1

By Francois Raulier, Head of Moscow Representative Office of RBTT Consultants Ltd

Theme: How far should a design be developed before it is issued for competitive tendering? The article was published in CRE #5 (111) 01-15.03.2009

There exists a fundamental difference in conception between the Russian and Western European approaches to the design process leading up to the appointment of a contractor through competitive tendering.

The Russian approach is rooted in its Soviet past. Its structure is implicitly based on a straightforward division between the role of the designer and that of the contractor. Designers design and contractors build. Surely, you may say, this must be a sensible way to go about things. In theory, there is certainly nothing wrong with the idea. The difficulties arise when trying to put it into practice in a normal commercial environment.

Without wishing to go into too much detail with regard to the early steps in the development of a design, the Russian approach to the design process can be said to consist of three main stages: Pre-Proekt, Proekt and Working Documentation. The level of detail provided at each stage is roughly as follows:

Pre-Proekt: The Pre-Proekt design stage is used to develop and establish the fundamental parameters of a project. This will include an architectural massing exercise, the development of a general site master plan, and the preparation of typical external elevations. From an engineering perspective, this will include some preliminary thinking on grid spacing, selection of the material for the structure, foundation arrangements and the preparation of initial estimates of utility loads.

Proekt: The Proekt design stage involves the preparation of several volumes of design information for submission for local Expertise. This includes, amongst other things, the preparation of architectural plans, sections and elevations, the definition of the fire protection strategy, the sizing of all principal structural elements, the finalization of Technical Conditions for utility supplies and the preparation of the principal schematics for the engineering systems. The structure and content of the Proekt documentation is prescribed in some detail in Russian codes, including the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation Number 87 Dated 16 February 2008 on the Preparation of Design Documentation.

Working Documentation: Working Documentation is a highly detailed package of information. In this package, every element of a building is fully defined, including final equipment selections, fully dimensioned and coordinated drawings and a complete Bill of Quantities. If the design solutions shown in the Working Documentation differ in any significant way from those proposed in the Proekt design, the Working Documentation also has to be submitted for local authority approval.

The traditional Russian procurement approach involves having the design team produce all of this documentation and then using the end result, the Working Documentation, as the basis for the tendering process. The selected contractor then uses the same drawings to build from, without developing these any further.

There are a number of significant drawbacks to this. I will address some of the specific ones presently, but I would like to start by highlighting a more conceptual one first.

The design and construction of a building (or of a fit out for that matter) should be seen as a single seamless process that is a cooperative effort by all project participants. One of the dangers of issuing a complete Working Documentation package to a contractor is that this encourages unthinking participation in some aspects of the process. In essence, the core assumption at the heart of the approach is that a contractor should be able to follow the Working Documentation blindly. This already applies when he is pricing the work, as he has been given a full Bill of Quantities. It then also applies when he is building the project - if he assembles the materials as shown on the drawings, he has done his job. So why think? There is nothing in the structure of the process that actively encourages a contractor to think critically about what he is being asked to do. Conversely, the designer is not encouraged to take a real interest in

2

the construction process. If the building does not work once construction is completed, the designer can simply say that the contractor must have implemented the designs incorrectly. Admittedly, there does exist a regulatory requirement that those responsible for preparing the Working Documentation must also undertake formal Authors Supervision activities. However, this is an attempt to address the problem prescriptively, rather than through its root cause. It works after a fashion, but nowhere near as effectively as an approach that aligns the interests of both designers and contractors more closely.

Coming back to the specific drawbacks mentioned earlier, one of the most significant is time. Working Documentation, if prepared properly, has to be very detailed. In fact, by definition, it should contain every element of information, down to the last detail, necessary for a contractor to order all the materials and carry out all the installations. This represents a significant amount of design work which takes time to get right. The end result should also consist of a comprehensive and fully coordinated package of information, encompassing all architectural and engineering elements. This means that, in theory, full designs should be completed for every element of the project, including those that will not be installed until the very end. Maybe this suited a centrally planned economy. However, in an environment where achieving completion in as short a time as possible is often a determining factor in the financial viability of a project, waiting to have every element fully defined before starting construction is simply not possible. Another specific drawback is cost. There are two distinct components to this. Firstly, as the construction contract becomes essentially re-measurable, if, for whatever reason, the contractor ends up using more material than was identified in the Working Documentation, he gets to claim the difference from the client. In the real world, apart from the most trivial of instances, there will always be adjustments required to the design once a project is under construction. These can arise from any number of reasons, including differences between design and actual site conditions, errors in the Bills of Quantity (but not the design) etc. Ah, I hear you said, but in that case, surely the client can recoup the additional costs from the designer. In some cases, perhaps. However, real situations are rarely so black and white. In any case, that is to miss the point. After all, the whole purpose of the design and construction process is for the client to end up with a product that meets his needs, that has been delivered on time and at a price that falls within a budget that may have been set months or even years before. He certainly does not want to have to resolve the rights and wrongs of every minor issue that has a cost implication, before he gets a completed building. If nothing else, this is very likely to lead to construction delays, which is the worst outcome possible.

The second component to the cost drawback is more subtle. Most well established contractors will have developed long-standing commercial relationships with a wide range of suppliers and negotiated sometimes significant discounts with them. The list of such suppliers obviously varies from contractor to contractor. Because Working Documentation is so prescriptive, with every item being fully defined, if it is used as the basis for a tender, the client automatically forgoes the benefits of the majority of such contractor/supplier relationships. If, in order to compensate for this, you allow the contractor to offer alternative and equivalent materials, then what was the point in asking the designers to produce the Working Documentation in the first place? It will now have to be modified to incorporate any alternatives that are selected.

There is a better way to approach the design and construction process. One that helps align the interests of all participants, that allows clients to benefit from supplier discounts and that provides the greatest flexibility in terms of project time lines. If you are a client, you can tender a project on pretty much any level of information you want. One extreme is the Working Documentation approach described above. The other extreme is a one line statement saying Please build me one number [insert building function] building on this plot of land, with the contractor responsible for everything thereafter. Even the please is optional.

It all depends on the level of control you want to retain over the process. In simple terms, for the same initial construction contract cost, the more design information you provide as a basis for tenders, the more control you retain over the final product, but the longer the overall process will be. The reason I have used the phrase for the same initial construction cost is to provide a uniform basis for comparison. You

3

may think you can still retain control over the end product by working alongside the contractor once he has been appointed. However, because his price will have been based on a certain number of assumptions, including a perceived level of risk, any input you have once he is appointed will be constrained by those assumptions (unless you are willing to allow costs to rise). The right balance between the amount of detail included in the design used for tender and the time taken before a contractor is appointed varies from project to project. It is entirely dependent on the clients own priorities. The correct approach will be very different whether you are building a speculative office development or a bespoke fit out.

Up to a point, it is also true to say that the more design information you provide at tender, the keener the contractors pricing will be (assuming that, in all cases, you are aiming for a lump sum contract arrangement). This is because the increase in detail results in a decrease in the breadth of the assumptions a contractor will have to make when putting his price together and, by extension, in a decrease in his level of risk. However, as explained previously, the limit to this occurs when the level of detail provided with the tender becomes so great as to preclude the contractor from making use of his supplier discounts.

The additional advantage of having the selected contractor complete the development of the design (under the supervision of the original design team of course) is precisely because he automatically becomes committed to the seamless design and construction process I referred to earlier. No longer can he hide behind the excuse of just doing what was shown on the drawings. With the other members of the design team in close support, he has every incentive, both before appointment and during construction, to think of how to deliver the best combination of cost and quality for the client.

In practice, for most shell and core developments, the Proekt documentation is the minimum practical level of information on which a tender can effectively be based. This has to do with the integration of the design process with the local approvals process. Some further development of Proekt documentation prior to tender is often advisable, as this will provide some noticeable improvement in project definition in return for only a limited amount of additional design effort.

For some run of the mill office fit outs it is perfectly acceptable to go out to tender using a basic floor plan and a performance specification for the building services. However, where a fit out has to be more closely aligned with the tastes, or corporate standards, of the ultimate occupants, a higher level of detail will often be more appropriate. The trick to getting the balance right is to focus on the core project parameters with a team of independent professional consultants before deciding on the most suitable procurement approach.