During the latter half of last year, the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) began changing the way that they procure building projects. In part the changes were driven by DPTI’s desire to get more time and cost certainty on projects, and in part to manage other project risk more effectively.
The first real manifestations of this change were seen on health projects, where the familiar Managing Contractor procurement was replaced with a Novated Design and Construct process part way through the design phase of those consultancies.
The CBD High School tender then saw a similar model, along with a relaxing of the Lead Professional Services Consultant role to include engineering businesses – in short, the lead consultant need no longer be the architect.
With the Association of Consulting Architects (ACA) and Consult Australia (CA), the Institute began an engagement process with DPTI to a) better understand what was driving the change and b) offer industry input into shaping any new procurement process. We are concerned that there will be a diminished role for architects as well as an implications for our business operations.
It would be fair to say that there are still a number of issues that need to be bedded down through further engagement.
In parallel with this, the Institute and the ACA have held meetings with the Industry Participation Advocate, Ian Nightingale, regarding the issue of procurement.
That work culminated last week in a lunch initiated and hosted by the Treasurer, Tom Koutsantonis. It was attended by myself, several other architects and an ODASA representative – seven architecture and landscape architecture practices in all – along with Ian Nightingale.
The discussion focussed on a recent statement by the Treasurer where he said “While the Industry Participation policy has been highly effective, we want to make it stronger. That is why I have instructed the Industry Participation Advocate to require that design professionals engaged by government agencies seek to meet local procurement objectives in project briefs”.
The central point made by the Treasurer at the lunch was that architects make decisions at the outset of projects that have a profound influence over whether South Australian products are used on building projects – think facades, where a design using precast is 99% likely to support local industry versus a curtain wall which is most likely to be sourced off shore. We are therefore pivotal to the success of any Industry Participation policy in the built environment.
It is a point first raised by Professor Laura Lee in her period as Thinker in Residence, and one that I and others have been personally making for a number of years now. It was therefore pleasing to hear it from the Treasurer.
He also discussed his view on the ‘social licence’ that Treasury should have, and that project decisions and tender assessments should not put least cost ahead of overall economic benefit to the State – another position that we have been advocating for a number of years.
And he expressed his view that local projects should be delivered by local practices.
The outcome of the lunch was an agreement to work with the Industry Participation Advocate to come up with a recommendation to the Treasurer on how on how design, specifications and procurement policy could be used better to support the Government’s objective of boosting economic benefit to the State through a greater use of local supply inputs and ultimately local jobs.
This was one of the most productive and engaging government meetings I’ve been to in my six years on Chapter Council. The relevance of our profession in the built environment was front and centre in the discussions, an advocacy position that Chapter Council has been driving for some time now.
It is a significant development for us, and it will be a topic of focus at tonight’s Chapter Council meeting.
We will be seeking views from members on how we can develop a recommendation to the Treasurer. We look forward to your input.
David Homburg, SA Chapter President