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