Ewa Lenart - Case Study 2019 by ewa lenart

Ewa Zuzanna Lenart Trent Park Master Plan Enfield, North London RIBA Stages 3-6 Purcell Architects Ltd

University of Cambridge Postgraduate Certificate in Professional Practice in Architecture ARB / RIBA Part III 2018-19 1819PPRA01

case study

Ewa Lenart lenarteee@gmail.com www.ewalenart.com All rights in this work are reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means (including without limitation by photocopying or placing on a website) without the prior permission in writing of the author except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

ABSTRACT

When a member of the public looks at the building they see the end product, the result of the design and construction process, but not the complex procedures and actions required to achieve that product. Each project is unique, with many unknown issues at the outset, and it is the successful interaction of all parties under the control of the project leaders which enables the success of the project. For this you need a plan. 1

This case study will inform and discuss Trent Park (TP) master-plan in Enfield, North London. It is an ongoing development divided into several phases across five years. The project is currently under construction and I am actively working on it. I have found myself referring frequently to Camden Town Hall (CTH), the project I have been involved in the past eighteen months. Even though both vary in size, programme and procurement route, I have found a lot of analogies between one another. While analysing several key events that took place on CTH, I could apply lessons learnt and identify key issues when dealing with commercial developers as client. I will discuss challenges faced during fee and appointment negotiation process and what knock-on effect it had on tender submissions and consequently mobilisation phase events. This Case Study builds directly on TPs site events analysis. Whilst exploring building process, it identifies role of the architect and its challenges in the current market environment. For the purpose of this Case Study, ‘TP’ is used as an abbreviation for Trent Park Master Plan. ‘PUR’ refers to Purcell LLP, ‘BH’ to Berkeley Homes Ltd., ‘CTH’ to Camden Town Hall.

1. Ian Davies: Contract Administration: RIBA Plan of Work 2013 Guide, 2014

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

CONTENTS

Abstract

I PROJECT ENVIRONMENT

8-9

Project Statistics

10-11

Data Sheet

12-13

Reference Project

14-15

The Client, The Architect

II CHOICE OF PROCUREMENT ROUTE & NON-NEGOTIABLE CLAUSES

18-19

Initial appointment

20-22

Fee Proposal

Importance of project programme

24-25

Motivation to enter the project

26-28

Procurement route and choice of contract

Key Appointment Clauses: Copyrights

III DECISION MAKING Working with serial developer & the cautionary tale of the middle men

32-33

Clientâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s multi-headed structure

34-35

Key event 01: Micromanagement

36-37

Key event 02: Variations

38-39

Change Control, Being in Charge

40-41

Additional Fee Claims & Counter Pay

42-43

Submittal Process & RFIs

44-45

Photographic Diary: Site visits

IV OUTSIDE FORCES 47 48-50 51

Role of the architect in the current landscape Conclusion Bibliography

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

I PROJECT ENVIRONMENT

✈

A41

LU TO N A I R P O RT

J23

RIDGE

SHENLEY

J19

J24

J25

RADLETT

M25

J5 CHANDLER’S CROSS HADLEY WOOD

M25

✈

A10

CHORLEY WOOD

BOREHAMWOOD

S TA N S T E D A I R P O R T

HIGH BEACH

ENFIELD LO U G H TO N

W AT F O R D Cockfosters

BARNET RICKMANSWORTH

Oakwood

High Barnet New Barnet BUSHEY

TOT T E R I D G E

Piccadilly Line

Enfield Chase

Oakleigh Park

Enfield Town

EAST BARNET

M11

BUCKHURST HILL

Southgate S O U T H G AT E E D M O N TO N

MILL HILL

M IL

Arnos Grove

M O O R PA R K

E D G WA R E

FRIERN BARNET

H AT C H E N D

S TA N M O R E

HAREFIELD

FINCHLEY

W E A L D S TO N E

PINNER

c ir

a ul

CHINGFORD

CHIGWELL

Bounds Green MUSWELL HILL

WOODFORD

TOT T E N H A M

Wood Green WOOD GREEN

QUEENSBURY

EAST FINCHLEY

Turnpike Lane

CO L I N DA L E

HORNSEY

Piccadilly Line

Tottenham Hale

BARKINGSIDE

W A LT H A M S T O W

HARROW

BRENT RESERVOIR

RUISLIP

M IL

HAMPSTEAD H E AT H

BRENT CROSS

Manor House

H I G H G AT E

ILFORD

Finsbury Park

GREENFORD

Arsenal HIGHBURY Holloway Road

BELSIZE KENTISH PA R K TO W N

KILBURN

WEMBLEY

HAMPSTEAD N O R T H O LT UXBRIDGE

L E Y TO N

S T R AT F O R D

DA L S TO N Caledonian Road

A40

CAMDEN

PA R K R OYA L

KENSAL GREEN

LADBROKE GROVE

15 M

H AY E S

Paddington

EALING

S H E P H E R D’ S BUSH

AC TO N

HANWELL

W E S T D R AY T O N

CHISWICK

Barons Court

Heathrow Terminals 2 & 3

CHELSEA

South Cir cular

Hatton Cross

RICHMOND Heathrow Terminal 4

B AT T E R S E A

TWICKENHAM

H O U N S LO W

WHITECHAPEL

POPLAR

Waterloo

✈

Canary Wharf

London Bridge

LO N D O N C I T Y A I R P O RT ABBEY WOOD GREENWICH

ISLE OF DOGS

K E N N I N GTO N

WO O LW I C H

VA U X H A L L

BARNES KEW Hounslow

ELEPHANT & CASTLE

PIMLICO

FULHAM

✈

H E AT H R O W A I R P O R T

Map not to scale and shows approximate locations only.

South Kensington Earls Court

BARKING WEST HAM

R OYA L D O C K S

ST JAMES’S

HAMMERSMITH

Stratford

BOW

Charing Cross

Victoria

Hammersmith

BRENTFORD

Heathrow Terminal 5

M AY F A I R G R E E N PA R K

Knightsbridge

Holborn F A R R I N G D O N Bank COVENT GARDEN

Bond Street

H Y D E PA R K

HOLLAND PA R K

QUEEN ELIZABETH Stratford O LY M P I C International PA R K

Liverpool Street

MARYLEBONE

N OT T I N G HILL

Acton Town

South Ealing

BETHNAL GREEN

THE CITY OF LO N D O N

Russell Square FITZROVIA HOLBORN

M25

V I C T O R I A PA R K

King's Cross I S L I N G T O N & St Pancras International

REGENT’S PA R K

N O RT H AC TO N

S TO K E N E W I N GTO N

F I N S B U R Y PA R K

GOLDERS GREEN

CAMBERWELL

PECKHAM B L A C K H E AT H

PUTNEY

Clapham Junction

R O E H A M P TO N WA N DS WO RT H R I C H M O N D PA R K

✈

CLAPHAM

B R I X TO N HERNE HILL

EAST DU LW I C H

WELLING

BROCKLEY LEWISHAM

A2 E LT H A M

G AT W I C K A I R P O R T

FOREST HILL HAM

A S TAT E M E N T O F G R A N D E U R

A statement of grandeur nestled in the heart of the Trent Country Park and surrounded by

THE CITY

wildlife, ponds, lakes and ancient woodland, the vision of Trent Park is a natural and majestic place to call home.

OA K WO O D

Computer generated image of Trent Park, indicative only

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

PROJECT STATISTICS

B erkeley Homes (North East London) Ltd. acquired the vacant former Middlesex University Trent Park Campus Site in September 2015. The site comprises 22.7 hectares of private estate surrounding the Grade II listed Mansion House and its affiliated buildings and is embedded within the 380 hectares Trent Park Country Park. The site has a rich history dating back to the early 12th Century. It is located to the north of Oakwood and the east of Cockfosters and sits within Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Metropolitan Green Belt. Purcell had been appointed in fall 2017 as Architects and Lead Consultants of Stages 4-7 RIBA Plan of Work, alongside Stage 3 Minor Material Amendments to an already granted planning application. Prior to being appointed, other architectural practices had been involved in developing the scheme, gaining planning permission and listed building consent.

Key project characteristics: Master plan of 232 new dwellings Enfield, site on the Green Belt Central building: Grade II listed Mansion House being converted into museum and residential units New built houses very in size and architectural style. These will include a mix of open market, housing association (help-to-buy scheme) and wheelchair accessible properties Purcell has started to work on the project in November 2017, as post planning start of Stage 4 Division into several development & construction phases Management contracting as procurement route, very fast paste of the project

RIBA Stage 03 Development Design

RIBA Stage 04 Technical Design

RIBA Stage 05 Construction

RIBA Stage 06 Handover & Close Out TRENT PARK, THE GLADE

KITCHEN & UTILITY ROOM SPECIFICATION

T H E B E VA N C O L L E C T I O N

Traditional ARCHITECTURAL styles from the last two centuries have been big influences in creating a blend of ‘TRADITIONAL ENGLAND’ style homes with a modern CONVENIENCE for families today.

METAL SHELVING TO COUNTER-TOP

OPEN SHELVING TO END UNIT WITH METAL FRAMING

EFFORTLESS ELEGANCE

The architectural qualities of each apartment

KITCHEN: BRUSHED NICKEL ROUX LIFESTYLE MONACO HOT WATER TAP

KITCHEN: CONCRETE 1.5 BOWL APRON WARRINGTON & ROSE, COLOUR: WR30

and house are seamlessly reflected inside. Natural light floods these generous rooms to create spaces that connect private spaces with the natural setting outside. Computer generated image of Plots 107 & 108, indicative only.

DOORS TO SIT PROUD OF MATT BLACK IN-FRAME CARCASS

SIRIUS

10 / 12MM THICK WORKTOP FIRST COST OPTION: DEKTON, ‘SIRIUS’ SECOND COST OPTION: SILESTONE, ‘TEB

T R E N T PA R K ENFIELD

THE FORMER MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY CAMPUS TRENT PARK

DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT

Light, airy living spaces are perfect for relaxing, entertaining and accessing the great outdoors.

All images shown are computer generated images and are indicative only. The images show the latest new build specification and are correct at time of print.

Our vision for Trent Park is a strong, integrated community where people know one another and welcome the public to enjoy the safe and beautiful setting, where every detail is designed to the highest quality. Residents and visitors will stay and contribute to the rich history and share the tranquil open spaces.

SEPTEMBER 2016

Bedrooms in the new build homes at Tren

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

DATA SHEET TRENT PARK PROJECT

Location:

Project Type:

Overall Project Value:

Trent Park, North London, Enfield, EN4 0PS Residential, with mixed use elements, master-plan non disclosed

Architect Fee:

£650,000 GBP

Procurement:

Management Contracting

Appointment:

Purcell appointed in June 2017 as Lead Consultant and Design Leader under a bespoke appointment for services. A Berkeley standard ‘Homes - Long Form (Non-Wren) April 2015 Version’

Sub-Contractor Appointment:

Bespoke Berkeley Homes ‘Minor Works Project Specific Instruction (PSI), October 2015 Version’

RIBA 2013 Plan of Work Stages:

3-7

Client / Property Developer:

Berkeley Homes (North East London) Ltd.

Main Contractor:

Berkeley Homes (North East London) Ltd.

Consultant / Design Team:

Planning Architect: Architect: Structural / Civil Engineer: MEP Engineer: Landscape Architect:

ADAM Architecture, Giles Quarme, Duggan Morris Architects Purcell LLP, London JSA / Patrick Parsons MCA HTA Design LLP

Heritage Architect:

Murdoch Whickam

CDM Coordinator:

London Bridge Associates (LBA)

Building Control: Planning Consultant:

NHBC / MLM Lichfields / London Borough of Enfield (LBE)

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

DATA SHEET CAMDEN TOWN HALL REFERENCE PROJECT

Location:

Camden Town Hall, WC1H 9JE London

Project Type:

Civic, mixed use development, renovation & extension

Overall Project Value:

£56 Million GBP

Architect Fee:

£46 Million GBP

Procurement:

£1,500 000 GBP

Appointment:

Design & Build Purcell appointed in April 2018 as Lead Consultant and Design Leader under a bespoke appointment for services

RIBA 2013 Plan of Work Stages: Client / Property Developer: Main Contractor:

2-7 Leandlease Leandlease Construction

Consultant / Design Team:

Per-planning Architect: Planning Architect: Structural / Civil Engineer: MEP Engineer: Heritage Architect: Planning Consultant:

Tony Fretton Architects (RIBA 2013 Plan of Work Stages: 0 - 2) Purcell LLP, London AKT II Arup Purcell LLP, London The Planning Lab / London Borough of Camden (LBC)

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY STRUCTURE 243 employees (104 ARB qualified architects) CEO & PARTNER

26 PARTNERS (incl. 7 board members and 2 equity partners)

23 ASSOCIATES

LONDON OFFICE STRUCTURE: Architectural Teams

7 PARTNERS

4 ASSOCIATES

7 SENIOR ARCHITECTS

9 ARCHITECTS

3 Part 3 CANDIDATES

5 Part 2 ASSISTANTS

3 PART I ASSISTANTS

LONDON OFFICE STRUCTURE: Other Support

5 HERITAGE CONSULTANTS

BIM MANAGER

3 VISUALISERS

3 BID/ MARKETING TEAM

5 ADMIN

3 HUMAN RESOURCES

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

THE CLIENT THE ARCHITECT

B erkeley Homes, is part of the six branches of Berkeley limited. Berkeley has built 19,500 homes in the last five years, across London, Birmingham and the South of England. It is publicly-owned and listed on the London Stock Exchange as a FTSE 100 company. Berkeley and Purcell have not worked together previously.

Purcell ltd is a large architectural design practice formed of circa 250 employees across twelve regional studios in the UK and three oversees studios in Australia (Melbourne and Sydney) and in the Asia Pacific (Hong Kong). The practice was originally founded in 1947 by Donovan Purcell. In 1965 it became a partnership and was named Purcell Miller Tritton. The practice re-branded as Purcell in 2012. Purcell offers design services, heritage consultancy, conservation expertise, funding and planning advice. In 2019 Purcell was No.15 in the AJ 100 list with turnover of Â£17.9m. In May 2019 Purcell changed to limited company status, as is currently transitioning to Employee Ownership Company, aimed for spring 2020.

PARTNER PROJECT LEADER

SENIOR ARCHITECT TEAM LEADER

LONDON ARCHITECT

CAMBRIDGE

ARCHITECT

PART I

PART 3 CANDIDATE (MYSELF)

ADMIN PART TIME

TRENT PARK TEAM

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

II CHOICE OF PROCUREMENT ROUTE & NON-NEGOTIABLE CLAUSES

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

INITIAL APPOINTMENT

Prior Purcell being appointed, BH have been developing the scheme with a range of different architectural practices. ADAM Architecture, among with Giles Quarme & Associates and Duggan Morris Architects gained planning approval. BH had decided to tender for a new delivery team for RIBA work stages 4-7. They put a bid to a few offices. The budget for delivering RIBA stages 4-7 set at £ 650.000 pounds has been expressed. Purcell were well placed to deliver the TP project having an extensive track record of historic buildings redevelopment. Purcell has great working relationships with various councils, its officers and councillors, and having worked in the city of London for nearly 70 years. In early 2017, there had been ongoing negotiations between PUR and BH. PUR had been asked to prepare a fee for delivery of the master-plan on the basis of RIBA 2007 Plan of Work stages E to L as well as to produce a tender document. The appraisal had a rather diagrammatic form in which PUR outlined newly proposed features, which would possibly enhance the scheme and add heritage and commercial values. In February 2017, PUR had been invited for an interview, where representatives from BH’s different departments were present. Ahead of this meeting, PUR had prepared more detailed presentation. This DESIGN REVIEWS DOUBLE FRONT HOUSE - OAK WALK - HOUSE TYPE 11A

DESIGN REVIEWS

Document served as a custom-tailoredDOUBLE portfolio, where one could FRONT HOUSE - OAK WALK - HOUSE TYPE 10find all the necessary information about PUR’s expertise, CVs of the design team and the planned approach to take on enhancing the scheme. We have reviewed the current scheme and would suggest the following ideas might be integrated: STRONG “BOOK-END” OF ROW HAS BEEN CREATED THROUGH: • • •

Rusticated render base at street level Height of building from further away Visual unity with other houses in the walk – brickwork and detailing

We have reviewed the current scheme and would suggest the following ideas might be integrated: BETTER COMPOSITION AND PROPORTION ACHIEVED THROUGH: BETTER COMPOSITION AND PROPORTION ACHIEVED THROUGH: • Vertical window openings • Sash windows • Vertical window openings • Rhythm of windows both vertically and horizontally • Sash windows • Relevant detailing using brick colour • Position of windows horizontally • String course provides vertical separation • Lower windows larger than upper • French door with Juliette balcony replaces out of place oriel • set Dormer windows align with those below • Columned porch replaced by simpler door with bracketed • Relevant detailing using brick colour overhang

Precedent Images PRECEDENT HAS BEEN USED TO INFORM THE DESIGN: • •

Simple but elegant neo Georgian with Arts and Crafts detailing Lutyens at Hampstead Garden Suburb

House Type 11a

House Type 10

Purcell Proposition: House Type 10, Front Elevation

| 09 08 | Trent Park, Tender, November 2016

Purcell Proposition: House Type 11A, Front Elevation

Planing Application Submission Pre-Mobilisation Phase

Mobilisation Phase

Technical

Construction

FEE RIBA Plan of Work 2007 (A-L) 0

Development 2

The table below is our fee proposal, split between Phases 1 & 2, and Phases 3,4 & 5, and broken down as requested by work stage.

RIBA Plan of Work 2013 (0-7)

We confirm the fee proposal includes for all activites and outputs as per Appendix 1 - The Services provided to us. The fee is exclusive of A VAT.

FEE BY PHASE’S AND WORKSTAGE Phase's 1 & 2

Stage E

Stage F & G

Stage H & J

Stage K & L

Totals

New Build Apartments

5,478

87,651

10,956

65,738

169,824

New Build Houses

4,899

39,196

4,899

19,598

68,593

Mansion House

21,616

172,926

21,616

129,695

345,852

Stable Block

7,841

62,726

7,841

47,045

125,453

Orangery

2,435

19,483

2,435

14,612

38,966

New Build Garages etc

311

4,973

622

1,243

7,148

Principal Designer

1,500

8,000

7,000

19,250

35,750

Expenses

Indicative Fee Percentage per project size: £25K – 10.7% £50K – 9.9% £75K – 9.5%

8,900 44,080

394,955

55,369

297,181

800,486

Stage E

Stage F & G

Stage H & J

Stage K & L

Totals

£150K – 8.7% £500K – 7.3%

Phase's 3, 4, 5 New Build Apartments

2,107

33,712

4,214

25,284

65,317

New Build Houses

18,467

147,738

18,467

73,869

258,541

New Build Garages etc

311

4,973

622

1,243

7,148

Dower House

2,746

21,965

2,746

16,474

43,930

Gardeners Cottage

1,076

8,606

1,076

6,455

17,213

Rookery

871

6,970

871

5,227

13,939

8,000

5,000

14,000

27,000

Principal Designer Expenses

£1M – 6.5% Indicative Fee Percentage per project stage: Concept 20%

9,200 25,578

231,963

32,995

142,552

442,288

Stage E

Stage F & G

Stage H & J

Stage K & L

Totals

69,658

626,919

88,365

439,733

1,242,775

Design Development 20% Technical Design 15%

Total all Phase's

Tender Documentation 25% Construction to hand-over 20%

Fee per Phase per stage

Phase 0

portion of Stage Split resource F division % portion 650,000 (months) (£) 90% 11,508

G-L 10%

Split of Stage F fee into packages substructure masonry roof 15% 20% 10%

1,279

Show home taken as a lump sum over two months

windows 5%

ext. doors 5%

balconies 3%

dry lining 18%

bathrooms int. doors 10% 3%

kitchens 5%

finishes remainder (8%)

CHECK TOTALS

Show Home

2.0%

12,787

28 | Trent1 Park, Tender, November 2016 Phase Substructure*

5 House Types Building 1 Affordable Housing Oakwood Lodge

9 35 47 24 4

3.0% 11.5% 15.4% 7.9% 1.3%

19,180 74,590 100,164 51,148 8,525 266,393

17,262 1,918 67,131 7,459 90,148 10,016 46,033 5,115 7,672 852 Phase 0 - 1 TOTAL

2,589 10,070 13,522 6,905 1,151 34,237

3,452 13,426 18,030 9,207 1,534 45,649

1,726 6,713 9,015 4,603 767 22,825

863 3,357 4,507 2,302 384 11,412

518 2,014 2,704 1,381 230 6,847

3,107 12,084 16,227 8,286 1,381 41,084

1,726 6,713 9,015 4,603 767 22,825

518 2,014 2,704 1,381 230 6,847

863 3,357 4,507 2,302 384 11,412

1,035 4,028 5,409 2,762 460 13,694

17,262 67,131 90,148 46,033 7,672

Phase 2

Mansion House West Wing Building 2 4 House Types

51 7 6 14

16.7% 2.3% 2.0% 4.6%

108,689 14,918 12,787 29,836 166,230

97,820 10,869 13,426 1,492 11,508 1,279 26,852 2,984 Phase 2 TOTAL

14,673 2,014 1,726 4,028 22,441

19,564 2,685 2,302 5,370 29,921

9,782 1,343 1,151 2,685 14,961

4,891 671 575 1,343 7,480

2,935 403 345 806 4,488

17,608 2,417 2,071 4,833 26,929

9,782 1,343 1,151 2,685 14,961

2,935 403 345 806 4,488

4,891 671 575 1,343 7,480

5,870 805 690 1,611 8,976

97,820 13,426 11,508 26,852

Phase 3

5 House Types Stable Block Plot 120 4 types Walled Garden

15 26 12 12

4.9% 8.5% 3.9% 3.9%

31,967 55,410 25,574 25,574 138,525

28,770 3,197 49,869 5,541 23,016 2,557 23,016 2,557 Phase 3 TOTAL

4,316 7,480 3,452 3,452 18,701

5,754 9,974 4,603 4,603 24,934

2,877 4,987 2,302 2,302 12,467

1,439 2,493 1,151 1,151 6,234

863 1,496 690 690 3,740

5,179 8,976 4,143 4,143 22,441

2,877 4,987 2,302 2,302 12,467

863 1,496 690 690 3,740

1,439 2,493 1,151 1,151 6,234

1,726 2,992 1,381 1,381 7,480

28,770 49,869 23,016 23,016

Phase 4

3 House Types 2 types Walled Garden Allowance for setting out

9 6 6

3.0% 2.0% 2.0%

19,180 12,787 12,787 44,754

17,262 1,918 11,508 1,279 11,508 1,279 Phase 4 TOTAL

2,589 1,726 1,726 6,042

3,452 2,302 2,302 8,056

1,726 1,151 1,151 4,028

863 575 575 2,014

518 345 345 1,208

3,107 2,071 2,071 7,250

1,726 1,151 1,151 4,028

518 345 345 1,208

863 575 575 2,014

1,035 690 690 2,415

17,262 11,508 11,508

Phase 5

2 House Types Allowance for setting out Rookery Cottage

6 6 4

2.0% 2.0% 1.3%

12,787 12786.89 8,525 34,098 650,000

345 345 230 921

2,071 2,071 1,381 5,524

1,151 1,151 767 3,069

345 345 230 921

575 575 384 1,534

690 690 460 1,840

11,508 11,508 7,672

11,508 1,279 1,726 2,302 1,151 575 575 11,508 1,279 1,726 2,302 1,151 575 575 7,672 852 1,151 1,534 767 384 384 Phase 5 TOTAL 4,603 6,138 3,069 1,534 1,534 RESOURCE TOTAL FINAL TOTAL 305 65,000 Total to be spread equally from Tender to completion * substructure of Blocks 1, 2 and West Wing months 60 ** August based on earlier calculation to be balanced by lower September invoice 1083.33 due per month fixed cost

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

FEE PROPOSAL

On the left-hand side, you can find Architect’s initial fee proposal of £ 1,242,755 . This has been based on the calculation of the amount of drawings and resources required. BH were unsatisfied with the sum as they have internally forecasted it to be half the amount. PUR has been asked to optimise the scheme. Redesign exercise enabled the number of house types to be minimized. Having it more standardised has reduced the amount of drawings needed, as several GAs and detail drawings could be repeated. The final fee reduction was by 50%, just as the client initially has asked for. Critical Reflection: Purcell has calculated initial fee based on resources needed to deliver services outlined in the scope of work. It does not seem sensible that house types redesign could contribute to 50% of fee reduction. Architect’s fee was adjusted to clients expectations. We are navigating in service industry and I appreciate the client had set fixed budget, however, in my opinion PUR should make clear that initial fee covers full scope of services and if the fee must be reduced, so the scope of architects service does. PUR has signed to an open-ended contract which gives the client a lot of freedom to ask for variations and re-design. This should be reflected in the fee. PUR exposed themselves to a huge risk, taking on a work with can not be delivered as labour cost exceeds billing (fee). Either the quality of the work will be sacrificed or PUR must relay on other projects to be super-profitable in order to retain the resources (people) working on the job. On hindsight, lowering the fee proved to create a lot of stresses down the line. I think PUR should have presented two fee options, the lower one with the compromised schedule of services including several ‘exclusions’ and the initial one as premium -pricing the original scope to deliver it in premium quality. This would create a clear negotiating starting point. I have extracted PUR’s fee proposal summary, where clearly it can be seen that there is lack of time forecasted for possible amendments to an already granted planning permission. As result, all planning work had to been claimed retrospectively as additional fee claims. Critical Reflection: Being realistic and knowing the fact that BH has involved various architects before appointing PUR, it should have been clear that there would be a big workload on design variations required. Setting up the fee proposal is extremely important and can carry several consequences across the project span. It proves to be challenging to forecast the project spending. The big risk of wrongly allocating billing plans to stages is; the scenario when you overspend in the early planning stages to compromise the resources in later construction stages. The risk might be that the moment the project gets suspended or its not being novated, you are left with negative profit. What I have learned from my previous experience, is when inheriting the project from other architects, there is always a level of information the client will still want to amend. On Camden Town Hall (CTH), PUR have taken over the project post Stage 2 and had allowed for only two moths stage 2 appraisal. However, when started working on the scheme, PUR had immediately realised that the client was not satisfied with the already developed scheme. It has taken eight months to redevelop stage 02 to the level, where all the stakeholders’ requirements were met. This resulted in lengthy process of retrospective additional fee claim. During stage 2 appraisal, PUR worked without signed PSA. This put a pressure for the architects to impress the client and make it difficult to ask for extension of time. 21

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

FEE PROPOSAL CONTINUES

BCC Short Breaks Centre Master Programme Date: Mon 07/01/19 ID

Task Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

Duration

Start

Finish

Feb '19 04

Mar '19 04

Apr '19 01 08

May '19 29 06

Jun '19 03

3 wks RIBA 1 - Brief Preparation 3 wks Mon 04/03/19 Fri 22/03/19 Appt 1 wk BCC finalise Appointments 1 wk Mon 04/03/19 Fri 08/03/19 BCC Short Breaks Centre Signed Appt Signed Appointments complete 0 wks Fri 08/03/19 Fri 08/03/19 Master Programme Date: Mon 07/01/19 Surveys BCC provide all site surveys 0 wks Fri 08/03/19 Fri 08/03/19 ID Task Name Finish Mar '19 Apr '19 May '19 Jun '19 Jul '19 Aug '19 Sep '19 Oct '19 Nov '19 wk Design Team mobilisation Duration Start 1 wkFeb 04'19 11 18 25Mon 04 11/03/19 11 18 25 01 08Fri1515/03/19 22 29 06 13 20 27 03 10 17 24 01 08 15 22Mob 29 05 12 19 1 26 02 09 16 23 30 07 14 21 28 04 1 3 wks RIBA 1 - Brief Preparation 3 wks Mon 04/03/19 Fri 22/03/19 2 Brief Appraisal 1 wk Design Team Brief Appraisal 1 wk Mon 18/03/19 Fri 22/03/19 Appt 1 wk BCC finalise Appointments 1 wk Mon 04/03/19 Fri 08/03/19 3 Signed Appt Signed Appointments complete 0 wks Fri 08/03/19 Fri 08/03/19 Approval BCC45 Brief Approval 0 wks Fri 22/03/19 Fri 22/03/19 Surveys BCC provide all site surveys 0 wks Fri 08/03/19 Fri 08/03/19 Mob 1 wk Design Team mobilisation 1 wk Mon 11/03/19 Fri 15/03/19 4 wks RIBA 2 67- Concept Design 4 wks Mon 25/03/19 Fri 19/04/19 Brief Appraisal 1 wk Design Team Brief Appraisal 1 wk Mon 18/03/19 Fri 22/03/19 Approval BCC Brief Approval 0 wks Fri 22/03/19 Fri 22/03/19 8 Stage 2 4 wks Develop 2 Design 4 wks Mon 25/03/19 Fri 19/04/19 4 wks RIBA 2Stage - Concept Design 4 wks Mon 25/03/19 Fri 19/04/19 9 Stage 2 4 wks Develop Stage 2 Design 4 wks Mon 25/03/19 Fri 19/04/19 10 User Presentation 05/04 User Group Presentation 0 wks Fri 05/04/19 Fri 05/04/19 User Presentation 05/04 User11 Group Presentation 0 wks Fri 05/04/19 Fri 05/04/19 Cost Review 0.6 wks Cost Review 0.6 wks Mon 08/04/19 Wed 10/04/19 12 Client Review Wed 0.4 wks 10/04/19 Client Review 0.4 wks Thu 11/04/19 Fri 12/04/19 Cost Review 0.6 wks Cost1314 Review 0.6 wks Mon 08/04/19 Approval 19/04 Client Stage Approval 0 wks Fri 19/04/19 Fri 19/04/19 5 wks 5 wks Mon 22/04/19 Fri 24/05/19 15 RIBA 3 - Developed Design Client Review 0.4 wks Client Review 0.4 wks Thu 11/04/19 Fri 12/04/19 Stage 3 5 wks Develop Stage 3 Design 5 wks Mon 22/04/19 Fri 24/05/19 16 Draft Sub 10/05 Draft Stage 3 Submission 0 wks Fri 10/05/19 Fri 10/05/19 17 Approval 19/04 Client Approval 0 wks Fri 19/04/19 Fri 19/04/19 Cost Review 0.6 wks Cost Review 0.6 wks Mon 13/05/19 Wed 15/05/19 18 Stage Client Review 0.4 wks Client Review 0.4 wks Thu 16/05/19 Fri 17/05/19 19 5 wks RIBA 320- Developed 5 wks Mon 22/04/19 Fri 24/05/19Approval 24/05 Client Stage ApprovalDesign 0 wks Fri 24/05/19 Fri 24/05/19 28 wks 28 wks Mon 22/04/19 Fri 01/11/19 21 Planning Application Cons 24/05/19 22/04 Pre-App Consultation 0 wks Mon 22/04/19 Mon 22/04/19 22 Stage 3 5 wks Develop Stage 3 Design 5 wks Mon 22/04/19 PAFri PA Sub 1 wk Prepare Pre-App Submission 1 wk Mon 22/04/19 Fri 26/04/19 23 PA feedback 2 wks BCC Pre-App Feedback Period 2 wks Mon 29/04/19 Fri 10/05/19 24 Draft Sub 10/05 Draft Stage 3 Submission 0 wks Fri 10/05/19 Fri 10/05/19Prep Full App 2 wks Prepare Full Planning Application 2 wks Mon 27/05/19 Fri 07/06/19 25 14 wks BCC Registration & Approval Period 14 wks Mon 10/06/19 Fri 13/09/19 Cost Review 0.6 wks Cost2627 Review 0.6 wks Mon 13/05/19 Wed 15/05/19 Planning App Planning Consent 13/09 BCC Planning Consent 0 wks Fri 13/09/19 Fri 13/09/19 Prep DC App 3 wks Prepare Discharge of Conditions App 3 wks Mon 16/09/19 Fri 04/10/19 28 Client Review 0.4 wks Client 0.4 wks Thu 16/05/19 Fri 17/05/19 Dis Cond 4 wks BCC Dis of Conditions Period 4 wks Mon 07/10/19 Fri 01/11/19 29 Review 01/11 Discharge of Conditions 0 wks Fri 01/11/19 Fri 01/11/19 30 Approval 24/05 15 wks Client Stage Approval 0 wks Fri 24/05/19 Fri 24/05/19 4 - Technical Design 15 wks Mon 10/06/19 Fri 20/09/19 31 RIBA Stage 4 9 wks Develop Stage 4 Design 9 wks Mon 10/06/19 Fri 09/08/19 32 User Presentation 12/07 User Group Presentation 0 wks Fri 12/07/19 Fri 12/07/19 Planning33 Application 28 wks Mon 22/04/19 Fri 01/11/19 Cost Review 2 wks Cost Review 2 wks Mon 08/07/19 Fri 19/07/19 34 Client Review 2 wks Client Review 2 wks Mon 15/07/19 Fri 26/07/19 35 PA Cons 22/04 Pre-App Consultation 0 wks Mon 22/04/19 Mon 22/04/19 Approval 09/08 Client Stage Approval 0 wks Fri 09/08/19 Fri 09/08/19 36 Prep BC App 2 wks Prepare Building Control Application Mon 12/08/19 Fri 23/08/19 37 PA Sub 1 wk Prepare Pre-App Submission 24 wks 1 wk Mon 22/04/19 Fri 26/04/19 B Control 4 wks Building Control Application wks Mon 26/08/19 Fri 20/09/19 38 15 wks 15 wks Mon 29/07/19 Fri 08/11/19 39 Contractor Procurement PA feedback 2 wks BCC40 Pre-App Feedback Period 2 wks Mon 29/04/19 Fri 10/05/19 Select 3 wks BCC Select Tenderers 3 wks Mon 29/07/19 Fri 16/08/19 Prep Tender Doc 2 wks Prepare Tender Documentation 2 wks Mon 26/08/19 Fri 06/09/19 41 Issue ITT 06/09 Prep Full App 2 BCC IssuePlanning ITT 0 wks Fri 06/09/19 Fri 06/09/19 42 Prepare Full Application 2 wks Mon 27/05/19 Fri 07/06/19 Tender 5 wks Tender Period 5 wks Mon 09/09/19 Fri 11/10/19 43 Tender Appr 1 wk Tender Appraisal 1 Period wk Mon 14/10/19 Fri 18/10/19 Planning App BCC4445 Registration & Approval 14 wks Mon 10/06/19 Fri 13/09/19 Interview 21/10 Interview Tenderers 0 wks Mon 21/10/19 Mon 21/10/19 BCC Approval 1 wk BCC Approval 1 wk Mon 21/10/19 Fri 25/10/19 BCC4647 Planning Consent 0 wks Fri 13/09/19 Fri 13/09/19 Appt 25/10 BCC Contractor Appointment 0 wks Fri 25/10/19 Fri 25/10/19 It is important to be aware that a ‘letter of intent’ is a term of commercial convenience and not a term having a substantive legal 2 wks Prep JCT BCC Prepare JCT Contract 2 wks Mon 28/10/19 Fri 08/11/19 48 Prepare of Conditions 3 wks Mon 16/09/19 Fri 04/10/19 5 - Construction 52 wks App Mon 18/11/19 Mon 16/11/20 49 RIBADischarge Contract Start 0 wks Mon 18/11/19 Mon 18/11/19 50 BCC51 DisMobilisation of Conditions Period4 wks 4 wks Mon 07/10/19 Fri 01/11/19 Mon 18/11/19 Fri 13/12/19 Enabling Works (Asbestos) 3 wks Mon 25/11/19 13/12/19 meaning. It can be used as theFri interim arrangement to mobilise the project prior to a formal contract being executed, however this 52 Demolition 4 wks Mon 16/12/19 Fri 10/01/20 53 Discharge of Conditions 0 wks Fri 01/11/19 Fri 01/11/19 Construction 44 wks Mon 13/01/20 Fri 13/11/20 54 Completion 0 wks Mon 16/11/20 Mon 16/11/20 55 RIBA 456- Technical Design 15 wks Mon 10/06/192 Fri 20/09/19 RIBA 6 Handover & Close out 2 wks Mon 16/11/20 Mon 30/11/20 should not be seen as a substitution to a full contract. Client Fit Out 1 wk Mon 16/11/20 Fri 20/11/20 57 Stage 4 Develop Stage 4 Design 9 wks Mon 10/06/19 Fri 09/08/19 Training & Soft Opening 1 wk Mon 23/11/20 Fri 27/11/20 58 New Facilities Operational 0 wks Mon 30/11/20 Mon 30/11/20 User5960 Group Presentation 0 wks Fri 12/07/19 Fri 12/07/19 Relocations 2 wks Mon 04/11/19 Fri 15/11/19 Decant Decant from existing 2 wks Mon 04/11/19 Fri 15/11/19 61 Cost Review 2 wks Mon 08/07/19 Fri 19/07/19 Client Review 2 wks Mon 15/07/19 Fri 26/07/19 Page 1 This leads me to a second lesson learnt from both projects. When working with an experienced developer, Client Stage Approval 0 wks Fri 09/08/19 Fri 09/08/19 Prepare Mon RIBA 12/08/19 standard Fri 23/08/19 form of appointment. Instead, it is common to use it is Building quiteControl rareApplication to be using2 wks a JCT or Building Control Application 4 wks Mon 26/08/19 Fri 20/09/19 Contractor Procurement 15 wks Mon 29/07/19 Fri 08/11/19 bespoke agreements, which are tailored by the client’s professional indemnity insurers and internal legal BCC Select Tenderers 3 wks Mon 29/07/19 Fri 16/08/19 advisors to suit their needs2and work on their benefit. The process of signing bespoke PSA tends Prepare Tender Documentation wks effectively Mon 26/08/19 Fri 06/09/19 BCC Issue ITT 0 wks Fri 06/09/19 Fri 06/09/19 to be lengthy. As Architects, take aFri firm Tender Period 5 wkswe should Mon 09/09/19 11/10/19stance on starting work after signing as it limits risks Tender Appraisal 1 wk Mon 14/10/19 Fri 18/10/19 and enables additional fee0 wks claims. Mon 21/10/19 Mon 21/10/19 Interview Tenderers BCC Approval 1 wk Mon 21/10/19 Fri 25/10/19 BCC Contractor Appointment 0 wks Fri 25/10/19 Fri 25/10/19 BCC Prepare JCT Contract 2 wks Mon 28/10/19 Fri 08/11/19 ARB Code of Conduct: RIBA 5 - Construction 52 wks Mon 18/11/19 Mon 16/11/20 Contract Start 0 wks Mon 18/11/19 Mon 18/11/19 4.4 You are expected to ensure that before you undertake any professional work you have entered into a written agreement with the Mobilisation 4 wks Mon 18/11/19 Fri 13/12/19 Enabling Works (Asbestos) 3 wks Mon 25/11/19 Fri 13/12/19 client which adequately covers (...) Demolition 4 wks Mon 16/12/19 Fri 10/01/20 Construction 44 wks Monappropriate 13/01/20 Fri 13/11/20 8.1 You are expected to have adequate and professional indemnity insurance cover for you, your practice and your Completion 0 wks Mon 16/11/20 Mon 16/11/20 RIBAemployees. 6 - Handover &You Closeshould out 2 wks Mon 16/11/20 Mon 30/11/20 to meet a claim. You are expected to maintain a minimum level ensure that your insurance remains adequate Client Fit Out 1 wk Mon 16/11/20 Fri 20/11/20 Training & Softincluding Opening Mon 23/11/20 Fri 27/11/20 of cover, run-off cover, 1inwkaccordance with ARB’s guidance New Facilities Operational 0 wks Mon 30/11/20 Mon 30/11/20 Relocations 2 wks Mon 04/11/19 Fri 15/11/19 Decant from existing 2 wks Mon 04/11/19 Fri 15/11/19

In reality this is rarely the case. Experienced clients who regularly engage in construction work will often

insist on accepting their bespoke terms, which presumably are not working to Architect’s benefits. Page 1 As a result, negotiating process can be time and money consuming leaving the design team under pressure to commence the work in order to meet project’s set timeline.

2. https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

IMPORTANCE OF PROJECT PROGRAMME

Above:

An example of PURs project programme as part of the bid document, where Project Milestones can be clearly read (typically project milestone is represented in the shape of a ‘black diamond’). It immediately illustrates how the project will be delayed upon not meeting a deadline and what knock on effect it will cause on future design portions. It is often seen as tool for project manager’s to track changes and assess deadlines. Very often programme’s power is underestimated. It is essential to set up deliverables not only from sub-consultants portions but also to clearly define deadlines to be met by the client, e.g. given instructions or providing necessary information. Critical Reflection: From both projects I can learn, that clients tend to have a strong stance on outlining deliverables to the design team. On contrary, architects tend to be careful in requesting same from the client. In order to progress the project and meet deadlines, it is necessary for the design team to be aware when the client will provide the survey information and where employers requirements are released and in what format (e.g. an information release schedule). This should be discussed and agreed at the outset of the project. In example of TP, the client kept the situation unclear by constantly changing phasing plan. This resulted in general confusion among wider design team. No party knew what fees they should be drawing down against. No one could program delivery dates as no-one knew the current phasing plan. The Client did not feel obliged to clarify constant flux as the change of phasing plan was a dynamic response to the market trends. I feel PUR should be more firm on signing off the phasing plan as it has a direct impact on programme and release information schedule. If the client wishes to keep it flexible, architects fee should be adjusted to allow for extra work related to this work dynamic. While working on Camden Town Hall, we came across similar situation. In the bid negotiation, the client expressed strong desire to execute the project in Building Information Model (BIM) Level II. The whole design team, including structure and MEP, has set their fees based on that fact. The BIM survey has been long promised, however not delivered. It resulted in issuing additional fee claim based on lack of provided information which has caused abortive work. In this scenario, even though PUR and wider design team occurred extensive delays in programme, firstly due to delay in providing the information by the client and effectively by change of instruction. It was really hard to prove client’s liability for abortive work, as this ‘milestone’ has not been defined in the project ‘s timeline. I think PUR should have taken stronger stance on including client deliverables into the programme as well as including BIM requirements into the PSA. Instead, the company invested a lot of money into purchasing software and organising training for the stuff which in the end was not needed. This proved to be difficult to claim against as this item has been never officially signed off and the PSA has not been signed till the end of Stage 03. 23

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

MOTIVATION TO ENTER THE PROJECT

From analysing this process, it is very clear that PUR had a very strong desire to enter the project. PUR went trough a lot of effort to impress a client at a low fee. The company operates on a 13% profit baseline. With this project, knowing the fee and the scope of work, it has been predicted from the outset that it will break-even in the best scenario. One would wonder if breaking into a new sector is worth making a loss. There are several strategic factors which influenced this commercial decision. PUR is an ever growing and changing business with the desire to enter new sectors and develop in new territories. PUR are well known for their expertise in cultural projects and dealing with heritage values, as well as successful collaboration with several top architectural firms (Herzog de Meuron, Wilkinson Eyre, Richard Rogers among others). PUR are aware of the current industry dynamics, knowing there is a lot of potential therefore money, in the master planning sector. Knowing the client and their impressive portfolio of providing housing in the country, PUR has entered this project hoping to learn their standards, optimisation methods and that this will be both, a great marketing and learning experience for the practice. However, one should carefully select their potential clients. Construction industry is known for being complex and often results in disputes. Therefore, it is crucial to build and retain strong and mutually respectful relationships with your client and wider design team. Selecting like-minded developer clients proves to be challenging, nevertheless possible. Analysing current UKs market statistics, we learn that 60% of projects are gained by direct appointment, while 12% through framework agreements and only 20% based on competitive bid. This clearly implies that retaining strong working relationships and basing your model on repeating clients it strategically effective. Sometimes the decision to win the work is motivated by market share increase. With PUR currently transforming into Employee Owned Company, the firm is going trough evaluation as two share-holders are selling the company to the board. This is being calculated based on last 3 years of turnover. Bringing as much work as possible is definitely well reflected in the evaluation process. Critical Reflection: PUR could take the risk of not making a profit on such a big scale project in order to break into the new sector. In contrary, a solo practitioner would not have this comfort as this would immediately impact the cash flow. I strongly believe the fee and PSA negotiation has been approached too optimistically. Scope of work should have been limited and include exclusions, not allowing for constant programme variations and adding on additional work. I feel PUR has taken unnecessary risk, especially having no assurance that this project will bring the company more work in the future. Construction phases of the project tend to be lengthy and more risky. I feel this strategy could be effective in the context of planning phases but not in case of two year construction plan. Agreeing on lower fee proved to cause a lot of tensions, which will be demonstrated in further chapters.

Client

TYPICAL TRADITIONAL compromising time

Architect

Cost

Contractor

Time SC

Architect

Quality

Client

TYPICAL D+B (DESIGN AND BUILT) Employer’s Representative

compromising quality

Cost

Contractor

Time SC

Quality

TYPICAL CONTRACTOR AS CLIENT compromising cost

Client/Contractor Employer’s Agent

Cost SC

Architect

Time

Building Contract Architect’s Appointment

Quality

SB= Sub-Consultant

Employer’s agent In construction the term ‘employer’s agent’ is used to describe an agent acting on behalf of the client as the contract administrator for design and build contracts (such as the Joint Contracts Tribunal JCT DB 16).

PLEASE NOTE: Above diagrams are simplified visualisations of construction procurement methods. Every construction project is client and site specific, therefore, contractural tree will differ.

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

PROCUREMENT ROUTE & CHOICE OF CONTRACT ‘Risk’ does not exist ‘out there’, independent of our minds and culture, waiting to be measured. Human beings have invented the concept of ‘risk’ to help them understand and cope with dangers and uncertainties of life. Although these dangers are real, there is no such thing as ‘real risk’ or ‘objective risk’- Daniel Kahneman 3

commercial large-scale projects, procurement choice is often made before an appointment of

the Architect. Those are strategic decisions, having direct impact on scope, responsibilities and risk management, which is a way we evaluate uncertainty. This project is using Management Contracting (MC) as a procurement route. As aforementioned, BH tends not to use standard construction documents, rather their tailored bespoke equivalents. Management Contracting (MC) is quite a common choice for this scale of the development and having the client as a stakeholder as well. This procurement path prioritises early start on site and general time constraints over project costs. Risks are largely with the client and MC calls for measure of trust and in-house expertise. MC is a method where construction work is completed using several separate works contracts which the main contractor is managing. In this project, the employer is both the main contractor and stakeholder, with no Contract Administrator (CA) role. BH are taking all the risk and they are internally coordinating cost implications and possible delays (CA role). Critical Reflection: The JCT standard contracts have been created with the intention to be fair and evenly balanced between all the parties involved. The BH bespoke contract follows the JCT MC 2016 standard form with several additional conditions. TP is a large-scale project, where flexibility and early start on site is required. The project’s programme has been separated by work packages, such as groundworks, brickwork and joinery. The packages are meant to be developed by the architects and be able to tender separately at different stages to allow fast start on site. This means, an overlap of several packages at the same time. This allows the client to find competitive price for each package and move on site quickly. Additionally, this allows the BH’s buying team to be able to negotiate best bulk prices (e.g. sanitaryware, doors, windows). The work packages sub-contractors are directly and contractually liable to the management contractor (BH). This implies that BH are responsible for quality control whilst on site. The choice of procurement path seems sensible for me. However, PUR has never worked on MC, which proved to cause a lot of inefficiencies. As part of company quality control QC (ISO 9001) it is recommended to take a pause between project stages and evaluate the work. In the case on MC, the work stages overlap which makes it difficult to evaluate the project progress. I feel PUR should have been better prepared and familiarise themselves with pitfalls of such this procurement method and adjust quality control system accordingly. Perhaps getting advice from other architectural practices who worked with BH previously would be beneficial and could allow for mitigating the risk.

3. Daniel Kahneman: Thinking, Fast and Slow, 2012

The project is using bespoke forms of appointment, tailored by client’s indemnity and legal teams, presumably to work in favour of the client. Most of the members of the profession are familiar with JCT (Joint Contracts Tribunal, having on its own seventeen types), NEC (New Engineering Contract) or RIBA standard form of appointment. Other standard forms, however less often used, are ACA (Multi-party forms), CIOB, FMB, SBCC, JCLI, PACE, FIDIC. The advantage of choosing standard contract is one’s familiarity with the sequence, clauses and their implications. In most of the bespoke forms, one needs to take more time to analyse and therefore extract power and duties assigned to either party. As overwhelming as some PSAs might seem, reading them as mechanism, rather than comprehensive piece of writing, makes it more approachable. In an abstract sense, it is a set of buttons and one must break it down, distinguishing which wording describes party’s duties (e.g. ‘shall’) and which entitles to power (e.g. ‘may’).

MANAGEMENT CONTRACTING Trent Park

Client

BERKELEY GROUP Project Manager/ Contract Administrator

Management Contractor

design team

Architect POINT OF CONTACT

Individual Works Contractors

Client

Sub-Contractors

PURCELL

MANAGEMENT CONTRACTING TYPICAL

Construction Manager

Architect

Sub-Contractors

Contractual relationship Non-Contractual relationship

Individual Works Contractor

Architect’s Appoitement Building Contract

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

COPYRIGHTS

I n June of 2017 PUR were appointed. There was a lengthy process of PSA and fee negotiation. PUR started work in September of 2017, however, the PSA was signed in February 2018. From tracked changes to the PSA and scope of work, we can learn what clauses were discussed prior to signing.

License to use documents: Clause 5.1.1 - The Consultant hereby grants to Berkeley and its agents an irrevocable non-exclusive royalty-free licence to copy and use all the documents and and reproduce the designs in and contents of them for any purpose whatsover including, but without limitation, the execution. construction, completion, maintenance, letting, management, sale (...)

Critical Reflection: Architects tend to see themselves, as well as they are perceived by others, as creative professionals. Therefore, it is a common practise to protect your design and copyright the work. Our professional duty of care, following Code of Conduct, would require the architect to make sure nobody is misusing the information. This clause implies that BH have a right to re-produce PURs design without permission. In the RIBA standard form of appointment, clause 6.1. states: ‘The Architect/Consultant shall won intellectual property rights, including copyright in the drawings and documents produced in in performing the Services, and this clause generally asserts the Arch/Cons moral right to be identified as the author of such work.’ Relinquishing of your copyrights is a commercial decision. You can treat your design either as a one-off prototype or product which can be replicated. This clause implies that the client can use it as a product. I feel that if the author of the work agrees to such a clause, this should be reflected in a reasonable fee as selling a ‘license’ is more valuable than providing one-off service. PUR should have extended this clause, claiming that if any of the specification (e.g. materials/products) is ought to be exchanged, this is no longer PURs liability for the product. In that manner, the architect is protecting themselves of possible future liabilities assigned to misuse of information. This clause was non-negotiable as the client is a serial developer, wanting to have freedom to replicate any successful details developed on that project, which can be used on further developments. BH see themselves as a brand and are protecting company image. In the event of architect switch or if the client fails to pay, the license can not be withdrawn in the future.In my opinion any license granted should be ‘non-exclusive’.

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

III DECISION MAKING working with an experienced developer & the cautionary tale of the middle men

Strategic Definition

Preparation and Brief

Design Development

Technical Design

Construction

Handover & Close Out

In Use

Sales Team Design Team

CLIENT

Planning Team Technical Team Buying Team

SUBMITTALS RFIs

DRAWINGS ISSUE

PLANNING BROCHURES

COORDINATE DESIGN

Site Team

Planning Architect

ARCHITECT Delivery Architect Delivery Architect

PURCELLs LIABILITY

Diagram illustrating muilti-headed nature of the client

+12 years of limitation period (contract signed in deed)

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

DECISION MAKING CLIENT’S MULTI-HEADED STRUCTURE

Prior to PUR being appointed on the scheme, BH had sold most of the houses off the plan. Their internal interior design department, together with selling and financial teams, had compiled marketing material which included diagrammatic plans, sections and rendered views of the ADAM planning approved scheme. The plans were very descriptive, including details such as aesthetic styles of vanity units, exact positions and specification of mirrors and lighting fixtures. Once a house is sold, BH must deliver what had been signed off with the end user. This is part of the purchase document and is legally binding for BH. This course of action had caused several time delays, having a strong knock on effect on delivering the houses to programme. Some of the information provided in the brochures was incorrect (e.g. some window positions in plan and section were not matching) and some information promised in the brochures, is no longer achievable due to the structural and services implications, which are natural consequences of the project development from planning to technical stages. BH had signed-off the interior layouts before planning and PUR has been given this ‘framework’ to work towards. Any changes to the signed-off layouts seems to be a non-negotiable, as BH feels obliged to deliver to the purchaser what has been sold. The master-plan is divided into phases, with phase one currently on site consisting of six house types (HT). We have started with HT04 as our show house. Currently we are developing HT01,02,03,04,09,13 which will serve to me as a key site events precedence.

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

KEY SITE EVENT 01: MICROMANAGEMENT A s part of the London Plan and City Regulatory framework, it is recommended to provide accessible housing units (Equality Act 2010) when applying for building consent. This is usually discussed case by case with the planners during a pre-planning application process. PUR had joined the project past its planning phase. At the time of joining, it had been already agreed, between the client and planning officers, how many units and which types should be Part M4(3) complaint. This has been outlined in the ‘accommodation schedule’. PUR had been instructed by the client to provide a flexible design layout for one house type, which is replicated four times across the site. The house should be easily converted to a fully accessible space upon owners wish. In order to accommodate it, steel structure instead of timber truss is used for possible future lift insertion. Additionally, all door lintels are wider in order to allow for wider door insertion, in case of client deciding to convert the house to be fully compliant. Therefore, two sets of General Arrangements Plans (GA) were produced; one reflecting standard design to be built from, and one after conversion (fully accessible). Tender submission included door/window/lintel schedules. In May 2018, the whole pack of GAs drawings and corresponding schedules had been formally issued. Information had been used by BH to tender for the works packages contractors as well as to order bulk items (doors, windows, sanitaryware etc). The lintel schedule had listed all door lintels for all house types in Phase 01 (around 40 houses) where only one four houses were designated to meet Part M4(3) requirements. The corresponding GAs indicated wider widths for external doors on M4(3) compliant houses. The schedule had been signed off and issued to work sub-contractors by BH. A few months down the line, BH got back to PUR with a query to optimise door and lintel sizes in order to standardise products to get a better bulk price. BH’s buying manager assumed that wider widths had been wrongly coordinated by the Architect. Under a lot of pressure from the client side, PUR had changed ‘the mistake’ and reissued the updated lintel schedules. Once BH were on site, PUR had been warned by the client that designed houses were no longer M4(3) compliant because tdoor widths were too narrow. The builders had installed door lintels matching ‘optimised schedules’ and did not cross reference to the GAs information. In the warning received in January 2019, BH clearly outlines PURs incompetence and lack of quality in the documents issued. As compensation PUR is required to redesign one of the houses in the future phases in order to provide accessibility requirements across the campus, without cost reimbursement. PUR internally calculates the cost of the new house redesign, knowing the amount of drawings and therefore resources needed. PUR suggests to exchange wrongly inserted door lintel on site, as the cost would be significantly lower than newly drafted and coordinated house type in the further phases. As a consequence, BH is exchanging too narrow lintels on site (only four) and issues counter-claim in the sum of £10K claiming the architect has caused abortive work on site and the cost is to be covered by PUR. 34

Services Clause: 1.8 As instructed by Berkeley carry out studies of alternative site and/or building layouts, or part site layouts, as part of design optimisation. Evaluate alternatives to ensure compliance with the planning submission, changes in Local Plan and Design Guide criteria. 5.Provide architectural technical/design information and documents, in a format to be agreed with Berkeley, for procurement of design and construction budgets and tenders from Contractors and suppliers. Provide all drawn information in a form and style compatible with Berkeley preferred format and comply to pre-agreed protocols. 11.When instructed by Berkeley to change the Project, the Consultant shall co-ordinate other consultants and the design in a timely manner and discusses with others and advise Berkeley of the implications of any changes on the cost of the Project and on the overall programme. PUR Addition: We undertake to ensure we change drawings and designs in a timely manner when instructed. If those instructions constitute a change the onus is on the architect to request any additional fees that may be appropriate.

Critical Reflection: Schedule of Services, Appendix to Appointment 01, Clause 05 states the Architect must provide all drawn information in a form or style compatible with BHs preferred format. This clause and its application directly affects this course of action. Client is very particular with the format of Architect’s drawn information (GAs, Sheet files, Shedules). All the consultants must comply with BHs standards and are obliged to provide working files (GAs needs to be submitted in a form of live working bound DWG format, alongside sheeted PDF). What it means in day-to-day workflow, is that BHs are providing in-house quality checks of all Architect’s submitted information. This is being executed by their technical teams, which often consist of in-house architects and technologists. PUR got used to being micromanagement and blindly following client’s instructions. Architect’s fee is relatively low for the extend of works, which implies the team lacking qualified resources, who could take time and responsibility for quality-control needed. As part of quality management system standard ISO 9001, it is recommended for every issued document to be cross checked by minimum two people. As the project keeps to be under resourced, we are finding ourselves in the position not be able to follow this procedures. Several construction packages has been issued in hurry and have not been properly coordinated. In that example, we have listed one out of hundred lintels incorrectly and this has caused us to loose £10K. PUR had found themselves to be micromanaged by the client. I feel this is a result of open-ended contract, which allows the client to apply endless amendments. PUR should have put themselves in the position to be confident and sure that construction information is properly checked. Similar issues continue.

Extract from ARB Code of Conduct 4.5 Any agreed variations to the written agreement should be recorded in writing.

A variation is defined in the JCT as: “Any alteration or modification of the design, quality or quantity of the Works” ‘(…)the wording relating to design changes is indicative of the growing trend for clients to seek redesign for free as part of a ‘value engineering’ exercise or series of such exercises on a project. This is a misuse of the term value engineering, which when used correctly is about innovation through design to reduce cost. The risk being considered (….) is where the client seeks to oblige the architect to redesign down to cost.’ (law in practise book…)’ 4

TRENT PARK, THE GLADE MASTER EN SUITE CGI

41 Beautifully finished bathrooms introduce an added element of luxury.

“We have used chalky paints and tiles, muted colours, touches of antique brass, soft overtones to complement the bespoke kitchen and bathroom joinery.”

ished to a high specification.

Interior Design Team Berkeley Homes (North East London) Ltd.

ed images and are indicative only. The images show the latest new build rint. The bathroom CGI is from the master en suite of The Jebb Collection.

4. John Wevill: Law in Practice: The RIBA Legal Handbook, 2013

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

KEY SITE EVENT 02: VARIATIONS

I n the Site Event 01, I have tried to illustrate Architectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s limited influence on the project. Similar issues continue. In the first event, unprofessional behaviour was evident from both sides and Architectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fault (negligence) could be identified. In the Site event 02, however, the extensive variations had led to additional fee claims. PUR had internally evaluated the client relationship in a form of Project Evaluation Plan (PEP), where the lessons learnt were outlined, proposing new ways for better change control system could be applied in order to avoid future inefficiencies. PUR is delivering over 200 homes, most of which are free standing three to four bedroom houses. The average amount of bathrooms per house is between three to five, this is a response to the current market demands. As aforementioned, BH had sold most of the houses off plan and had signed off bathroom layouts before PUR were appointed. Start of Stage 04 (Stage 03 appraisal) PUR conducts thorough check of the plans submitted for planning, making sure all bathrooms are compliant with building regulations (Part M). This is in coordination with Buying Manager is looking for the

Sales, Planning and Design Teams within BH.

most attractive sanitaryware bulk prices. Upon buying, submitting revised Building

Stage 04

Specification to Architect.

PUR is issuing drawing pack for foundations, external walls, brickwork, alongside window/door/finishes schedules. Stage 05 The houses are being constructed to superstructure brickwork level. Internal Partitions to be built in due course.

Design Manager is developing Interior finishes to the bathrooms. Conducting design coordination with vanity subcontractor for the design styles (excluding PUR), Submitting information to the Architect.

Overlap of Stages PUR incorporates and integrates revised Building Spec items, alongside with vanity units design by interior team. PUR notes that many bathrooms are not complaint anymore, as sanitaryware sizes differ from the standard ones, used for check in the Stage 03 appraisal phase. BH instructs PUR to make internal layout changes, including structural and MEP coordination to deliver bathrooms as per design intend. This carries several consequences, as houses are already in advance construction stage. PUR spends excessive time coordinating new designs and re-issuing GAs, Schedules, Setting-Out Packs etc to accommodate the change. PUR documents this actions and is issuing additional fee claim upon variations and change of instruction.

RIBA Standard Conditions of Appointment for an Architect Additional Fees (clause 5.5) 5.5.1 the cost of any work, installation or equipment, in connection with which the Architect/Consultant performs services, is not included in the Construction Cost 5.5.2 the Architect/Consultant is required to vary any services already commenced or completed or to provide a new design after the Client has authorised development of an approved design

EARLY WARNING NOTICE (EWN) Issued by:

Purcell

Issued to:

Lendlease

Document ID:

005-238664-EWN-005

Job Reference:

238664

EWN No:

005

Issue Date:

18 January 2019

Details of Early Warning Notice: This EWN reports to Lendlease that the design proposal for the Camden Centre required by Kanvass was due to be received on 7th January 2019 (as scheduled on the Stage 3 Design Programme) which was not received and is outstanding. At the time of issuing this EWN this information is now 10 working days late. It should also be noted Kanvass have not responded to our requests for design programme or commented on Purcell’s Stage 3 Design Programme to enable Purcell and the wider design team to appropriately coordinate the Camden Centre proposal to meet the planning & LBC submission deadline.

☒ ☐

Impact of EWN:

☐

☒ Delay / Accelerate Completion ☒ Impair / Improve the quality or performance of the works ☐ Increase / Decrease the total project budget ☒ Interfere with the design intent or original brief

☒

The outstanding information will impact on the agreed Stage 3 Design Programme, quality/comprehensiveness of design and project budget, including the potential of additional architectural fees resulting from prolongation of the programme. The outstanding information also directly impacts of the completeness and comprehensiveness of the pre-application information to be presented to LBC on 28th January 2019. It should be noted the Camden Centre design proposals will be excluded from the 5th pre-app.

☐ ☐ ☐

Proposed Solution: Purcell require Lendlease to provide an instruction on how the Design Team should proceed as a result of the outstanding Camden Centre design.

Signed

Adrian Lord For and on behalf of Purcell

Client Response:

Signed For and on behalf of Client

005-238664-EWN-005

Page 1 of 1

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

CHANGE CONTROL =BEING IN CHARGE

B est practice would suggest to take pause between work stages as it provides the perfect opportunity to review how the project is performing, analyse concerns and uncertainties for future phases. In the context of Management Contracting, this proves especially difficult as there is no clearly defined end of stage moment. To remain in control, Architects should constantly review project’s progress against what is planned. Any deviation should be analysed and appropriate steps taken to address them as soon as they arise. Moreover, always remembering that we may have other consultants as part of our team, and in such cases, we are only as strong as the weakest player.

Services Clause: 1.8 As instructed by Berkeley carry out studies of alternative site and/or building layouts, or part site layouts, as part of design optimisation. Evaluate alternatives to ensure compliance with the planning submission, changes in Local Plan and Design Guide criteria. 11.When instructed by Berkeley to change the Project, the Consultant shall co-ordinate other consultants and the design in a timely manner and discusses with others and advise Berkeley of the implications of any changes on the cost of the Project and on the overall programme. PUR Addition: We undertake to ensure we change drawings and designs in a timely manner when instructed. If those instructions constitute a change the onus is on the architect to request any additional fees that may be appropriate. 15.Overview and incorporation of any required changes to the interior layouts following the Internal Layout Reviews with BHNEL and Interior Architects of the emerging Stage E-F scheme including attendance of coordination meetings. PUR Addition: Layouts are

On the left-hand-side there are examples of CoCI (Confirmation of Client’s Instruction) and EWN (Early Warning Notice). Both forms have been used on Camden Town Hall project, establishing clear audit trail for ongoing design variations. Having them numbered and issued offcially back to the client, creates a crystal clear conversation and establishes defined reference point. Critical Reflection: Bathroom optimisation exercise illustrates lack of change control system in place. As aforementioned, BH has never agreed to information release schedule (IRS) to be provided by the contractor. There seems to be lack of signed off programme, which makes it very difficult to capture any deviation to it. I found it fascinating how PUR has allowed themselves to be releasing one by one bathroom drawings instead of working in packages. This allowed the client to keep asking for design variations and ‘optimisation’ exercises. PUR should have issued all information as one package, allow the client to comment, any further changes should have been captured as variations and priced accordingly. This would allow the architect to use the laverage to be exerted as performance is still required. Additional fees should be agreed on a rolling basis as the occur. Claiming them retrospectively proves to be challenging and often unsuccessful.

20 June 2019 LONDON

Helen Ballam Berkeley Homes (North East London) Ltd Trent Park Snakes Lane Enfield Middlesex EN4 OPS

15 Bermondsey Square London SE1 3UN +44 (0) 20 7397 7171 @purcelluk info@purcelluk.com www.purcelluk.com

BY EMAIL Dear Helen

Trent Park, Phase 1a Houses We are in receipt of your letter dated Tuesday 14th May 2019 regarding potential contracharge claims regarding Phases 0 & Phase 1a. We note that we held a constructive meeting on 31/05/2019 to discuss with you the issues you set out in your letter. Present for the meeting were Helen Ballam and Lee Squibb for Berkeley Homes and Richard Henson, Andrew Rowland and Natalie Widdowfield for Purcell. We made the following observations in the meeting which we set out in detail here: HT4 (old) Plot 114&115 Staircases: BH subcontractor information was very poor quality, leading to most of the site issues. i.

The subcontractor only issued one, upper level plan which missed most of the key setting out, and two 3D views. This was inadequate to show exactly what the stair would be like. No vertical setting out information was supplied at all.

ii.

Further, the size and position of the various stair components was not drawn. This meant, amongst other things, that the stair strings invaded the WC space, something that could not have been predicted from the information provided but that meant the design delivered and erected on site did not comply with our drawings signed off as building regulation compliant under Part M.

iii.

At the time we requested further information but were told by BHNEL that none would be provided.

iv.

Our drawing was very detailed, but many design requirements were not picked up by the subcontractor or subsequently by the site team.

The stair did fit into the space. If Plot 114 has been retained we see no reason why Plot 115 needed to be replaced as it is an identical handed version of the same.

vi.

Had the subcontractor information been adequate the issues would have been resolved prior to site assembly and therefore the need to replace the stair could have been avoided.

vii.

We note that there appears to have been a lack of coordination between the procurement and site teams. When we visited site the required timber post to support the cantilevered corner of the landing above had not been incorporated when we visited the site despite the stair already being in place. The site team were not aware of the need for this post despite it being clearly set out on our drawings

20.06.19 SA trent pk letter - 190620

•

• •

• • •

Page 1 of 3

Purcell® is the trading name of Purcell Architecture Limited registered in England & Wales. Registered no. 11310436 Registered office: 15 Bermondsey Square, Tower Bridge Road, London SE1 3UN

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

ADDITIONAL FEE CLAIMS & COUNTER PAY

S everal delays in information and variations had led PUR to claim for additional fees (sum of £ 42.000). This has been argued by extensive variations to internal layouts which had a knock on effect on delivering submission to programme. Part of this fee calculation, was ‘bathroom matrix’ which tracked all the change in instruction when providing bathroom optimisation exercise. Upon receiving the claim, BH had issued counter pay letter, stating Architects incompetencies across the span of the project cost them £ 44.500. The Client noted that counter pay is pursuant to Clause 8.3 of the Appointment, which exercise right to contra-charge in respect of any breach of or failure by Architect to perform the provisions of the Appointment. Contra charge and set-off: 8.3.1. Notwithstanding any other provision of this agreement Berkeley shall be entitled to deduct from or set-off against any monies due from to the Consultant: ii the amount of any claim that Berkeley may have in respect of any breach of or failure by the Consultant in any way to observe or perform the provisions of the Appointment;

Client’s argument stated that this is a consequence of PURs poor coordination of the design information and effectively had caused BH to occur significant additional sub-contractor design costs, abortive construction work costs and delays to the construction programme relating to the house types. In the official warning letter, the client request PUR to notify PI insurers about this occurrence. BH had briefly listed items that caused the delay with the corresponding sums, one of them being lintel schedule. The final sum resembled PURs additional fee claim, issued just a few weeks prior. Critical Reflection: PURs fee was set at £670k. Currently, after one and a half year of construction process, PUR was able to successfully claim £210k in additional fees. This adds up to £980k. Current billing-labour plan, which illustrates company spending vs incoming fees, Trent Park project is set at around £1.2mio spending. This leaves the firm with over £200k of negative profit. This sum includes counter-claims issued by the client. I believe that PUR could have taken more resources to be spend on tender submission as this is where most issues had originated from. The team spent enormous time responding to RFIs and submittals, something which could have been avoided if tender documentation was properly coordinated. Secondly, I feel PUR has badly managed clients expectations and allowed for open-ended contract. Knowing the type of client, PUR should have established clear changed control system in place and have a firm stance on release information schedule and client deliverables and role.

Example of wrongly accepted sub-contractor drawings

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

SUBMITTAL PROCESS & REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) S ubmittal process proved to cause a lot of disputes. Many of the wrongly approved drawings created sub-contractors and client tensions. PUR argues that most of the discrepancies are caused by BHs poor site coordination and low quality of subcontractors choice. Partially this proved to be right, however, many mistakes had been clearly made by an Architect. Source of most of the issues proves to be lack of comprehensive quality control, which is a result of low fee not allowing to properly resource this demanding and complex project. One of the items listed in the counter pay were GRP chimneys. Mentioned chimneys were delivered to the site in stretcher bond, however, should have been english or flemish to match main body brickwork. Due to programme constraints BH had to accept the stretcher bond chinmeys. BH noted there is planning risk associated, as this can be picked up by London Borough of Enfield (LBE) at a later date. The bonding of brickwork at Trent Park has been particularly high on the Planner’s agenda. Client argued that PUR should have been on high alert for this when the manufacturer’s drawings were received. The material cost of the chimneys to replace is £6.000, however, should remedation be required at a later date then logistics and subcontractor remobilisation would likely be in the region of £10.000. PUR remained confident that should the planning authority notice that the bonding on the chimney, largely hidden unless one is some distance away, differs from that of the main walls they will be open to accept such a minor difference. Architect’s package of information clearly shows the bonding pattern of each house (GA drawings and schedules). PUR raised a concern whether the information is not being sent through to sub-contractors as they had clearly not picked it up. The quantity of errors and differences between what PUR have issued and what comes to us as sub-contractor information is enormous. It often results in putting a status C a number of times before the sub-contractor changes their design to our requirements. Furthermore, design team has no direct contact with sub-contractors in relation to flow of information during tender and construction, neither tender reviews have taken place. Critical Reflection: As lead consultant, PURs role is to coordinate other consultants and sub-contractors design and construction information. From this process I have learned two lessons; importance of proper quality control system in place (architect’s negligence) but also importance of information coordination between procurement and site teams (contractor’s negligence). I strongly believe PUR should have flagged up poor sub-contractors submittal information instead of resubmitting statused C drawings all over again. In the appointment document, there is clear definition what does the client expect from lead-consultant in terms of coordinating the information (clause 2.2.2). On contrary, there is no clause stating that BH shall circulate Architect’s design information. PUR should have caveated on submittals that brick bonding and materials to be read on Architect’s material schedule and should correspond with the house’s main body brick work (which can be read on the GAs). 43

Photos taken during site visits @ewa.lenart

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

PHOTOGRAPHIC DIARY: SITE VISITS

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

IV OUTSIDE FORCES role of the architect in the current landscape

Money unlocks time and possibilities and influence

A business runs on money. Money is like oxygen - If we run out of money we will cease to exist - Oxygen in the tank allows us to do more

Deep Sea diving: the fee is the oxygen tank

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

CONCLUSION

C onstruction projects are known for being complex, often involve several parties and can result in disputes. Through depicted analysis of the past eighteen months being involved on both Trent Park and Camden Town Hall projects, I aimed to demonstrate my understanding of the Architect’s role. Consequently, the duties and responsibilities that are assigned to it. Decision making, profitability and contractual framework have been fundamental consideration throughout. Whilst every project is site, client and circumstances specific, I strongly believe that most disputes could have been solved through modifying appointment clauses and effective communication. Setting out and working towards clear programme is imperative, so is design freeze which allows for progress control and definition of variation. Nowadays it is becoming increasingly common for the developer to take greater design risk, and with it having substantial power and responsibility. The management model used by the client has caused many conflicts and stresses amongst design and delivery teams. For both Berkeley Homes and Purcell, the project was first of its kind and was meant to be breaking into new business sector, setting out a precedence - landmark project. The client’s expertise lies in new-build high-rise, and the architect’s in small to medium scale interventions to listed buildings and their renovation. Purcell has been challenged by two main factors; project scale (master-planning) and most importantly, client type (uncompromising developer). It is well known fact that construction process is full of uncertainties and complexities, hence I found it contradicting not to work towards clearly established programme and lack of comprehensive brief in place. From project management’s perspective, the main objections were risks associated with packagebased work (management contracting procurement) and lack of appropriate quality and change control system in place. Purcell’s role on the master-plan has been coined as ‘Lead Consultant’, without clear definition of role’s implications and expectations. This resulted being involved in robust site wide strategy and conveyance work, which meant excessive time spend that has never been forecasted. This could have been clearly outlined in ‘responsibility assignment matrix’ (RAM) which typically describes the participation by various roles in completing deliverables. It should have been one of the architect’s objectives when executing the deed. Some of the standard forms of appointments, example being New Engineering Contracts (NEC) which has been used on Camden Town Hall, include various quality control templates to be implemented; e.g. early notice warning (ENW) and confirmation of client instruction (CoCI). They are designed to make quality process easy to monitor, measure and improve. When those forms are imposed from the outset, it creates a transparent and clear conversation with all parties involved. Having it controlled and micromanaged as on Trent Park, gives a lot of power to the client. Divide et impera (from latin; divide and rule)

I strongly believe Purcell should have taken stronger stance on negotiating appointment documents. Scope of services seems open-ended and the definition of variation is vague. Term ‘design development’ and ‘value engineering’ tend to be misinterpreted by the client, often resulting in architects’ excessive spend of time. This leads me to second lesson learnt, the importance of internal quality control of issued documents. As illustrated in key site events, most of the problems faced, could have been avoided during tender issue. Lack of project programme and release information schedule (IRS) resulted in constant state of unknown, and consequently difficulties to resource tasks properly. Purcell often found themselves being rushed to issue packages, which were not ready to be circulated. This strengthened client’s negotiating position, requesting design changes on account of architect’s low-quality output. On hindsight I can see the value of spending more time on design coordination and documents which are formally issued. During mobilisation phases we could not necessarily control initial fee in bid, however could have better controlled how additional fees are made throughout by writing a tight control procedure. I feel Purcell should have been in the position to better control the outgoing information. Drafting appropriate quality plan, which ensures all the procedures and standards are in place, would have limited the risk and enabled more effective additional fees claim, or perhaps avoid the need of one. Purcell are well equipped in running projects based on clearly defined RIBA Plan of Work stages, where after every phase a pause is taken to evaluate the development. It proved to be impossible to apply those procedures to TP project, as management contracting characteristics include design and construction packages overlap and nondefined work stages. In context of delivering the work in packages, I believe new approach on project coordination should have been taken. One should treat every design package as a stage in its own rights and establish a ‘release information programme’ followed by leading time, where client is given a set time to comment. Formalizing the process helps to establish the boundries. Most of the issues described in this Case Study have been an effect of unrealistic fee proposal at bid stage. From analysing the process, it is clear the project has been a loss leader from the outset. I can see many benefits of the strategic thinking behind, nevertheless I feel the efforts of expanding the clientele were not worth the risks associated. What I have learned from working with Berkeley Homes, is their uncompromising nature and the ability to constantly adjust to change. The project taught me the importance of change control system in place, rigorous analysis of labour-billing plan and what power the appointment document carries. I hope I will be able to extract lessons learnt from this process, which can be successfully applied for the future projects. As full of disputes the relationship might appear, in the time of writing, Berkeley Homes offered two new projects to Purcell. Hoping, we do better job negotiating this time around’ (god, don’t know how to make this one sound proper!) 50

TRENT PARK MASTER PLAN

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Books: 1.1. David Chappell, Micheal Dunn: The Architect in Practice, 2016 1.2. Sarah Lupton, Manos Stellakis: Which Contract (6th edition), 2019 1.3. John Wevill: Law in Practice: The RIBA Legal Handbook, 2013 1.4. Nigel Ostime: Handbook of Practice Management: 9th Edition, 2013 1.5. Matthew Cousins: Architect’s Legal Pocket Book, 2015 1.6. Ian Davies: Contract Administration: RIBA Plan of Work 2013 Guide, 2014 1.7. Daniel Kahneman: Thinking, Fast and Slow, 2012 2. Press: 2.1. Architect’s Journal: Money Issue, October 2018 3. Websites: 3.1. https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk