Construction Journal: June-July 2020

June/July 2020

14 Data on data Is there a disparity between data education and application?

16 Dynamic cost reporting Find out how data visualisation tools can improve the process

18 BIM for PM How can project managers drive BIM implementation?

rics.org/journals

Construction

Climate action 6

What can the built environment sector do to meet ambitious climate change targets?

Construction

Contents

Editor: Steph Fairbairn T: +44 (0)20 7334 3726 E: sfairbairn@rics.org

Advisory group: Helen Brydson (Faithful+Gould), Raj Cholia (Turner & Townsend), Gerard Clohessy (Arcadis), David Cohen (Amicus), Tim Fry (Currie & Brown), Christopher Green (J. Murphy & Sons Limited), Alan Muse (RICS), David Reynolds (Bloomsbury Project Management), Anil Sawhney (RICS), Justin Sullivan (Standards Transformation Project Implementation Advisory Group chair), Steven Thompson (RICS), Rachel Titley (Adair)

4

Published by:

From RICS

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Parliament Square, London SW1P 3AD T: + 44 (0)24 7686 8555 W: rics.org

5

RICS resources

ISSN 1752-8720 (print) ISSN 1759-3360 (online)

6

Editorial & production manager: Toni Gill Sub-editor: Katie Pattullo Advertising:

6

Will Nash T: +44 (0)20 7871 5734 E: Will@wearesunday.com Design & production: We Are Sunday

Factoring your footprint What can the built environment sector do to mitigate emissions and meet the ambitious climate change targets set by the Paris Agreement?

Printer: Geoff Neal Group

10

Cutting carbon

16

RICS’ Whole life carbon assessment for the built environment professional statement is the requisite guidance for conducting an assessment and reducing a building’s carbon footprint 14

While every effort has been made to ensure

Data on data

the accuracy of all content in the journal,

Survey responses from a group of construction professionals show a significant disparity between data education and data application

RICS will have no responsibility for any errors or omissions in the content. The views expressed in the journal are not necessarily those of RICS. RICS cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage suffered by any person as a result of the content and the opinions expressed in the journal, or by any person acting or refraining to act as a result of the material included in the journal. All rights in the journal, including full copyright or publishing right, content and design, are

18

16

Dynamic cost reporting Interactive data visualisation tools can allow the cost reporting process to be more timely, transparent and dynamic

owned by RICS, except where otherwise described. Any dispute arising out of the journal is subject to the law and jurisdiction of England and Wales. Crown copyright material is reproduced under the Open Government Licence v.3.0 for public sector information: nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3/

18

BIM and project management With more understanding and direction project managers can be the linchpin to unlocking the potential returns of BIM implementation on project performance rics.org/journals 3

Construction

From RICS Welcome Welcome to the latest edition of the Construction Journal. I’d like to open the edition by sending you my best wishes at this difficult time. I hope you, and those close to you, are both safe and healthy.

The RICS editorial and standards teams have had lengthy discussions on how the journal should proceed at this time.

We know many of you are struggling with potential job losses, maintaining your business and adapting to the changing nature of current roles – and we are aware that we need to be especially sensitive and helpful at this time.

Those of you who have worked with us on the journal will know we work to long lead times. Usually, an article is planned and commissioned at least three months before you see it in the next issue of the journal. Articles often reflect topical issues at the point of commissioning.

These long lead times also mean that anything we publish in the journal relating to COVID-19 or its implications is likely to be out of date by the time the print edition reaches you.

With this in mind, we felt that continuing to publish the journal as normal in the context of the current pandemic would mean publishing potentially insensitive and irrelevant content.

It’s worth noting that I have received requests to include content dealing with the impact of the virus on our industry. In response, I have commissioned some of these more reactive pieces and published them online, while colleagues have been publishing other useful content, as detailed on the opposite page (rics.org). If there’s a particular angle to this content that you’d find useful, please do let me know at sfairbairn@rics.org.

With all of this in mind, this edition of the journal has two purposes. First, to ensure you know what RICS is doing to support its members and how to access this support when needed. Please see the resources listed on the next page for further details. Second, to give those of you looking for distraction – or perhaps thinking about what comes next – something to read and digest.

With this aim, the edition is mainly made up of long read, in-depth articles on topics that have always been, and are likely to remain, key to our industry: sustainability and climate change and technology and data.

By adopting this approach, I hope the edition is both useful and thought provoking. More importantly, I hope that we find ourselves in happier, healthier times very soon.

Steph Fairbairn is editor of the RICS Construction Journal sfairbairn@rics.org

4 Journal June/July 2020

Construction support I would also like to add my best wishes to all our readers of Construction Journal. RICS wants to do all it can to support members and provide relevant and up-to-date information on the impact of COVID-19.

All of this is placed in the context of compliance with government rules and advice as to how we all stay safe at this time. For example, we have worked with the UK Construction Industry Council (CIC) to develop a low-cost adjudication service to help SMEs obtain payments owed from clients and contractors, which is likely to be a significant issue following on from the impact of the pandemic (rics.org/DRS).

We have been fostering discussion among the industry through our regular webinars which discuss the impact of the pandemic on the industry. These webinars, in combination with our insight communty and online presence – both of which are detailed on the opposite page – have allowed us to gain insight into what’s going on in the industry and the support our professionals need.

We are also working with government to advise on the best way forward for construction work. We are committed to assisting RICS members, RICS-regulated firms and candidates in whatever way we can through these challenging times.

Alan Muse is global director of built environment professional standards at RICS amuse@rics.org

RICS resources RICS social media channels Sharing your concerns RICS has recently launched a new digital insight community for surveying professionals to share knowledge and insight and keep up to date with best practice.

The community, which is open to both RICS members and relevant non-member practitioners, is free to join and provides an opportunity to connect with other professionals around the world to improve knowledge sharing across the industry.

Traditionally knowledge exchange in the industry has been in the form of meetings, committees and discussions. Although there is still a place for these kinds of activities, it is important that the profession can be agile and connect on a digital platform.

The community has been running as a pilot since the beginning of 2020 and the conversations, which are structured into industry groups, cover a wide range of issues. Topics include the impact of data and technology on current working practices, sustainability measures and how the profession can adapt to meet recommended guidelines, the latest RICS consultations, guidance and policy, and RICS conferences and events.

As a result of recent events, the community has taken on an even more important role. The COVID-19 outbreak has instigated much discussion from professionals, mostly centred around knowledge sharing and how their working practices are being forced to evolve and adapt during the pandemic. These conversations also allow RICS to see what support our members currently need.

We encourage you to join the platform – in the short term to seek support from your peers and colleagues during the pandemic, and in the long term to contribute to conversations about the industry and your role.

The community is hosted on the Yammer platform. To join email digicommunities@rics.org.

Matt McDermott is programme director, international standards at RICS mtmcdermott@rics.org

Keep up to date with the RICS response RICS is closely monitoring official advice on the COVID-19 outbreak so we can continue to best support the profession during this challenging time.

We encourage all members and member firms to both visit and bookmark rics.org/coronavirus. We are updating our website regularly to include: • resources for candidates and professionals • guidance on key concerns and risks • news and insight • responses to frequently asked questions.

Any queries or concerns not dealt with on the site should be directed to covid19@rics.org.

RICS is regularly updating our social media channels with our response to COVID-19. We encourage you to follow RICS on your preferred social media channel.

• Facebook: @ricssurveyors • LinkedIn: RICS • Twitter: @RICSnews plus various region-specific profiles.

Taking care of your wellbeing RICS is committed to supporting the mental health of its members and candidates. LionHeart, the independent charity for RICS professionals continues to offer support, including free and confidential advice, financial support, professional counselling and legal advice. lionheart.org.uk

Guidance for SMEs RICS recognises that this may be a particularly difficult time for SMEs. We therefore have a dedicated page on the RICS website providing guidance and support to help both SME owners and those who work for SMEs. rics.org/supportforsmes

Professional development RICS now offers more than 500 hours of online CPD – excluding certain certificate programmes and multi-stream conferences – which is freely available to members of the profession until the end of July. This allows you to take advantage of an extensive and growing range of online training material, view the many existing webinars and participate in forthcoming live webinars and online conferences, and access our CPD Foundation.

Events All events are subject to change during the COVID-19 pandemic. You are advised to check the RICS website regularly for updates. rics.org rics.org/journals 5

Construction

Sustainability

Factoring your footprint The built environment sector accounts for almost 40 per cent of global emissions. What can our industry do to mitigate this and meet the ambitious climate change targets set by the Paris Agreement?

Owen Hewlett

6 Journal June/July 2020

The rejection of Heathrow’s third runway points to a critical new factor to consider in terms of planning and procurement decisions in the built-environment – the need to conform to the science-based goals of the 2016 Paris Agreement.

To address this, we must be able to answer the deceptively simple question: is this development in line with the science of climate change? To illustrate this challenge, ask yourself whether the building in which you’re reading this article, or the development you’re working on right now, is in line with the Paris Agreement goals.

Once you consider the matter further, more difficult questions arise. Does a high energy performance, BREEAM outstanding or LEED platinum rating mean a development is in line with science? Or is it just less bad for the climate than those with lower ratings?

If you carry out the development, will it mean that the companies involved exceed their emissions budget – or will the local authority exceed theirs? Is the social and economic value of a new development worth spending our limited remaining emissions?

Without wishing to add to the debate around the decision to reject a third runway at Heathrow, it appears to have largely been taken on the basis that flying is fundamentally not in line with the Paris Agreement goals. This may seem obvious in the context of aviation’s contribution to climate change, but may not be so straightforward when considering the need for built environment developments in other sectors.

In other words, we must get to a place where making intelligent, science-based, contextually appropriate, socially valuable planning and procurement decisions is the norm.

These decisions must consider the emissions that are embodied in a building, for example those that are associated with the production of concrete or steel.

They must also consider in-use – energy and heat, for example – and end-of-life emissions such as those involved in demolition and recycling. Regulation must also ensure that the various stakeholders in the value chain are held accountable for their contribution to climate change.

According to the World Green Building Council, the built environment sector accounts for 39 per cent of global emissions. With the UK due to host the next climate negotiations (COP26) – these were originally due to take place in November this year but have been postponed until next year due to the coronavirus pandemic – and with RICS taking a leading role in the global conversation on the climate emergency in the built environment, now is the window of opportunity to develop principles and guidance that allows for strong decision-making.

Making intelligent, science-based, contextually appropriate, socially valuable planning and procurement decisions must become the norm What does the science say?

The Paris Agreement is built on a clear, scientific foundation. This science is provided by the independent, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose milestone Special Report 15: Global warming of 1.5°C provided the key basis for decision making (ipcc.ch/sr15).

Global temperatures are, on average, approximately 1.1–1.2°C higher than pre-industrial levels. This increase is anthropogenic, in the form of greenhouse gas emissions, trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere.

The effect of this trapped energy is multitudinous and exponentially increasing. Environmental and social impacts are already being realised but are estimated to become critical and irreversible should average temperatures reach a 1.5°C warming scenario – in other words, emissions that cause temperatures to increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

The IPCC report states that avoiding this scenario requires the locking in of a 45 per cent reduction in emissions from current levels by 2030 at the latest, going on to achieve global net zero – by balancing with sequestration of emissions – by 2050 at the latest, with further decarbonisation beyond that.

At present the total pledged reductions associated with country commitments to the Paris Agreement would realise a temperature increase of between 3°C and 4°C, more than double the point of no return set out by the IPCC. Although the Paris Agreement offers hope, it should be tempered by the current lack of ambition among the parties, or countries, to the agreement.

It is not legally binding and relies on transparency and peer pressure for enforcement. At a national level, governments should set ambitious policies to regulate emissions, while supporting and pressuring peers to do better. Climate finance support is ideally targeted at increasing the ambition of regulation and policy and improving supply chain emissions.

Regardless of the negotiations and regulation, however, it falls to all of us as individuals, employees, companies and citizens of the cities and locales where we live and work, to ensure change is being driven at rics.org/journals 7

Construction

Sustainability

non-state level. While it is tempting to externalise the problem by stating the government should take care of it, big companies should be doing more, or ‘we’ll do it when our competitors do it’ – the problem is best tackled when we take collective responsibility.

One such approach that is specifically targeting companies is the Science Based Targets Initiative (sciencebasedtargets.org). Their guidance and methodology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions provides a platform for companies to set credible direct and indirect emissions reduction targets that are in line with science. Set up as a collaboration between the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), World Resources Institute, UN Global Compact and CDP, the initiative’s theory is that if all companies reduce their own emissions, then globally we will achieve the goals set out by the IPCC. There are promising signs: the initiative has over 800 pledges and has started work on detailed sectoral guidance that builds net-zero requirements into the methodology. But a quick glance shows that, with the exception of Landsec and Kingspan, companies primarily involved in construction and infrastructure, as well as cities and local authorities, are absent.

Experience in other sectors shows that if demand to meet these initiatives is driven by larger, influential companies, then those in the supply chain will follow.

For example, large, consumer-facing agri-commodity buyers such as Mars, Danone and others have set themselves ambitious climate targets that can only be achieved if procurement targets suppliers who conform.

This leads to large agri-commodity suppliers setting equally ambitious targets, working with their buyers to drive compliance both upstream and downstream.

Construction emissions So, what should our sector be doing? We must reduce our emissions – embodied, in-use and end-of-life – within our sectoral boundaries, and in line with science.

We should do this in the context of social value to ensure our decision making is contextually appropriate.

The surveying skillset is well suited to this task.

Many project managers and quantity surveyors will have been commissioned to value engineer the cost of a development within acceptable parameters, while maintaining the essential quality components.

Dealing with the climate emergency requires a similar professional skillset and standard to understand the emissions budget and what must be reduced to meet science-based targets.

See the box on the following page for an overview of how project managers and quantity surveyors can influence science-based decision making across the different RIBA stages.

8 Journal June/July 2020

It falls to all of us as individuals, employees, companies and citizens to ensure change is being driven at non-state level Companies should be encouraged to set strong science-based targets that include all direct and indirect emissions. All new developments, leases, purchases, procurement and contracts should be designed with an emissions budget. From that foundation we can robustly determine whether a development adheres to the goals set by climate science.

For local authorities the applicability of the science is the same: local plans should establish an emissions budget, and these emissions should reduce in line with the science-based targets through to at least 2050. To limit the need for arbitrary planning decisions, consideration should be given as to how each new development impacts the plan.

Local authorities could also operate flexibility mechanisms, building on existing tools such as S106 agreements, also known as developer contributions. For example, there may be a local plan for a school building or social housing that uses the remaining emissions budget, but ultimately stays inside the required scientific parameters by 2050. A commercial developer seeking to develop something not accounted for within the plan could be asked to compensate locally – retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency, for example – to maintain the scientific integrity of the local plan.

One approach many see as a potential solution is offsetting, that is, the practice of compensating your emissions with reductions achieved beyond the business-as-usual projects. Offsetting is a common practice, but in the context of science-based targets and the Paris Agreement – which excludes offsetting – it is essential we think about this opportunity appropriately.

In short, offsetting should be in addition to, never instead of, reducing in-boundary – that is the direct and indirect emissions associated with operations of a company. Otherwise, according to science, we would not reduce emissions far enough and would discourage companies from taking hard, business-change decisions that will be needed to stay within a 1.5°C scenario.

It can be argued, however, that offsetting beyond science-based targets has an additional, impactful benefit on overall global decarbonisation. Elements of offsetting practice, such as the purchase of carbon

credits could be used by local authorities to enable localised compensation schemes in order to meet the science-led targets of local plans. This should not be considered as offsetting in the context of the local plan, however, since the reductions would be inside the operating boundary of the local authority and therefore consistent with a science-based target approach.

A surveyor’s role Earlier I asked whether the building you’re in right now is in line with science. The reality is, it’s difficult to know, but it’s fair to assume the worst in most cases.

Assessment approaches that can determine scientific conformity on a building-by-building and development-by-development basis would be valuable. What would be missing, however, is the contextual analysis of both the value chain and local authority plans. In other words, it may be a good building on a standalone basis but not so good in context with surrounding infrastructure.

That said, being able to assess an individual development would still be a step forward and a useful tool in responding to the climate emergency.

It is also feasible that the basic science-based targets method could be adapted to an individual development boundary that would include embodied, in-use and end-of-life emissions. This would then allow labels such as BREEAM, LEED and energy performance assessments to move to clear, non-arbitrary climate assessments and apply their social value criteria to more meaningful decision making.

In a hierarchy of assessment and decision making, an ideal world would be a development where all participants are working towards science-based targets and local authorities can make an intelligent decision about the associated impact on any local plan. In the absence of this, generic assessments of social value coupled with a stand-alone, science-based assessment of developments can still be a powerful tool.

The starting point in all of this for anybody is to ask yourself another question: is your own lifestyle in line with climate science? If not, try to understand the science and what you can do on an individual level – the WWF Footprint Calculator, for example, is a good place to start (footprint.wwf.org.uk). Then, as project managers and quantity surveyors, start lobbying your employers, clients and local authorities to do more. As top-down regulation meets your efforts from the other direction, a collective solution can be created.

Owen Hewlett is chief technical officer at The Gold Standard owen.hewlett@goldstandard.org

Science-based decision making across the RIBA Plan of Work stages The role of the surveyor and the nature of decision making will evolve as the project cycle unfolds.

Quantity surveyors and project managers can influence project decisions to achieve sustainable outcomes in various ways at different stages of a project. The RIBA stages provide a structure to think about the application of science-based decision making.

Ideally, contractors committed to science-based targets should be given an advantage.

Stage 5 – Manufacturing and construction. The main influence on emissions at this stage relates to building contractors’ selection of materials. This is obviously heavily influenced by the design and procurement in previous stages and hence the main role Stage 0 – Strategic definition of the surveyor here is to hold the It is essential to embed the construction team to account for ambition to create a science-based the design principles regarding development. By embedding this emissions. It’s also good practice early, emissions become a factor to report and monitor site-based in all future decision making. This emissions from vehicles, offices, works very well when the client has and commuting. a published science-based target and can link its development work Stage 6 – Handover. At this directly to this ambition. point the majority of emissions associated with a development Stage 1 – Preparation and have either happened or are locked briefing. In setting out the in by the design. Handover is objectives of the project, surveyors therefore an opportunity to ensure can assist by supplementing the that this is properly recorded and cost appraisals with emissions that documents brief all future appraisals – embodied, in-use building users on how to operate and end-of-life. it according to the science-based principles set out in the earlier Stages 2 to 4 – Design. The stages. This is a great way to surveyor’s role in producing inform tenants and users how to and managing cost plans, work report the building’s emissions in programmes and risk is uniquely their own science-based targets, suited to ensuring that emissions thus providing both consistency remain a core consideration. This and co-accountability. requires the client and team to be on board with the initial ambition Stage 7 – Use. This is the most to be science-based and to ensure mature stage in terms of emissions this genuinely influences decisions. reporting, based on greater It is also a great opportunity to accuracy and understanding embed emissions reporting in of energy use and facilities procurement, requiring contractors management. It is partly driven by to submit accurate footprints the nature of working on a project of supply and construction and – where accountability tends to to incorporate accountability cease after handover – and the mechanisms linked to payment. ongoing operation of a building.

Related competencies include: Sustainability rics.org/journals 9

Construction

Sustainability

Cutting carbon A whole life carbon assessment is the most comprehensive way to gauge and ultimately reduce a building’s carbon footprint – and RICS’ Whole life carbon assessment for the built environment professional statement is the requisite guidance Simon Sturgis

The reduction of carbon emissions in the UK has become increasingly important since the government’s net-zero 2050 target was announced. The built environment is responsible for almost 40 per cent of the UK’s carbon emissions and is therefore one of the key sectors required to reduce emissions.

A whole life carbon (WLC) assessment – an assessment of the sum total of all building-related emissions over a building’s entire life – is the most comprehensive approach to achieving these reductions. WLC includes operational carbon emissions from day-to-day energy use and embodied carbon emissions, including material sourcing, fabrication of components, transport, construction, maintenance, repair and replacement, demolition, dismantling and disposal. The objective of a WLC assessment is to ensure the minimum overall lifetime carbon emissions and the maximum lifetime resource efficiency.

The structure of a WLC assessment is defined by British Standard BS EN 15978:2011. The standard breaks down the life cycle of a building into life cycle modules, but it is not sufficiently precise or informative about how a WLC assessment should be undertaken. In 2015, a group that I led – and included representatives from RICS – received funding from Innovate UK to provide a detailed methodology for a WLC assessment.

As a result, RICS published the Whole life carbon assessment for the built environment professional statement in 2017 and it became mandatory and regulated by RICS in May 2018.

The professional statement gives guidance on a range of issues involved in a WLC assessment including spatial boundaries, units of measurement and carbon sequestration. It also explains how to assess each of the following life cycle modules: ••A1–A3: Product stage ••A4 and A5: Construction process stage: transport to site and construction installation process ••B1: Use ••B2: Maintenance ••B3 and B4: Repair and replacement ••B5: Refurbishment ••B6: Operational energy use ••B7: Operational water use

The alignment of carbon and financial cost is not surprising as their reductions both rely on the efficient use of resources

••C1: Deconstruction and demolition process ••C2: Transport ••C3: Waste processing for reuse, recovery or recycling ••C4: Disposal ••D: Benefits and loads beyond the system boundary.

For an assessment at the RIBA Plan of Work stages two or three, actual materials and systems will not be known with any precision, and therefore the professional statement offers default figures to be replaced by project related figures as the project progresses.

A life cycle assessment (LCA) – a future projection of the carbon cost of anticipated day-to-day energy use, maintenance cycles, repair and replacement cycles and final demolition – is inherent in a WLC assessment and is usually presented as a graph showing annual carbon emissions over 60 years. The objective is to understand, at the design stages, the overall future carbon emissions performance of a building over its entire life, and therefore what can be done to decrease emissions. In addition to the mapping of anticipated future carbon emissions, it is possible to add a cashflow to the LCA to give a building owner a combined construction and ‘In-use’ cost, that is, a total cost of ownership.

The alignment of carbon cost and financial cost is not surprising as their reductions both rely on an efficient use of resources.

Typically, for the ‘Upfront’ carbon costs – those embodied emissions up to practical completion covered in modules A1–A5 – the better carbon options also have lower costs. rics.org/journals 11

Construction

Sustainability

My company, Targeting Zero, reviewed tender returns from an embodied carbon perspective for a global technology company’s new headquarters and found that the lowest carbon and lowest financial cost aligned in every case. Several major London-based developers now see ‘Upfront’ embodied carbon assessments as part of value engineering and, therefore, contributing to reduced construction costs.

By also considering ‘In-use’ carbon costs – modules B1–B7 – it is possible to examine the carbon cost of fabric improvements against the carbon benefits of improved energy performance. This is important as it shows that operational energy use should not be viewed independently from embodied emissions: to optimise overall emissions, both operational and embodied emissions need to be considered together.

For example, when selecting insulation, the decision should be based on both the U-value, or thermal transmittance, and the carbon dioxide equivalent emitted per square metre – KgCO2e/m2 – to make the material. This material and product-related carbon footprint information can be obtained from Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) – there are now over 7,000 EPDs available for individual products.

A further benefit of understanding ‘In-use’ emissions is that future performance can be determined in relation to different factors, such as lease cycles or climate change. The more durable and resilient the design, the lower the post-completion carbon impact will be.

Actions to take Following an initial WLC assessment, there are several actions that can be taken to help reduce the WLC footprint of a building.

••Retrofit. The retrofit or reuse of an existing building – as a whole or in part – is preferable to a new building as it is typically the lowest carbon option. A retrofit has a significant embodied carbon benefit due to the existing structure and materials already on site.

An aerial view of a construction site in Canary Wharf, London. At the time of writing the Greater London Authority’s London Plan is being updated to tighten up all existing building and planning regulations

12 Journal June/July 2020

••Using recycled materials and content. Using recycled materials as opposed to newly-sourced raw materials typically reduces the carbon emissions from constructing a new building. Many currently available standard products already include a degree of recycled content, and therefore the supply chain should be encouraged to provide the project team with this carbon footprint information.

••Material selection. The sourcing of materials and the fabrication of products is the single largest contributor to embodied carbon emissions over the life of a building. It is important to note that the overall lifetime carbon footprint of a product can be as much down to its durability as to what it is made of. For example, bricks may have a high carbon cost to make but they have an exceptionally long and durable life expectancy.

••Operational emissions from day-to-day energy use.

A fabric-first approach where the building’s envelope is designed to minimise heating and cooling requirements can have long-term carbon emissions benefits. A naturally ventilated scheme avoids the initial carbon costs of new plant and distribution, as well as the repeat carbon costs of equipment replacement.

••Reuse of a building’s components at end of life. Designing for future ease of dismantling, rather than normal demolition, means that materials and products can be reused for the same purpose as originally intended. A simple example is to use lime mortar with brickwork rather that cement. The former can be cleaned off allowing the brick to be used as a brick, whereas the use of cement mortar means the bricks end up as landfill. The choice of recycled materials in combination with designing for future reuse contributes to the circular economy.

••Wall to floor ratio. Also known as the heat loss form factor, wall to floor ratio has embodied as well as operational consequences; compact and efficient buildings perform better for these reasons.

••Durability and future flexibility. Considering these at the outset of design reduces maintenance and other life cycle costs and facilitates future retrofit, therefore reducing the likelihood of future obsolescence. Every project brief should have a building design life specified, with a requirement for method statements for future repair and replacement as part of the procurement documentation.

••Embodied and operational emissions. Optimising the relationship between the two types of emissions is important to ensuring whole life carbon reduction efficiency. The objective is to understand, over a building’s life, the carbon cost as well as the carbon benefit of any action to improve its performance. For example, the use of insulation has a clear carbon benefit, whereas its fabrication has a carbon cost. This means that it is important to look not only at the U-value of insulation, but also the carbon cost of the manufacture and installation of different product options.

••Local sourcing. This reduces transport distances and therefore supply chain lengths. It also has associated social benefits including, for example, local employment.

••Waste minimisation. This is a key feature of low carbon design and procurement through all life cycle stages and means understanding how materials and systems are sourced and fabricated. Building designers must understand how products are assembled on site to ensure minimum waste.

••Efficient fabrication. Construction techniques such as using modular systems, precision manufacturing and modern methods of construction can contribute to a reduced construction carbon footprint due to more efficient fabrication, and reduced snagging and early replacement.

Many of the above principles require actions – by developers and project teams – that may be seen as of limited benefit to the developer in the immediate future. There are three key arguments that can be used to convince developers of the benefits of investing in a low carbon approach.

First, most of the principles listed above don’t necessarily add to construction costs – and many will actually reduce the total cost of ownership. Second, it is very possible that if the valuation of buildings starts to include climatic resilience and performance and an LCA as part of due diligence carried out then these actions will become essential. Finally, being ahead of future regulation change will reduce building obsolescence and therefore benefit developers in the long term.

Impact of the professional statement Since the publication of the professional statement in 2017 numerous organisations – including British Land, Landsec, Derwent, Grosvenor, the Portman Estate, Warwick University and Quintain – have embedded its guidance in their practices.

It is also being used on HS2 and the latest Heathrow expansion to mitigate carbon impacts.

Other documents such as RIBA’s Embodied and whole life carbon for architects, the UKGBC’s Net zero carbon buildings: a framework definition and London Energy Transformation Initiative’s Climate emergency design guide all make direct reference to the professional statement. The Mayor of London also explicitly referenced the professional statement in the London Environment Strategy, released in May 2018.

At the time of writing, the Greater London Authority’s London Plan is being updated and will require all referable schemes – including developments of 150 or more residential units, developments of more than 30 metres high outside the City of London and developments on green belts or metropolitan open land – to carry out a detailed WLC assessment in accordance with the RICS professional statement and BS EN 15978:2011.

These will be required both on submission of the scheme and post-completion. The detailed guidance in the London Plan also suggests that WLC assessments will soon be a requirement on all submissions in the near future. Other UK local authorities are likely to follow the example of the London Plan and tighten up all existing building and planning regulations.

For those buildings currently on the drawing board, sticking to the current regulations may be a bigger risk than future proofing the asset value of your building with a WLC assessment and resulting actions to reduce its whole life carbon footprint.

The fact that the London Plan guidance is about assessing the entire life cycle of a building will help clients better understand overall lifetime performance in both carbon terms and cost terms.

This will affect how buildings are valued, with a WLC assessment

The more durable and resilient the design, the lower the post-completion carbon impact of the building will be

becoming a fundamental part of due diligence in assessing future asset performance and value.

Further, climate change is increasingly becoming a consideration from the perspective of investment and insurance risks, and the likely impact it may have on occupier sentiment. Buildings that are not climate friendly, or low carbon, are likely to be at a disadvantage in the future. There are several international organisations, such as the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), that are advising both investors and insurers on the implications of climate change.

The PRI states: ‘As part of wider efforts to implement the Paris Agreement, every real estate asset owner, investor and stakeholder must now recognise they have a clear fiduciary duty to understand and actively manage ESG [environmental, social and governance] and climate-related risks as a routine component of their business thinking, practices and management processes.’

The next steps for WLC assessment and reporting will be to gather more building-related data – the London Plan requirements will greatly assist in this. Further measures are required to ensure consistency of reporting, and these need to feed into the available assessment software that currently produces different answers from different types of inputs.

It’s important to remember that the environmental landscape when the Whole life carbon assessment for the built environment professional statement was launched was very different to how it is today. However, it is encouraging that, although further work needs to be done, the importance and necessity of WLC assessments has become far more widely understood over these past three years.

Simon Sturgis is the founder of Targeting Zero and co-author of the RICS Whole life carbon assessment for the built environment professional statement simon.sturgis@targetingzero.co.uk @simonsturgis Related competencies include: Construction technology and environmental services, Sustainability Further information: The RICS Building Carbon Database can help users identify where carbon emission reductions can be made throughout a building’s life cycle. You can submit your data at rics.org/carbondatabase. rics.org/journals 13

Construction

Data

Data on data Survey responses from a group of construction professionals show a significant disparity between the data education respondents received and the way they are expected to work with data in their current roles Simon Longstaffe

In 1994 I graduated from Portsmouth University with a degree in commercial management (quantity surveying). Computers were still somewhat of a novelty at the time – we had one or two in the university department and software, such as BCIS, was loaded on to them from floppy disks – but there was already much discussion about how these computers would transform the industry.

Although, 26 years later, much of the language has changed – we’re now talking about digital disruptors rather than simply computers – the conversation hasn’t. We’re still discussing how advances in technology can impact our industry, its processes and its outputs – and we still haven’t truly worked out how to use these advances to our advantage.

Of course, there is one thing that underpins all this technology: data. It is fundamental to the construction industry: it is needed and used across the full range of responsibilities of quantity surveyors and project managers, from the inception of a project right through to disposal of an asset.

Data is essential for measurement, estimates and cost plans, benchmarking, management information and KPIs. This is just the tip of the iceberg: the industry generates a huge amount of data for a range of functions, but the question is whether this data is used effectively. For example, a number of the large infrastructure bodies I work with have large quantities of data, including cost data, but they don’t know how to control the quality of the data or ensure it is used appropriately. This is particularly relevant to benchmarking, where there seems to be a desire to benchmark projects without understanding whether the data being used is relevant.

Another issue is the lack of industry standardisation in terms of how to organise data. This makes it time-consuming, difficult and, in some cases, nearly impossible to analyse data and turn it into something meaningful. This is particularly problematic because clients tend to have their own data standards making it harder to achieve comparisons across different clients, and often resulting in time being wasted inputting data into an appropriate and useable format. The silo mentality that has been associated with the construction industry for many years is present when it comes to data too; some construction consultancies have even been known to monetise data for their own benefit.

There are some industry initiatives working to address these problems. The International Construction Measurement Standards, 14 Journal June/July 2020

for example, aim to ‘enhance transparency, investor confidence and public trust’ in our sector. In addition, the Department for Transport has recognised the need for consistency of data in its bodies, such as National Rail and Highways England, and is looking at how to achieve this as part of its transport infrastructure efficiency strategy (TIES).

Such initiatives, though, must achieve industry buy-in to be successful. The industry needs to take control of its data and the way to do that is to ensure that its practitioners and operators are comfortable using it. We need to decide what the requisite skills are to be able to work with data and make the most of advancing technology. The whole surveying profession must understand its changing relationship with data and train its workforce accordingly.

Survey results Last year, while in my previous position with Faithful+Gould, I carried out a survey to try and better understand employees’ involvement with and perception of data. I asked 62 construction professionals about their education, their experiences with data on their respective courses, and how they use data in their current roles. The specialisms of those interviewed were as follows: ••50 per cent worked in quantity surveying and construction ••20 per cent worked in project management ••21 per cent worked in other industry roles, such as building surveying, engineering and facilities management ••eight per cent worked in more niche roles, such as health and safety, infrastructure and management consultancy.

The remaining one per cent was comprised of two professionals occupying newer roles driven by advances in technology: one in data analysis, and the other in digital strategy.

For the most part, the degrees studied aligned with the specialisms in which those surveyed now work. Many of those employees working in quantity surveying and construction, for example, had studied quantity surveying, or quantity surveying and commercial management. The professionals working in data analysis and digital strategy studied physics and construction programme management respectively.

The top line results are what I imagine many of us would expect.

••Of those surveyed, 61 of the 62 professionals said they use data as part of their job.

••A total of 89 per cent of respondents believe data is ‘very important’ to the construction industry, while a further five per cent said it is ‘important’.

••Benchmarking and estimating were by far the most common uses for data, with analytics, design and project controls also cited.

However, some results were more surprising. A total of 48 per cent of those surveyed said they hadn’t studied data as part of their degree – perhaps to be expected since the year of graduation of participants ranged from 1984 to those expecting to graduate in 2022. But if we look at this in more depth, 60 per cent of those who said they didn’t study data as part of their course graduated in the past six years. To put this into context, it’s worth remembering that the UK’s BIM strategy was published nine years ago.

Of the 52 per cent of people that did study data as part of their course, only 25 per cent said it was a core module – the other 75 per cent studied it as part of a wider module. In fact, of the four participants that graduated in 2019 – all studying either quantity surveying and construction or project management – only two studied data, and even then it was only as part of a wider module.

The results of the survey – which I invite you to view in more depth at rics.org/longstaffedata – show a mismatch between the knowledge of data gained through education and the required skills to work with data in a surveying role. Is it any wonder, then, that the potential of data has yet to be realised?

Data education As data-driven decision making becomes embedded in the way we work, we need to better understand how to draw statistically valid inferences from data as opposed to the ‘gut feeling meets years of experience’ approach many of us currently take. To achieve this, we need to bring data analysts and specialists into our industry.

This doesn’t necessarily mean hiring those trained to work specifically with data – although that could be a worthwhile option in some cases – but re-evaluating the job specification of the various roles in our industry and integrating data management into our education programmes accordingly. Our professionals need to understand what data to input to generate a subsequent data output. They need to be able to advise clients on the correct data requirements so systems can work effectively and system-based collaborative working can be enabled.

Our profession should be trained to use, manage and analyse data, regardless of their specialism All those working in our profession should be trained to use, manage and analyse data appropriately, regardless of their specialism. Data should be at the core of higher education courses so the next generation of surveyors enter the industry job ready.

More in-depth data education would allow the industry to overcome many of the issues around data, which were cited by many survey participants as a lack of collaboration, the quality and trustworthiness of data, and data access and storage.

RICS, too, must evaluate the way data is taught in its education pathways. The current RICS Data management competency is centred around how data is collected, stored and retrieved – in other words, how it is handled rather than how it is created and used. Perhaps what would be more effective than a singular Data management competency is for data management and analysis to become a requisite part of each of the competencies.

And what about those surveyors, like me, who received their initial qualifications many years ago. Should we upskill, so we are able to work more effectively with data? If so, how do we go about it? These are, perhaps, not easy questions to answer. As a starting point, however, I invite you to carry out a similar survey to the one I did, with the construction professionals at your own company.

And please do share the results – we should, after all, be breaking free of our silos.

Simon Longstaffe MRICS is operations director at Mace simon.longstaffe@macegroup.com Related competencies include: Data management Further information: View more of the results of the author’s survey at rics.org/longstaffedata. rics.org/journals 15

Construction

Cost management

Dynamic cost reporting Interactive data visualisation tools allow the cost-reporting process to be more timely, transparent and dynamic Alice Graham

There is a huge amount of potential for a digital disruptor to evolve the project delivery processes of both the construction industry and how professionals provide information to their clients.

One key area in the quantity surveying profession that is ripe for disruption is cost reporting – the primary way in which a quantity surveyor controls project costs and communicates the forecast out-turn cost to a client. There are several aspects of existing cost reporting formats that need to be improved to maximise the benefits of a cost report to the client, the quantity surveyor and other project stakeholders.

Interactive data visualisation tools can be used to address the following issues with current cost reporting formats.

16 Journal June/July 2020

••Static data. Many cost reports tend to be one dimensional and are produced either as a Microsoft Word or Excel document, which is then made into a PDF. Consequently, the data is static and one dimensional leaving very little scope for interaction.

••Lack of transparency. There is a lack of transparency for the client about how the data was summarised, particularly when the report is in a one dimensional format.

••Timeliness. Cost reports convey the expected out-turn cost at a given point in time. However, the length of time it can take to populate the information means that by the time the cost report is issued to a client, the report may no longer be a real-time representation of the expected out-turn cost.

••Potential for errors. In complex construction projects or programmes of work, vast amounts of data are generated.

This data must be assembled, interpreted and input into a cost report. This can result in double handling of the data from the source, increasing the likelihood of errors.

Interactive data visualisation tools give businesses the ability to analyse data, gain insights and improve decision making. When applied in the context of a construction project or programme, these tools can be used within the cost-reporting process to provide dynamic insights, and also to act as a cost monitoring tool. There are several platforms to facilitate this, but a widely-used one is Power BI, which is in the Microsoft Office 365 suite of products.

The basic principle of these platforms is that data is taken from a source – or multiple sources – and then transformed into a dashboard report that provides different insights into a project or programme of works.

To facilitate the data visualisation, a customised dashboard report can be built to reflect the key metrics of a project.

This could be the typical metrics of a cost report, as well as specific key performance indicators requested by the client. The dashboard report can then be published for the client and other stakeholders to review.

Data from the source – or sources – can be refreshed on demand to update the report.

There are three key features of interactive data visualisation tools.

••Filters. The ability to interact with the data so the users only see the information that is relevant to them, a specific query they have or particular elements of work in a project.

••Visualisation. The ability to visualise the data and provide a simple summary that requires minimal analysis by the end users.

The standard structure means it is easy for different stakeholder groups to interrogate the data.

••Interrogation. The ability to interrogate the data by being able to access the figures behind the summaries created.

These key features enable a cost report to move from a one-dimensional and static document, to a dynamic threedimensional way of reviewing and interpreting a project’s performance.

Benefits of data visualisation My employer, Faithful+Gould, has adopted the use of data visualisation tools for dashboard reporting as part of a capital investment programme for a national banking client.

This dashboard, which can be published on demand by refreshing live data feeds, provides the client with information about their portfolio of projects from a programme and cost management perspective. This allows the client to easily monitor the cost performance against the overall budget. Outside of cost and programme, the dashboard is also used to report on quality and health and safety.

Interactive data visualisation tools give businesses the ability to analyse data, gain insights and improve decision making

The client is given access to the report so they can review it remotely at any time, and stakeholders can filter the figures dependent on their key areas of interest in the project. This provides an interactive means for the client to monitor progress against their KPIs. There are several ways that data visualisation tools add value for the client.

••Three-dimensional information. The client can view a report interactively as opposed to a static PDF cost report. This way the client can opt to see the summary for specific data or drill deeper into the data supporting the report.

••Improved transparency. The client is better able to interrogate the numbers provided by the quantity surveyor and identify any anomalies. Also, the enhanced access for the client means they have access to review the dashboard at any time.

••Data visualisation. The adage that a picture says a thousand words rings true here as large volumes of data can be summarised visually in an accessible format for the client. Many clients need to make fast decisions and don’t have the time to analyse lots of information, so this ease of access and visualisation helps clients summarise the data they need quickly.

There are also several key benefits of using data visualisation tools for the quantity surveyor: ••Reduced time. Cost reporting for complex projects can be time consuming and challenging when it involves collating information from various sources. Using data visualisation tools cuts down on the time needed to produce a report. Being able to collate the data quickly provides a more real-time report for the client.

••Dynamic presentation of data. The quantity surveyor can present information to their client in a more dynamic format.

••Reduced double handling. Data visualisation tools facilitate the creation of links between different data sources.

Consequently, there is less double handling of data when creating or updating a report.

••Trends. Quantity surveyors gain more insight into the trends and key information for measuring project health. This is particularly useful for a programme of works where the costs are being monitored for each individual project, and to see the trends affecting the aggregate value of a portfolio of works.

For Faithful+Gould, the use of data visualisation tools has been highly beneficial for all parties involved and is an effective form of cost reporting compared to conventional formats. Not only has the adoption of these tools reduced the time spent creating reports by between an estimated 20 and 50 per cent, it has also provided a platform to bring together multiple data sources, proving to be a valuable data visualisation tool for client cost reporting.

Alice Graham is a graduate quantity surveyor at Faithful+Gould alice.graham@fgould.com Related competencies include: Data management, Quantification and costing (of construction works) Further information: The author would like to thank Faithful+Gould colleagues that contributed to this article by sharing their experiences including Taryn Caird, Lynn Wheatley, Aitor Alcala Gutierrez, Claire Sarafilovic and Nelly Twumasi-Mensah. rics.org/journals 17

Construction

BIM

BIM: a project management view Though the benefits of BIM are well understood, its adoption remains limited. With more understanding and direction project managers can drive its implementation and improve project performance Bruno de Carvalho Matos

Project managers currently play a limited role in the implementation and use of BIM as part of the project delivery process. If BIM is to achieve its full potential, they need to be more proactive at both a project and organisational level and understand the wider implications and the possibilities BIM can unlock for the built environment.

The project manager can have an impact on how the processes are modified and the necessary inputs required to facilitate BIM. They should participate in early decision making and be clear on the advantages and challenges of BIM implementation.

BIM implementation does not necessarily mean that organisations need to develop completely new processes; they can modify the processes they already have in place. When identifying where BIM fits into organisational workflows, the main focus should be on people, technology and standardisation requirements.

The motive behind BIM is to allow all stakeholders involved on a project to obtain the right information, from the right person, in the right form, at the right time.

Project managers can use their extensive experience in communication, coordination and collaboration to develop BIM implementation and achieve this outcome.

BIM should improve the way projects are delivered and how assets are managed.

The integrator role of the project manager means that they can – and should – play a major part in the leadership and governance of the information management.

Figure 1. Generic project and asset information management (PIM and AIM) life cycle as in ISO 19650-2

Organisational management

Asset and project management

Information management

Delivery phase (PIM) B

C

A

Operational phase (AIM)

e.g. ISO 19650

e.g. ISO 55000 and ISO 21500

e.g. ISO 9001

Key: A. start of delivery phase – transfer of relevant information from AIM to PIM B. progressive development of the design intent model into the virtual construction model C. end of delivery phase – transfer of relevant information from PIM to AIM

rics.org/journals 19

Construction

BIM

Aligning information requirements with three key categories defined by ISO 19650 – the international standard for managing information over the whole life cycle of a built asset using BIM (see Figure 1) is one way to ensure an improved project.

••Organisational. Information needed to meet high-level strategic objectives, such as effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability.

••Asset. Information required to support the day-to-day asset management process, such as equipment registers, records of installation and maintenance dates.

••Project. Information expressed in terms of the project stages. These requirements include data, such as project geometry, scheduling, costing and performance requirements during project design.

Broadly speaking, there are three main drivers when BIM is applied on a project.

••Information production. This is mainly important for the design, engineering and construction disciplines.

••Information management. This consists of managing the information according to ISO 19650-2 (see figure 2), based on individual or combined models, usually carried out by the BIM project manager.

••Information extraction and usage.

Everyone involved in the project may be required to add and extract information to and from the BIM models.

By clearly defining the BIM management function as an independent entity, the project information management process can be divided into three component parts: sponsorship, management and delivery.

Sponsorship 1. Assessment and need. All asset and project information that is to be supplied during the asset life cycle should be specified in the form of exchange information requirements (EIR). The role of the project manager in the development of the EIR is crucial, since it will both impact and be impacted by overall project requirements such as time and cost.

2. Invitation to tender. The relevant information should be issued to each prospective lead appointed party as part of the procurement process, and it should be compiled by the project manager. This should include: the EIR; relevant reference 20 Journal June/July 2020

Figure 2. Interfaces between parties and teams for the purpose of information management as in ISO 19650-2

C

3

1

...

3

C

B C

C B

3

2

B A

...

3

B

...

C

C C

C C

3

...

Key: A. appointing party B. lead appointed party C. appointed party … variable amount 1. project team 2. illustration of a delivery team 3. task team(s) information requirements and information exchange information coordination

material; tender response requirements and evaluation criteria; and the BIM protocol.

The project manager should ensure the assessment of the BIM capabilities and maturity of the project delivery network.

Management 3. Tender response. This should be reviewed by the project manager and should include: the pre-BIM execution plan (BEP); capability and capacity assessment summary; resource mobilisation plan; and risk assessment. The project manager plays

a crucial role in the development of the BEP since it will allow the project objectives to be accomplished.

4. Appointment. The appointing party should ensure the following is included in the completed form of appointment documents for the lead appointed party: the appointing party’s EIR; the project’s information standard and protocol, including any agreed additions or amendments; the delivery team’s BIM execution plan, or post-appointment BEP; and the delivery team’s master

information delivery plan (MIDP) listing all the information deliverables of a project including models, specifications, equipment and schedules. The MIDP should identify when project information is to be prepared, by whom, and the specific protocols and procedures. With the help of the MIDP, the project manager can define the project schedule and its link to BIM deliverables.

Delivery 5. Project delivery. This should be centred around resource mobilisation, collaborative information production, information model delivery and the end of delivery phase.

This whole process should be applied throughout the delivery phase of assets for each appointment, regardless of the project stage. The BEP should be treated as a live document and updated continuously. The usual procedure to contractually incorporate BIM implementation on a project is by the addition of an addendum or protocol specifically relating to BIM, which makes it binding to all the interested parties.

The use of BIM evolves during the project life cycle. In the design phase, it plays a key role in the design analysis by way of ‘what-if’ simulations, coordination and model authoring. In the construction phase BIM influences decisions on functions including construction techniques, supply chain management, building layout, temporary works planning and safety and quality management.

Pitfalls to avoid The importance of project coordination is often only realised when something goes wrong. The general perception has been that design mistakes can be corrected on site. However, project managers can now use BIM to mitigate design errors and thus significantly reduce any potential changes to the project due to constructability issues.

Appropriate contractual requirements – such as construction management at risk or integrated project delivery forms of contract – and financial incentives – for example penalties for incompatibilities detected on site due to design errors – should be put in place.

These requirements and incentives encourage collaboration between both the

The integrator role of the project manager means that they can – and should – play a major part in the leadership and governance of information management design and construction teams to avoid the following pitfalls.

••Information requirements as defined in BIM documents not being met, leading to fragmentation in the design and construction processes. Another risk is BIM requirements not being properly defined as aligned to the project objectives.

••BIM coordination changes not being incorporated into the project documents.

••BIM coordination being in progress but the building still being built from the drawings using traditional tools.

••On-site sub-contractors not taking ownership of the BIM models.

••BIM coordination occurring in a disjointed fashion to the design or construction schedules. For example, too early when the design is still evolving and hasn’t been signed off, or too late to support the production of information such as drawings.

The following risks could also jeopardise the project and should be integrated into the project risk analysis and management.

••A diversity of BIM knowledge, skills and competences along the supply chain, which may raise resistance to change.

••Insufficient organisational support for BIM application on projects, stemming from the absence of an effective strategy for BIM implementation at company level.

••Difficulty in defining KPIs to monitor and control project success.

Managing change Every business involved in the delivery of built environment projects must consider BIM implementation at an organisational level, and not just in terms of a project or discipline. Company-level BIM objectives can thus be translated into project-based BIM objectives.

Project managers can take the lead in this process, and assist in developing a plan to sync the organisational strategy, project strategy and BIM strategy.

The recommended process for BIM implementation at the organisational level is as follows.

••Internal support. Buy in at c-suite level and top management sponsorship.

••Internal stimulation. Pilot projects involving both project teams and mid-tier team members.

••External stimulation. Developing partnerships in the supply chain and expanding and promoting the use of BIM. ••Continuous improvement. Developing more, and increasingly complex, projects.

It’s important to note that, despite its potential, BIM is not yet the panacea the industry has been looking for. The general lack of BIM standardisation; the scarcity of individuals who have a combined knowledge and experience in BIM and the construction industry; the difficulty in defining SMART – specific, measurable, actionable, relevant and timely – objectives; and the complexity of performing a costbenefit analysis focused on potential errors, omissions, incompatibilities and other inefficiencies, are all major challenges.

Project managers are, however, arguably in the best position to ensure we overcome these challenges and realise the benefits of implementing BIM fully across our industry and projects.

Bruno de Carvalho Matos MRICS is a civil engineer and board member of RICS Portugal linkedin.com/in/bjscmatos Related competencies include: BIM management, Programming and planning rics.org/journals 21

REGISTERED PRACTICES ECOLOGICAL EXPERTS YOU CAN TRUST

ACCREDITED

TRUSTED

There has never been more emphasis in the construction industry on protecting the environment.

Let us help you find the support you need.

BIT.LY/CIEEMDIRECTORY

ACCOUNTABLE

TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION SOLICITORS ASSOCIATION (TECSA) ADJUDICATION SERVICES TeCSA has been at the heart of the development of adjudication since its introduction in 1998, and produced the first set of compliant adjudication rules. It has been active in lobbying Government on the nature and form of both primary and secondary legislation and advised both Government and industry bodies in connection with reviews of its operation.

TeCSA is an adjudicator nominating body (ANB) which means that it can appoint adjudicators from its panels of adjudicators, where either TeCSA is named as the ANB, or the contract does not specify an ANB, or the parties wish to approach TeCSA anyway to appoint an adjudicator.

TeCSA maintains a high quality panel of adjudicators which range from experienced solicitors and barristers (and even a retired Court of Appeal judge) to architects, engineers, quantity surveyors and other construction professionals. Maintaining the quality and integrity of adjudication has always been at the forefront of TeCSA’s adjudication service.

In addition to dealing with higher value and more complex disputes, TeCSA launched a low value dispute (LVD) service on a pilot basis in June 2019 which was made a permanent offering with effect from 1 January 2020.

The TeCSA LVD service has been developed as there is considerable evidence that the costs of adjudication is a disincentive to parties to use adjudication for resolving low value disputes.

Unlike some other LVD schemes, the TeCSA LVD service only limits the fees which the adjudicator can charge and therefore it is not necessary to get the opposing party to agree to the use of the LVD service: the claimant can simply apply to TeCSA for the nomination of an adjudicator provided that no other ANB is specified in the contract.

The LVD service is suitable for most claims of up to £100,000 (excluding interest and VAT) and the values of the amount being claimed and the adjudicator’s fee caps are set out below.

Claim Value

Fee Cap

Up to £10,000

£2,000

£10,001 to £25,000

£2,500

£25,001 to £50,000

£3,500

£50,001 to £75,000

£4,500

£75,001 to £100,000

£5,000

Further details of the LVD service and TeCSA’s other adjudication services can be found www.tecsa.org.uk

Supporting project success in

UNCERTAIN TIMES

When choosing an electrical or electrotechnical contractor, minimise your risk by selecting an ECA Member.

Represent the best in electrotechnical engineering

Have access to industry-leading technical support

Are thoroughly assessed for technical ability

Have access to industry-leading business support

Are supported by the ECA warranty & bond

Have access to extensive industry information, advice and updates

Join us online at Terms & conditions apply and are subject to change Registered in England: Company Number 143669. Covering England, Wales & NI.

www.eca.co.uk/client