitigation

Table 2.2 Allocation of design duties: example of general design activities for community centre and sports hall (Based on BSRIA TN 8/94.)

The client and design team 41 Table 2.3 Allocation of design duties: selection of plant and equipment for community centre and sports hall (Based on BSRIA TN 8/94.)

42 Risk and its mitigation

Services—a code of conduct to avoid conflict [3]. As a steering committee member and chairman of the commissioning activities subcommittee the author contributed to this document. With its origins in the 1991 Futures Workshop Adversarial Attitudes Syndicate, to which the author was a delegate, this technical note came from industry wide cooperation involving the ACE, the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) and the Heating and Ventilating Contractors Association (HVCA). Chaired by BSRIA with representation also from major contractors, PMs, building services consultants, designers and installers they identified the problems and proposed the solutions in the form of responsibility allocation schedules. Tables 2.2 and 2.3 show completed examples of pro formas 1, ‘General design activities’ and 2, ‘Selection of plant and equipment for a community centre and sports hall’. Note in this example the designer has preselected plant makes, models and duties for activity 2.9, crossing out the second sentence. If the tendering installer were to submit a compliant tender, but in addition provide alternative plant selections, this could involve the designer in preparing a report against activity 2.10, the evaluation of which would involve the client paying the designer a further fee for this additional duty outside the scope of the designer’s terms of engagement.

It is hoped that the allocation of design responsibilities for building engineering services will be encouraged in the following ways:

Table 2.3 Continued

1. By knowledgeable clients when calling for fee bids against defined ACE terms of engagement, also requesting completion of the responsibility schedules. This should enable like for like bid comparisons.

2. By consultants and included in tender enquiry documents for building services contractors. This will minimize conflict through misinterpretation.

Whether or not the responsibility schedules have been used in the above way there is no reason why the site manager should not ask the design team (BS consultant) to complete the schedules. The contractor should then ensure he has a clear understanding of their compatibility with the services tender to be awarded. The services contractors agreement to the scheduled interpretations can then be sought at the pre-award meeting.

If it is presented to the services contractor after the award of the contract this may create difficulties; but these should at least be resolved before start on site.

No apology is made for the extensive treatment of the need to remind site managers of the variety of design duties of which they require knowledge. Suffice to quote from the Latham Report [2]: ‘It is vital that the Contractor knows who is responsible for which elements of the design and when they will be available.’

2.3.1 GENERAL

The chosen route is very rarely best for the building services technology, but for the project overall. Contractual routes do seem to have something of a cyclical nature about them. After a run between the 1960s to the mid-1970s there has been a resurgence of the design and construct contract for small to medium size projects. These run in the shadow of project management, the other single point responsibility format. They have gained in popularity along with construction management from the demise of the management contract prevalent throughout the 1980s. These contractual arrangements bring risk in varying ways and degrees for the site manager.

While the contractual route should always be that which is in the client’s best interests, regrettably this has not always been the case. Knowledgeable clients have always sought to improve on the current choices. Despite the odd disappointment, looking back over time most clients will feel that their present routes are currently best for them. Some routes determined by QSs and architects have been made from a limited knowledge base and thereby serve the practice rather than the client. Figure 2.1 shows the apportionment of client/contractor risk for the common contractual routes.

Whatever the route the chances of achieving success are greatest, and risk to the site manager’s company the least, on contracts where the

2.3 The impact of the