Register now or log in to join your professional community.
Since most industrialised building specialists offer different systems of construction,
it will be seen that these methods of building do not lend themselves readily to the
more usual procedures of preparing bills of quantities and obtaining competitive
tenders from a list of contractors. It would seem that to arrive at a contract sum for a
project based on an industrialised system of building, some form of negotiation with a
contractor is necessary. However, before a contract sum can be agreed, a system of
building and contractor must be selected. Outlined below is a possible method of
making such a selection:
A brief, detailing both the client’s and the architectural requirements of a
proposed building, and an invitation to submit an offer, would be sent to a
number of contractors who are capable of executing the proposed works and
who offer a suitable system of building.
At this stage it would be made clear to the contractor that he must be prepared
to supply details of his costs, etc. in the event of his offer being accepted as a
basis for negotiating a contract sum.
On receipt of the offers, a careful evaluation of each would be made, both from
an architectural and a cost/value point of view.
If necessary, interviews with the contractors who submitted the more
favourable offers could be held to ensure the evaluation was as comprehensive
as possible.
When the evaluation and report on the offers received have been completed,
the selection of a contractor can be made.
The design of the scheme can be finalised by the architect (if modifications are
necessary), who will now know the particular system of building to be used,
and he will also have the contractor as a member of the design team.
With all the details finalised, the negotiation of a contract sum can be
undertaken, based on the original offer made by the contractor and adjusted to
take account of any revisions incorporated in the finalised scheme.
Alternatively, the client may enter into a ‘package deal’ or ‘turnkey’ contract
with a selected contractor who undertakes both the design and erection of the
building.
If the client has decided to go for a contractor-sponsored system, he must rely on the
contractor not only for the standard of performance but also for the quality of the
system design and for the technical capacity of the materials and components to be
used. To assess and compare the likely performance of different systems and their
cost/value in terms of the client’s requirements is a highly complicated matter of
professional judgement. In this respect it is helpful to grade the separate assessments
as shown in Figure5, in order to arrive at a total assessment for each system
Alternatively, the assessments could be expressed in numerical terms and weighted
according to importance.
It should be noted that where a contractor accepts responsibility for design, he has an
implied obligation to produce a building which is reasonably fit for its intended
purpose. This obligation is absolute and independent of negligence. Thus in Greaves
(Contractors) v. Baynham Meikle (), it was stated that where the owner had
made known to the contractor the purpose of the building, it was the contractor’s duty
to see that the finished work was reasonably fit for that purpose.
However, it is common for contractors to limit their liability for design to that of a
professional designer, that is, to use reasonable skill and care. Where the building is a
dwelling, this would not affect their statutory duty under the Defective Premises Act
to see that the work is done in a workmanlike manner and is fit for habitation
when complete..
share your views
