
RIBA research finds almost two-thirds shun process
Most architects have given up bidding to work on public buildings because of the complexity of the procurement process, according to research by
the RIBA.
Walter Menteth, director at Walter Menteth Architects, who is heading a 40-strong group researching the problem of procurement for the RIBA, said he had found that 61% of architects are not engaging in the procurement process.
Speaking at Ecobuild he said: “This is because costs are so high, and, for micro practices particularly, the chances of success are negligible.”
Menteth, who was commissioned to carry out the work by RIBA president Angela Brady, said the RIBA had also found examples of hugely expensive procurement exercises, ranging from £250,000 to as high as £1.2m.
He said: “It’s a total waste - we could be building those buildings for those sums of money.”
Menteth said the RIBA would be launching the full findings of the study “very soon”.
He also hit out at the “batching” of procurement by public bodies, where one procurement exercise is used to generate a panel of architects to carry out work for tens of different local authorities, which he said was starving the rest of the industry of work.
He said: “We’re seeing as few as 15 practices across architecture, engineering, landscape architecture, winning work for that geographic area for four years. This is clearly very, very problematic.”
22 June 2012
17 May 2012
05 April 2012
22 March 2012
14 March 2012
09 March 2012
23 February 2012
26 January 2012
18 November 2011
Sign in to make a comment on this story.
Sign In
Readers' comments (3)
This is also the case with Housing Association frameworks. There will be a generation of architectural practices that will not be able to enter the affordable housing market.
Fully agree with public sector procurement process as follows:
1. Often framework arrangements that do not offer value to organisations and usually exclude smaller local businesses that can offer design excellence and better value for money with lower overheads and hourly rates
2. Frameworks do not allow wider involvement or concomitant design ideas. Who on earth thinks they are a good idea. Maybe the procurement officers who then avoid regular tendering procedures for projects singly as use to be the case. In every other respect frameworks end up costing more and allowing upward fee creep
3. Crazy OJEU regulations specifically aimed at eradicating preference for local businesses, thus allowing very big national firms to dominate
Llewelyn Lewis Sennik
Also, having been involved from a client side i can tell you the analysis of tenders is not very well done. Sometimes the best tender doesn't win because they don't answer the questions in EXACTLY the right format and hence get eliminated