It’s easy to ignore the smaller or medium sized QS or builder when the industry is dominated by mega projects such as the current Wembley stadium and Terminal 5 development, as well as the upcoming mega-project that is the Olympics.

Who needs to know about that small five-unit social housing development in Derbyshire when you can wonder at the scale and sexy new architecture present in huge schemes in and around the capital?

Well, if you added all the smaller schemes across the UK you can be guaranteed they far outweigh the headline hitting big schemes in terms of size. And in social terms the value of new housing, education or health schemes to the country at least match the mega projects as far as the social health of the nation goes. Which is why concerns from smaller firms, such as the two letters on social housing costs sent from two QS News readers (page 11), should be heard.

The market terrain for the smaller firm is growing more difficult. The rise of the framework deal, where major programmes of work are handed out to a select bunch of bigger players, is now beginning to dominate the market. The deal sent out to bidders this week by tube PPP consortia Tube Lines is a case in point, as is the increased bunching together of social housing work amongst housing associations that could crowd out workloads for smaller and medium sized firms.

The deals are often a sensible option taken by a client, who sees letting out masses of smaller packages of work burdensome and over-bureaucratic. Yet too much concentration on frameworks could be dangerous. As Robin Hayward argues in his letter on social housing costs the framework drive could destroy local supply chains that are delivering valuable smaller projects efficiently. Big may not necessarily be better.

Source

QS News