17 September 2018

So you’ve done your BER and cruised comfortably into STEM.

A little dalliance with some BBS and then…. wham…

You get DECWPed.

Yes, the roll out formally known as BBS is now the Department for Education Capital Works Program. Wouldn’t a love symbol have been so much easier?

We do know however that 91 schools with a budget of $692.2m will receive works over the next 6 years with round one of 34 schools being released over the course of this year, and rounds 2 and 3 in 2019.

Projects range from under $5m to $30m with the majority sitting in the $6-10m range.

This roll out will again have a big impact on the construction industry and directly on our members.

This program has a stated focus on value and like the programs before it, will likely be delivered through a range of contract types including traditional and novated style arrangements for architectural services.

The scopes delivered by the BBS engagements are likely to significantly change and there is now the year 7 transition to consider. Benchmarking of costs against STEM works and Victorian schools projects will be used to seek value.

Now is the time to learn from the past.

I have a personal view that any contract type can deliver good outcomes and the corollary is that any contract can also deliver bad. As a profession we get concerned about the term ‘partial documentation’, but it is never actually partial documentation : it’s full documentation just delivered in different phases and engaged to different people. Transfer of risk is really what underpins novation style contracts and aligned with that transfer is also the shifting of control, so what work happens either side of the novation date is important. The PPR happens before novation, complete documents happen after, but a well constructed PPR can manage some of the quality control which comes from completed documents.

If we learn from the past it is clear that many of our members did not read the tender documents for STEM and were surprised to be engaged under D+C.

This time lets read and expect different contract types.

Think about the time, cost and risk implications of different contract types. We believe it is likely that the smaller projects may be delivered with more traditional methodologies and the large with D+C style but this is not certain.

You as individual practitioners should think about your commercial risk valuation of who you may be working for. You should think about how you scope partial documentation and how much time and effort there should be in developing a a PPR. You should think about realistic programs for your services because quality and value (two stated objectives of the program) come from clarity in documents and that takes time. You should be part of the cost discussion and contribute to the establishment of benchmarking rates which focus on value and not just cost. You should think about how you scope and bill for services post novation so that what is meant by a ‘site visit’ is not a debate at every bill.

This is an exciting new program under a new government. We have had two practice runs with BER and STEM so third time round is the time for us to get it right. Understand what contract arrangements will underpin your submission, be clear on scope and program to achieve quality outcomes and use your past data on STEM and BER to inform your decisions. Read some Acumen notes if you are not clear on different roles in different contracts.

As a local profession we have nearly 100 opportunities on the table to start with sound expectations and deliver the value we can offer as architects to the homes of our education system. Let us make this one count.

The Institute is here to help.

Mario Dreosti
SA Chapter President

You are invited to be part of the SA Designers for Diversity initiative being implemented by the SA Chapter of the Australian Institute of Architects

The Australian Research Council funded project Equity and Diversity in the Australian Architecture Profession: Women, Work and Leadership, published on the Parlour website [http://archiparlour.org/research/] shone a spotlight on our industry and highlighted some surprising and disturbing realities. It is naïve to think the situation in South Australia is substantially different to the picture painted in this report.

The SA Designers for Diversity program is an initiative aimed at those people in positions of influence, who are best placed to initiate change. It acknowledges the benefits of aiming for diversity within our industry and support those who choose to participate.

Our program is modelled on the successful Male Champions of Change program but is tailored to the SA context and promotes a less directed and more self-managed approach. http://malechampionsofchange.com/architects/

This program will give you the opportunity to measure progress and benchmark best practice within your firm, and to assess how equitable and inclusive your policies, both formal and informal, are. It will highlight those firms who are already adopting inclusive practices and hopefully inspire those who are not to implement changes.

The aim is to create a group that works together in a collaborative manner to effect change in our Industry. It will not be an overnight fix, and for it to happen will require the leadership of those in the position to influence sustainable change.

We thank those practices who have signed up already:
Swanbury Penglase
Brown Falconer
GHD Woodhead
Studio 9
Hames Sharley
Hardy Milazzo
Hodgkison
Cox
DASH Architects
DesignWell
Oxigen
Wax
TCL

To sign up or seek more information please email sa@architecture.com.au

20 August 2018

This week our insurer circulated an advice regarding the use of composite cladding products.

Very topical at the moment of course, and the advice was sufficiently alarming to probably generate a knee jerk response of a decade of buildings to come clad only in masonry and cement based products.

In considering the matter I did reflect on how we in concert, with our clients and other collaborators, go through the process of design and selection. While I suspect that all of us rile against the notion of endless regulation, I would argue that the great skill and effort we apply to often making the nonsensical comply means that we really do need the regulation to at least set a base.

I reflected on the array of products we happily specify into buildings which I think we would know with common sense may resemble a firefighter if touched with a flame.

I considered the great efforts we go to in the performance engineering of facades so that we work around the common sense solution of actually just shading the windows. I thought of the machinations and manipulations we pursue to avoid triggering a lift or a new disabled access, or more amenities… and so forth.

I know that a number of these things cost money.

I know that often we are encouraged even directed to pursue the alternate solution.

But aren’t they usually better? Do we apply the effort to think about things in a common sense way? In a way that contemplates the notion of legacy.

I walked down two different sets of stairs in two different very large public buildings recently. I felt uncomfortable on both of them on account of maximum rise and minimum step in compliance with the NCC. I’m sure they are ‘legal’… but given the purpose of the building, the potential volumes of movement and the expectation of a broad range of ages and abilities, I don’t think they were good design.

Not capital A architecture I know, but just common sense.

Mariano De Duonni challenged me at breakfast the other day when I asked a group of larger practices ‘what is one thing the Institute could do for you?’

He noted it was a curious question because in fact the Institute ‘is’ them… it’s a membership organisation. A guild. Since the whole thing only exists because we are members and it has no other independent purpose, common sense defines that it is actually us doing things for ourselves.

I like this repositioning. The Institute is a collective and a framework for us to work together, for ourselves and with a single voice, but ultimately it will only champion what we as a profession champion, value what we value, and do what we do.

That’s empowering when you think of it that way.

Mario Dreosti
SA Chapter President

6 August 2018

Last Thursday I participated in the Lord Mayor’s Cultural Think Tank, which is an initiative designed to explore the opportunities to develop Adelaide’s cultural potential and activity.  The objective is to generate a diverse, inclusive and dynamic community that supports innovation and creative enterprise, encourages people to remain in SA, provides an attractor for tourists and sustains economic growth.

Using the City of Adelaide Cultural Strategy and the outcomes from the previous think tank as a spring board, nine participants proposed an idea to make this strategy a reality.  Ideas ranged from mechanisms to increases the visibility of existing activity, to creation of maker districts and activation of the parklands to support creative activities.

The presentation by the Chair of Rundle Mall Management Authority, Peter Joy, focused on branding.  He shared data gained over a range of studies that defined Adelaide’s brand as liveable, smart, sustainable and creative and noted that a brand is defined by what an organisation/entity does as opposed to what it says.

He went on to say that, while people saw liveability as Adelaide’s key strength and a powerful attractor, it was not enough in itself to retain people, especially younger people, in SA.  Smart, sustainable and creative were weaker parts of the Adelaide brand, that need to be fostered if we are to thrive and reach our full potential.

As architects we are in a unique position to support and realise the Adelaide brand as presented by Peter.  Every project that an architect undertakes involves informed synthesis of complex parameters (smart) and innovative expression of context, brief and culture (creative) to produce an environment that is fit for purpose, environmentally responsive (sustainable) and provides value and delight to users and the wider public (liveability).

In addition, architects have the capacity to support the local economy through design and documentation that preferences the locally made over the imported and embeds local artisans and trades.  We can design places that provide engaging public spaces that foster community and wellbeing.  Our education and experience enable architects to see opportunities to do things differently and move beyond conventional, business as usual outcomes to create new ways of doing, thinking and living.  We create environments that foster and enable creative enterprise undertaken by others.

In short, architects embody the Adelaide brand through doing.  The Institute is working on a number of fronts to engage with policy and decision makers to improve their awareness of the huge potential inherent in the profession.  We are striving to increase the understanding that to fully realise this potential requires increased engagement with architects and a willingness to accept the inherent risks involved in architectural projects, especially those that embrace innovation.  We are also working to educate clients and policy makers that these risks can be more effectively managed when an architect is involved in a way that provides them with agency and independence.

We realise that this is a long-term project in our cautious and frequently unforgiving political climate.  However, if SA is to better realise its latent potential, we firmly believe that architects are part of the solution, and will continue to work towards this outcome.

Nicolette Di Lernia
SA Chapter Executive Director

23 July 2018

It’s always pleasing to see media articles promoting the mandated use of architects for building projects. As a registered architect, why would one not want a guaranteed piece of the pie?

But the topic is in fact a lot deeper than guaranteed work for architects, the concerns are significant and valid, and of course the solutions far more complex than a single legislative change.

The movement put to the City of Adelaide by Councillor Moran this past week to mandate the use of architects for projects in the CBD is timely in the context of change of state government and forthcoming local government elections, but it also continues a focus on the quality and contribution of buildings to our public realm.

This focus has been topical recently in Adelaide with media based aesthetic assessment of some recent contributions to our skyline but also globally, with concerns about quality of construction and substitutions of materials.

The recently published Shergold Weir report makes a series of recommendations which include the training and accreditation of a broad range of practitioners and contractors in the industry, greater powers of regulation and inspection and indeed greater responsibility for architects to ensure thorough and compliant documentation prior to and during construction.

Aligned with the ministerial focus on building quality is the progression of test case law in Victoria following the Lacrosse fire regarding the degree to which specifiers and designers may have responsibility for communicating and managing amendments and substitutions in a project to clients, authorities and even the broader public when they are in a novated contract arrangement.

This last point raises a key issue with regard to Councillor Moran’s motion which is that the architect’s services continue throughout the project. The expectation being of course that the expertise, knowledge and application of the architect continues during value management and construction to ensure that the original qualities of the design be they functional, safety or aesthetic are maintained. The issue is that in all (to my knowledge) of the buildings under discussion in these various forums, architects have in fact been involved all the way through the project, and yet the outcomes are challenged.

A turn of phrase appealed to me at a recent talk by Sean Godsell when speaking of an architect’s involvement in a project once novated to the builder. He noted that it is not an architect involved… but rather a builder involved who has employed an architect in their team.

The recognition here is that while training and experience and indeed a framework of professional registration do without question bring assurance of a greater level of skill and capacity to a role, it is also the contractual positioning of the role which affects the quality of outcome.

I don’t believe that the world will ever return to a full documents lump sum approach to all projects and nor to I personally believe that is necessary or even appropriate. I do however suggest that we as architects need to be able to speak in an informed fashion to our clients and through all our areas of influence about the nuances of different contract types.

If architects were mandated for use in all projects, but early novation contracts with poor PPR documents were not eliminated… then we could run the risk of equally flawed outcomes after the guaranteed ‘involvement’ of architects, and this would be a far worse position than we have now.

The solution to quality is threefold. A quality brief, a quality team and a quality focussed contract and regulatory environment.

I commend Councillor Moran’s recognition of the value and contribution of our profession and the unique quality proposition we bring through our registration system. I also assert that along with the work of architects must be a focus on quality through client aspiration, construction control and regulation. We must ensure that there is a voice of strength for quality in design both in compliance with Planning Approval and also in construction to the NCC. The role of the independent architect may achieve this end, but I suggest that greater powers and resourcing of authority inspections and audit are also required.

Mario Dreosti
SA Chapter President

Recently Deloitte published a report recommending that Adelaide needs to double its annual population growth between now and 2027 in order to increase from 1.7m to 2m people.

It reminded me of an article which talked about the size of population where a city becomes economically self-sustaining – the notion that if enough people are doing and buying enough things, then enough money and employment is going around that it creates a perpetual economic motion.

I consider myself a relatively accomplished web surfer. I’ve self-diagnosed numerous serious illnesses and recently ordered the children fidget spinners that won’t be delivered until after the craze is past. But on this one, I just could not find that article. What I did find was quite significant bodies of work from Western Australia contemplating employment self-sufficiency – where a region has enough employment for everyone who lives there to work locally, and so the commute becomes a thing of the past. This is different to economic self-sufficiency, but equally interesting, and WA are taking it seriously.

So many of our major projects are based on mass transit. Roads or rail, trams and the supporting infrastructure of stations and connectors which then lead to further residential focus and clustering – remember TODS. Much of this transit is based around getting the worker to work, and increasingly also the student to education or the patient to care as we drive efficiency by centralising services. However, while we save on care and education, we spend on transit and we pay with time. Our time; priceless time.

It is a positive thing that the politicians have heard our message to maximise public transport instead of resource heavy private travel, but could there be another message to focus on not needing it?

We do consider employment lands in our planning system, but in reality Adelaide is a very CBD centric city. We don’t really contemplate ‘city’ type jobs being elsewhere.

My own practice moved to Chesser Street 2 years ago, and we love it because there is a buzz which comes from people. Most other similar practices in SA are also already in or moving to the city, yet all of us could actually deliver our work from any metro location. If we had a few offices north and a few south we may get enough people working there to have a buzz too. We could just swap team members based on geographic spread, and we’d all get back the time of the commute. I don’t think we value time enough. It’s pretty precious when you think about it. We design to save money and resources; we should also design to save personal time.

I like Deloitte’s idea of a bit more size and a bit more money moving around. I think international education, defence, agribusiness, energy and gas and tourism area all future builders, but I like the idea of spreading it too.

I’ve heard Playford self-promoted as the CBD of the North. I hope it works. I hope a bold community steps up for the South, and I hope the people who gain another hour a day use it for something special.

Mario Dreosti
SA Chapter President

I’m with Jan Gehl.

Well I think it was Jan Gehl who said that it doesn’t really matter what buildings look like above the ground floor because most people don’t look up.

Increasingly valid in our device driven world…. did you know there are a dozen apps which use your smart phone camera to view the ground on your screen so that you can walk while texting!? Incredible. I thought I had a clever idea there. So I’m with Jan Gehl… if he said that.

It was local heritage advisor Richard Woods who once said to me that glass is not see though. Much to my chagrin at the time because it came in the context of a review, but you know, he was right. Glass is of course often see through, but in real life with frames and reflections and security wipe cards and safety banding that covers half the pane, glass is often not really see through, and is a very real barrier.

What looks open and flowing and connected in our carefully crafted renders is really a strong line of separation.

Which brings us back down to that ground floor, and the ground plane, the activation and the daily life…the things that Jan and I were talking about in the first paragraph.

We all talk about activated frontage. It’s written in numerous plans and guidelines and we present it back as a feature and planning approval tick box. I think from our own life experience we all know what it means, and I think from our own holidays and lane-way evenings we know what it feels like. I think we know that it’s not just a franchised coffee shop in the foyer, or the fact that we wrote ‘tenancy’ on part of the floor plan. We know that activation does not just mean see through, it means people and activity. It can happen in the open and it can happen inside. It’s the buzz of a community where occupants are going about their daily lives, doing chores and dining, or shopping and working, or cooking and cleaning, or talking and writing, or reading, or playing…and you can be a part of it.

So why do we still float on glass? The reflective barrier kind of glass.

Even some of our most notable new buildings meet the ground with walls of perfectly rendered glass. In fact I suggest that most of our new buildings are still sitting above a ground plane of sealed glass.

So I’m with Jan, and Richard, and real life at the ground plane.

I think architects and our collaborators can craft the solutions.

Architects operate in an increasingly complex contractual environment. This applies to the varied contracts using for procurement of projects to the contracts between architect and client. Increasingly procurement contracts and client/architects contracts are becoming one, with novation to the contractor becoming increasingly prevalent for government and commercial projects.

The SA Chapter has a number of initiative in progress in response to this changing landscape. These include:

• Ongoing discussions with DPTI regarding their proposed amendments to the standard AS4122 contract. This joint initiative with the ACA and Consult Australia has resulted in DPTI withdrawing the proposed amendments pending further review.  In the interim the standard AS4122 contract is being utilized.
• Engagement in development of the Office of the Industry Advocate’s Industry Participation Policy, which has highlighted the positive input that architects can make provided they are engaged under a contract that enables them to exercise their full professional capabilities.
• Forums to enable collective review of the STEM projects and provide support for the practices involved. The most recent, which was delivered in conjunction with the ACA, focused on the contracts that the architects had signed up to and their options, obligations and risks moving forward.

All of these activities highlight the need for architects to be mindful of what they sign. Checking the details of the contract after it is executed is not good practice. Nor is signing anything provided by government on the grounds that, on previous experience, they won’t enforce the penalty clauses. For a start government contracts may result in the architect being novated to a contractor, as is occurring on many of the STEM projects. Secondly, government is increasingly seeking to modify contracts to make consultants more accountable for costs arising from errors and omissions. This includes resulting variation costs as well as costs for re-documentation.

Fear of losing a project on the grounds that you won’t sign a client prepared contract should not outweigh the very real risks of signing a contract that will not be supported by your insurance policy. Insurance brokers offering architectural professional indemnity policies will generally review a contract and highlight any clauses that they will not cover without a very significant increase in premiums, rendering the contract effectively uninsurable. Architects should make use of this service every time they receive a non-standard contract. If your insurer does not offer this service you should consider changing to one that does.

This review service will often highlight issues including clauses relating to:

• warranting of services by the architect
• Amendment to clauses relating to proportionate liability
• Amendment to clauses relating to limitation of liability
• Certification of construction by the architect

If these or other issues are identified then architects should draw this to the attention of the client, or risk being in contravention of Clause 59 (1) of the Architectural Practice Act 2009. It should be noted that these issues will be common to all industry standard PI insurance policies and therefore apply to all practices tendering for the project. Entering into a contract with such clauses will void the practice’s insurance policy, which the client will have invariably stated as a condition of entering into a contract. It is therefore in the client’s interest to amend the contract as proposed by the insurance review.

Standard contracts modified after 12 November 2016 may also be subject to the Unfair Contracts Act https://www.accc.gov.au/business/business-rights-protections/unfair-contract-terms .Examples of terms that may be unfair, include:

• terms that enable one party (but not another) to avoid or limit their obligations under the contract
• terms that enable one party (but not another) to terminate the contract
• terms that penalise one party (but not another) for breaching or terminating the contract
• terms that enable one party (but not another) to vary the terms of the contract.

Contracts can be reviewed by the ACCC or the SA Office of Consumer and Business Services http://www.cbs.sa.gov.au/ to determine if they are unfair under the Act.

In summary, the profession needs to follow best practice in relation to all contractual matters including client/architect agreements. If enough architects refuse to sign unfair and unnecessarily onerous non-standard contracts then clients will come to realise that they are not worth the legal fees they have paid to have them prepared. So, before you sign, consider whether it is worth entering into a contract that risks your business and your registration.

SA Chapter Practice Committee

The Institute’s National Practice Committee has been reinstated. This committee, in conjunction with the Acumen Content Review Panel, are charged with identifying and responding to issues relevant to current practice and preparing advisory notes to support the profession.

Michael Hegarty was appointed as the SA representative to the Acumen Content Review Panel earlier this year. To support him in this important role we are reforming the SA Practice Committee. The committee will have six standing meeting per year and will identify issues affecting SA practice, develop and review Acumen content and prepare responses to practice issues to government and other stakeholders. If you are interested in being involved in this group or would like additional information please contact Nicolette Di Lernia – SA Executive Director.

From national membership survey data one of the key activities expected of the Institute is to promote the value of architecture and good design.

Not a surprising expectation, but I think they are two different things.

The value of good design is about better outcomes through successful design. Some outcomes can be empirically quantified and some can remain less defined but should still be understood and valued. Health and workplace are two fields where improved design solutions can be validated by data which supports improved patient recovery and improved culture and productivity. Sustainability outcomes can be measured and assessed. We know this data exists and yet being able to communicate it simply and broadly seems to evade us. I think there is a role for the Institute here.

The other value of good design is less tangible. It is about beauty, and delight and the things that engage and uplift, foster and support the human spirit. Our awards programme speaks to some of these elements and we must find better ways of communicating this value more broadly. The human spirit exists also in correctional services, aged care facilities and the small business on an arterial road and while these seldom make for awards entries, we must still champion the contribution of good design there.

However architecture is a large and complex profession and we are not simply design consultants. Promoting the value of architecture is about promoting the many other things we do as well, and perhaps being less willing to hand them away.

Architects are the most broadly engaged professional in the development process. The involvement throughout a project timeline and the degree to which we interact with every input from authorities, to user groups, to consultants to trades and so on…is singularly unique. The depth of our specialties and expertise as a profession ranges from detailed technical knowledge to social and physiological understanding to broad master plan and feasibility thinking. Even with the plethora of professional inputs in larger projects, the scope of the lead architect still almost always involves resolution of the client brief, through to coordination of all the consultants and varied levels of administration of the construction. Despite this reality, we seem to accept feasibilities which consider only land use and costs without an architectural proposition, we seem comfortable with a role called ‘BIM manager’ separate to the architect who actually coordinated all the inputs that made the model, and on the presentation side, we hand out the design we created and the model we built for an external party to visualise…often with trees that don’t grow in South Australia.

If we are to be seen as the crucial partner in the development of the built environment, we must unwaveringly consider ourselves that way too.