Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to the newest version of your browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of Construction News, please enable cookies in your browser.

Welcome to the Construction News site. As we have relaunched, you will have to sign in once now and agree for us to use cookies, so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Grenfell: Inspectors label procurement a 'fundamental problem'

A leading industry certification and inspection body has labelled the procurement process a “fundamental problem” that has led companies to become “complicit in poor outcomes”.

Speaking yesterday at a select committee hearing on Dame Hackitt’s review of Building Regulations, British Board of Agrément chief executive Claire Curtis-Thomas said the procurement process for main contractors represented a “real problem”.

Citing the public sector, Ms Curtis-Brown said individuals working in procurement at local government level “don’t really understand the complexity of what it is they are seeking to procure”.

She said these local government clients often started from the position of securing best price over best quality.

However, she pointed out that many contractors often commenced contracts in loss-making positions due to unsustainable margins.

This, she argued, was leading contractors to “go about subbie-bashing” to drive down costs and therefore shore up their own positions.

“A standard retrofit […] is going to cost you £1m,” she said.

“When [contractors] start that project, they know they have only got £6,000 available before they are running at a loss.

“What happens once the contract has been won is that these main contractors go about subbie-bashing – they go to subcontractors and say, ‘We haven’t got a lot of margin here, how are we going to make the margin up?’”

In Dame Hackitt’s post-Grenfell review of Building Regulations, it was suggested the industry should take the lead and decide for itself how to improve building quality and standards.

However, Ms Curtis-Brown challenged this suggestion.

“In terms of changing the culture of the companies who are actively involved in this market, it’s going to be incredibly difficult without prescription,” she said.

Sir Ken Knight, chairman of the Independent Expert Advisory Panel set up following Grenfell to advise on building safety, agreed with Ms Curtis-Brown that procurement was a fundamental issue.

Speaking at the same select committee hearing, he suggested the public sector weighted price at 60 per cent and quality at 40 per cent in the bidding process.

However, he added: “For safety-critical work, [weighting] should probably be reversed and frameworks set not based on price but based on quality.”

Readers' comments (2)

  • The problem with moving to a higher percentage based on quality is that it it is nearly always the quality of the writing, not the quality of the construction that is assessed. It is how good you are at writing responses to some fairly standard questions not how good you are constructing buildings. Often the whole written quality section is outsourced and says more about the consultant employed than the company itself.
    It is rare for a quality assessment to include a site visit even as this introduces a subjective element into the assessment.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Best Value or best cost !!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.