Chapter 12

Problems Arising
from the Procurement Process

12.1 EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT
FORMS OF CONTRACTS

Typically the form of procurement lies between the two extremes:

• Traditional architect-led contracts (e.g., one off)

• Design–build contractor-led contracts (e.g., system build)

The former provides the client and architect with the greatest freedom of
layout and form. The latter can lead to the most economic and fastest com-
pletion time. Both rely on the integrity and care of the whole team.
There are significant differences in some aspects of the design and detail-
ing between these two forms of contracts. The reasons are not difficult
to understand but they have a marked effect on the way the information
is produced. Where a project is architect led, the contractor that will be
awarded the work is not known at the time of the design. This means that
the design and detailing should be carried out without involving propri-
etary systems unless they are required by the design. This is because each
contractor is likely to favour a particular proprietary system that is not pre-
ferred by others. The detailing should include only reinforcement required
by the design and not be controlled by possible site requirements (such as
health and safety). This can be best explained through examples.
Example 1 — One method that contractors use to resolve the danger that
people will trip over slab reinforcement before and during placing of con-
crete is to place top reinforcing bars at small centres (say, 200 mm or less).
This is often not a design requirement. In fact, very often there is no design
need for top reinforcement in the middle area of a slab.
Hence, if the drawings show only the reinforcement required for the
design, the contractor will have to decide whether to propose extra rein-
forcement or provide some other method of ensuring safe passage for
people (such as providing temporary planks and walkways). The client is
interested in the cheapest method, not necessarily the most convenient one

117