TENDERING:
THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR?
Whilst we strive to understand more about
how paint was made in the past and the techniques used in its
application to buildings, our assessment from a modern viewpoint
frames how we look at the past, and how we behave in response
to it.
Techniques have improved for making paint which is sympathetic
to historic fabric and more appropriate in the context of historic
correctness, and greater is the challenge of finding the modern
day painter with an aptitude for understanding the specialist
paint materials now being manufactured, and how it should be
applied.
This challenge is all the more daunting because of competitive
tendering, a process which many public organisations are bound
by and which many private clients look for or are advised to
follow, to demonstrate fairness in the selection of a contractor.
Restricted by such a process, the machinery which drives it
steers the ultimate selection criteria to the lowest price submitted.
However, you cannot be sure of getting the right painter for
the job, without managing this process closely, sticking to
your principles, and reminding yourself that the building which
you are dealing with is one of the main priorities, and ought
to be the overriding one.
There
are a number of different ways, in which those responsible for
procuring work, can take to strive to select the right painter
for the job. The first is to decide wether or not the principal
contractor employed for a project is being chosen for his painting
skills or whether the size of the project dictates the need
for a main contractor within whose team a specialist painting
sub-contractor is required.
Do not leave the choice of the painter to chance; one option
is to include a list of names, usually three, from which the
main contractor can obtain tenders and make their own choice.
Through this process you have to be confident that anyone of
your selected specialists can provide the skills you are looking
for and are therefore tendering on the same basis.
With the main forms of building contract, the clause that permits
you to adopt this procedure contains a proviso that the main
contractor has the option to put forward alternative names for
approval.
However, they would have to satisfy the criteria for skills,
etc that you are setting for the work. You need to be fully
convinced before accepting any alternative, otherwise you may
be disappointed.
Alternatively,
the procedure of nominating a preferred specialist to work with
a main contractor could be adopted. However, the process is
not liked by quantity surveyors who consider the paperwork necessary
to execute nomination as complicated. They also see the resulting
party of contract between specialist sub-contractor and client
as a potential management difficulty should the main contractor
seek to exploit any programming related difficulties and look
to the employer for reimbursement.
For an individual painter, or small firm, being nominated offers
a better degree of financial security knowing that their contract,
and therefore their recourse to payment, remains outside of
the main contract.
There
are other methods which are becoming more popular and effective
on larger scale projects and that is the use of Management Contracts,
where the client has much more control over the selection of
sub-contractors, but without the risks associated with the Nomination
process.
With
alternative ways of working with the tendering process to select
a suitable firm, the next hurdle is trying to secure the right
skilled painter within that firm. The most effective way is
to utilise the procedure for trial samples and to work alongside
the painters before the work starts to ensure that the skills
are meeting the requirements set in the criteria for the job.
On
a domestic scale, greater flexibility exists if an owner of
an historic property is willing to accept a recommendation to
use a painter suitably experienced in using specialist materials,
or the more widely available alternatives.
The
tendering of any work which is of a specialist nature requires
more than thecurrent, general 'lowest price' approach to procuring
work. Until we can see a complete change in the mentality of
the client consultant from tendering on price as the priority,
to shift towards inclusion of tendering skills and experience
with equal importance, we will no doubt still see projects carried
out by the lowest common denominator.
Phillip Hartley, April 1998
THE
TRADITIONAL PAINT FORUM
Annual General Meeting 1998 -YORK
Notice hereby given that the Third Annual General Meeting will
be held on Saturday 16th May 1998, in York, at The University
College of Ripon and York St John, Lord Mayor's Walk, York.
The day will consist of a series of lectures on York related
projects along with the AG M. The Agenda is currently being
prepared and will be sent out by the end of the month along
with booking forms. In the meantime, please put this
date in your diary.
THE TRADITIONAL PAINT FORUM
Secretary: Una Richards, Simpson & Brown Architects, 179
Canongate, Edinburgh, ER8 8BN
Journal Editor: Patrick Baty, Papers and Paints Ltd,4 Park Walk,
Chelsea, London, W10 OAD
Please Note: SMUDGE is a regular news and
information supplement to the annual journal TRADITIONAL PAINT
NEWS. Each issue of SMUDGE is written, in turn, by a member
of The Traditional Paint Forum, subject to the control of the
Committee. The information is provided in good faith. It is
not necessarily the view of other members of the Forum; it is
offered only as a contribution to the ongoing debate.
