What's in a name?
Whilst reading a recent article on the tendering process for the re-cladding of Grenfell tower it was suggested that the successful contractor was pressured by the management organisation to reduce their bid by £800,000. The article went onto say that this had been achieved using value engineering. In my opinion value engineering is the most misunderstood and misused term in the modern construction industry and to use it in the context on the Grenfell tower cladding panels would have Larry Miles, who created and introduced value engineering to industry, turning in his grave. The whole point of value engineering is that it’s a function-based study and the one thing that is sacrosanct during a value engineering study and must not be compromised is the function of the building or component, which clearly was not the case at Grenfell. Value engineering is carried out at the start of the design process not once the design is complete and the tenders are in.
What went on at Grenfell appears to be the old q.s. practice of what is euphemistically called 'cost reconciliation'. Cost reconciliation works like this; the q.s. prepares a cost plan, the client agrees a cost target, the bill of quantities go out to tender, the tenders exceed the cost plan, the client wants savings, the q.s. sometimes in association with the design team, look to save costs by cutting standards and without consideration of function. To refer to this process as value engineering is a travesty. So please, stop calling cost reconciliation value engineering and call it for what it is; good old fashioned cost cutting.
Duncan Cartlidge FRICS
Comments