The decision by property developer Argent to go down a partnering route to procure a speculative office building represents a notable departure from the norm. The decision had a major impact, not just on the terms of appointment but in the way in which the building – Governor's House in the City of London – was designed and constructed.
In most other respects the building conforms to standard institutional norms: a 15·5 m-deep conventional air conditioned office space, a central atrium and high specification lobbies, lifts and toilets.
The building was completed to Category A fit-out, including all ceilings, hvac and electrical provision above the ceiling to suit a generic floor plan.
Argent split its approach to partnering between what it terms its strategic and project partners. The strategic partners comprise a preferred list of architects, consultants and main contractors from which Argent then chooses its project partners on the basis of the type of project and the skills required.
For Governor's House, Argent nominated Sidell Gibson as architect, Ove Arup & Partners as structural and services consultant and Tarmac as the main contractor. Although they knew each other, none of these organisations had partnered together before, so in many ways Argent and the project team were starting out from square one.
Argent's first objective was to develop "an understanding at senior level" within the partnering organisations. This extended from the principle: "What is good for them will be good for me". In simple terms, this meant developing non-adversarial relationships, and creating an atmosphere of trust between the members of the team, and appropriate profit margins for all involved.
Constructing the team
Once Argent had assembled its design and construction team it set out to brief the design team. As contracts were to be negotiated (using a modified JCT 80) with no competitive tendering, the team had to agree and nominate the key contractors on the project.
Inevitably, Argent favoured particular sub-contractors (as did everyone else around the table) and a lengthy discussion took place to agree the appointments. "Argent was very good about any problems any of the team had with a suggested subcontractor," said Ove Arup's project director Mark Facer. "If anyone had suffered a bad experience, Argent just said: 'Find another contractor who is agreeable to all'".
Once suitable contractors were identified, the next trick was to ensure that the right person was put forward by the contractors to take part in design discussions.
Under conventional competitive tendering, it is usual for subcontractors to send the most available person rather than the most appropriate and knowledgeable person. This is understandable when a subcontractor might be up against three other suppliers, and cost knowledge is deemed more important than technical knowledge. But that was not what the designers needed. They insisted that the subcontractors send individuals who could contribute usefully to the detailed design.
Argent also insisted that the contractor, architect and the nominated m&e subcontractor (Haden Young) work together in a site office adjacent to the new building (the consulting engineers were not site-based, but they were regular visitors). An immediate benefit of such close working was a reduction in letter writing, the sheer formality of which can contribute to adversarial relationships.
Here, problems associated with the interpretation of a specification or detail were generally solved by informal exchange. Notably this exchange extended to the most junior of staff, particularly between the m&e subcontractor and the architect.
This informality even extended to 'beer and curry' nights. These, and similar events, created a backbone of team spirit that helped to break down traditional barriers.
During the life of the project there were inevitable changes in personnel, particularly at senior level. This meant that the new people who came into the partnering team did not necessarily share the value systems of those already there. Argent countered this by running induction courses.
Managing innovation and reducing risk
The "one team" environment created at Governor's House enabled solutions to be adopted which, in traditional procurement, would be perceived as high risk. A good example of this was the extensive use of long-span cellular beams to create the building's composite steel frame.
Closely spaced cellular beams like these offer high flexibility for services routing, while providing good vibration and deflection characteristics. While there are extra machining costs, they are cheaper than bigger and heavier solid beams.
Although cell form beams can be to everyone's benefit, particularly to tenants who desire column-free spaces, they are often perceived as high risk on traditional contracts where the m&e contractor has not been appointed and therefore cannot comment on the virtue of the design choice. If the holes are in the wrong place or of the wrong size, then there would be no payback from improved buildability and better co-ordination.
The fact that Haden Young was on board early meant it could take part in the design evaluation exercise. This led to selected holes in some beams being enlarged to accommodate the optimal routing of services. Although these beams had to be formed separately and reinforced, there was an overall cost saving.
Involving the m&e contractor during the design process also helped resolve budget issues, such as the cost of the office lighting. By reorganising the chequerboard lighting layout, Tarmac was able to reduce the number of light fittings by 25-30% over the scheme design without any loss of illumination, and with only minor restrictions on the location of cellular offices.
In other instances the engineer's standard specification was modified to suit manufacturers' standards, such as the thickness of insulation on ahus and chilled water lines.
Contract management
Experience indicates that proactive risk management will play a large part in ensuring that a client's desires are met and the project completed on time and within budget. On the Governor's House project a risk register was set up to cover work required by the district surveyor, clashes on site and engineering milestones such as staircase pressurisation.
Method statements were also prepared by the designers and contractors which could be challenged, refined and challenged again in an iterative cycle. This inspired confidence in those responsible for the subsequent design, procurement, management and delivery of packages and elements.
Argent was happy to fund an extended design period (five months for a £5 million project), traded-off against a faster build time. During this period the strategic cost plan devised by the client's qs was refined and honed by the key subcontractors.
Main contractor Tarmac encouraged subcontractors to get involved in the detailed design. This meant that alternative methods could be reviewed, evaluated and priced out against the strategic cost plan before the design was set in stone. Likewise, design details were constantly examined to see if they could be simplified.
For example, m&e subcontractor Haden Young was asked to take responsibility for the detailed design of elements like heater batteries. Other technical improvements which benefited from Haden's involvement were the use of new materials and time-saving technologies, such as modular wiring.
Although this early involvement by Haden Young provided a more accurate cost assessment of a given engineering decision, the downside was a was an up-front staff overhead before formal contracts were signed.
Argent did offer to make early payments, but Ove Arup's Mark Facer doesn't recall this happening, probably because the subcontractors were keen to be a part of a negotiated contract.
In any case, the extra costs were probably offset by fewer clashes. There were reportedly only ten instances of clashes associated with the building services. Similarly, out of 870 pre-cast panels problems were confined to just one panel.
Project management
The Governor's House project was run in a similar fashion to a construction management contract, with the contractor committed to a guaranteed maximum price. Tarmac also managed and carried out the procurement of all subcontract packages.
Although the design team was initially employed by the client, it was then novated to Tarmac once the job started. This included the novation of Ove Arup & Partners to Tarmac once the detailed design had been agreed and signed off, and the passing of responsibility for that design on to Haden Young.
While this was all fine for Argent, in that it had a single design and build contract with Tarmac, it created one or two problems. Although Haden Young had been involved during the scheme design stage, the contractor was understandably nervous when Tarmac asked it to assume responsibility for Ove Arup's m&e scheme design.
Ove Arup, too, was unsure about the novation without having been wholly responsible for all the details, as those details can account for a lot of the cost. "To have that level of risk floating around is not a good idea," stressed Mark Facer.
One alternative would have been to novate Arup to Tarmac for the structure and to Haden Young for the building services, but as this might conceivably have placed Ove Arup in a position where it was on both sides of an argument, the client acceded to a request from Haden for an additional sum to carry out a design audit.
In the event there were no significant changes, and no claims for "extras" either.
Lessons for the future
Partnering is the nearest that the construction industry will get to a marriage contract. Both parties enter with high expectations, and incentives are needed for the parties to stay together through thick and thin.
Without continuous dialogue and exchange of ideas the marriage can run into difficulties, but on the Governor's House project both Tarmac and Ove Arup noted significant shifts in attitude.
The contract became less the focus of attention than it is on a traditionally tendered project. This was replaced by a mutual willingness to solve problems and spend less time worrying over responsibilities.
Governor's House developer Argent was also careful to ensure that all participants in the process made a reasonable return on their investment in return for an appropriate level of quality.
"In any partnering arrangement there needs to be a very clear and formal definition of everyone's responsibilities and duties," concluded Ove Arup's Mark Facer. "If that is achieved, then everyone has an opportunity to have their say without posturing and vying for power".
Downloads
Figure 1:
Other, Size 0 kb
Source
Building Sustainable Design
