SMM7: lets narrow the gap

“We don’t want to be cheerleader consultants, just selling good ideas,” he says. “We need to show how to implement and measure things.”

Earl warms to his theme. “It disappoints me how people view measurement, almost as if it’s the job of a technician. People miss the advantages of doing good measurement.”

For Earl this is damaging the position of the profession within the wider industry. “From a professional point of view we have lost the authority to persuade clients about the importance of quantifying things. If we focused on doing the basics well and continue to develop the add-ons, such as tax advice and sustainability, then we would have a higher standing (in the industry) than we have at the moment.”

As Earl sees it a general sloppiness has emerged with regard to measurement since the RICS produced its last standard, SMM7, in 1988. At the extreme end, this manifests itself in how QSs measure schemes and how contractors do under design and build contracts. “There’s a fundamental gap there,” he says, pointing to the difference between the rules for a Bill of Quantities, where all individual components are measured, and builder’s quantities which measure in more general terms (sq m of a cavity wall, for example). “There are no common rules here,” he says. The railway industry is an extreme example of this anarchy, Earl argues. “It’s suffered with having no standard rules so QSs have created their own versions, but there is no consistency.”

We don’t want to be cheerleader consultants, just selling good ideas. We need to show how
to implement and measure things
Stuart Earl, partner, Gleeds

Earl is a great believer in B of Qs. “It’s an invaluable tool to use as a health check before you get anywhere near a contractor.” He contrasts this with “having a bit of design and sending it out as a specification and drawings to a contractor”.

“We are not helping our clients here. With spec and drawings, that data is not captured. You can’t compare it with other projects. The B of Q is set in stone.” It may take longer to carry out but that can be a fruitful exercise, Earl argues. “We did a school recently. There was a sudden desire by the client to go to tender. At the last minute we decided to do a bill. We discovered the drawings were very bad. The billing process extended the time by three or four months but the advantage for the client was that when he went out to tender there were decent drawings and schedules of works. We saved probable delays later.”

Earl hopes the initiative will create a consistent approach from the top of the supply chain down to the bottom so everyone will be confident that what is in a cost plan or estimate matches the more detailed work later on. Areas such as external works and prefabrication will also become more consistent. “We will be able to create a better relationship between the layers so that B of Qs are expanded versions of the cost plans.”

This back-to-basics approach appears to be generally supported by the industry. “We’ve had positive responses so far,” says Earl. He’s now hoping to meet with contractors and subcontractors as well as approaching the major design institutions with the work. “I think there is a degree of misunderstanding of what is needed in terms of the detail of schemes,” he says. “You can go out to tender at any level but there has to be a clear understanding about the level and criteria of detail that is needed.”