Take VAT - UK Government Jeopardise the future of Listed Buildings

It appears that our government are prepared to role the dice and jeopardise our heritage on something that is likely to make an insignificant contribution to our national debt (additional VAT income), but significantly increase deterioration and disrepair of our listed buildings.

Source: Google Images

Sometimes policies/decisions are made which make you wonder whether those who make them have really thought through the implications and potential benefits of what they are proposing.  One such policy is the proposed removal of VAT exemption for alteration and restoration works to listed buildings.

'On 1 October 2012, the government is lifting the exemption on VAT to listed buildings, which it terms an ‘anomaly’, and imposing VAT at 20 per cent to all alterations and restorations in a move which will cost owners of listed buildings thousands of pounds just to ensure their property does not fall into disrepair' (RICS 2012)

Anyone who has had the pleasure of living in or working on a listed building will know that any works demand a higher level of consideration in terms of detailing, materials, workmanship and liaising with the local authority planning department, in comparison to a building that is not listed.  This ultimately impacts on cost, which can increase significantly to meet the requirements of a listed building consent. It is no surprise therefore that custodians of listed buildings sometimes struggle to keep listed building in a reasonable state of repair and sadly, these buildings fall into disrepair, become neglected and sometimes even derelict.

Local authorities have the power to issue statutory repair notices to enforce custodians to undertake emergency and other essential works to a listed building, however as stated above, these works are likely to be costly and the custodian may struggle to find the funds to comply with the requirements of the notice.  This problem is likely to be exacerbated by an increase in costs of 20% when the VAT exemption is removed later this year, resulting in the possibility of essential works not being undertaken and continued deterioration of the very buildings that legislation is there to protect.  It seems to be a contradiction that the government can pass legislation where they aspire to protect the heritage of this country, such as Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, by placing significant restrictions on what can and cannot be done to a listed building. Then on the other hand make it difficult from a financial point of view to fulfil the requirements of the listing, by not offering VAT relief on the works.  Can the government expect to have it both ways?

In their publication 'Stopping the rot' English Heritage define the importance of protecting our past very well:

'This nation’s historic buildings are a shared legacy; once lost they are lost forever. So saving England’s neglected heritage is a challenge for us all. It will only be overcome so long as government, private owners and the voluntary sector work together to breathe new life into these irreplaceable but sometimes neglected places.'

The interesting thing about the above statement is the co-ordinated approach required of private owners, the voluntary sector and the government!  It appears that our government are prepared to role the dice and jeopardise our heritage on something that is likely to make an insignificant contribution to our national debt (additional VAT income), but significantly increase deterioration and disrepair of our listed buildings, when works become even more expensive.  This is a typical example of a blinkered approach by the government where they have failed to think through the implications of their policies, and one which is likely to result in a very uncertain future for many of our listed buildings.

When debating the removal of VAT exemption in parliament there was talk of discretionary grants for certain types of buildings.  Anyone who has ever applied for government grants before will know of the endless form filling and vast amount of information that is normally required, with a limited likelihood of obtaining the grant in question.  If the government were serious about protecting our heritage, surely it would make sense to incentivise works to listed buildings rather that de-centivise, which is what will actually happen!  At what point will the government realise that this is something they should have left alone?  As English Heritage point out, 'once lost they (listed buildings) are lost forever'.

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog.

Party Wall etc. Act 1996 - It's my party and I'll comply if I want too (or so some think!)

The main purpose of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 is to prevent and resolve disputes, however, it seems a little strange that most of my appointments under the Act were usually made when a dispute had already occurred!

Source: http:/www.curchodandco.com

Anyone who deals with law will know that reading legislation can often be cumbersome, time consuming and often difficult to understand and interpret.  This is not the case however with the Party Wall etc. Act 1996  which is one of the most simple and prescriptive pieces of legislation that you could hope to read.   The guidance (link above) from the Department of Communities and Local Government, describes the purpose of the Act as  'providing a framework for preventing and resolving disputes in relation to party walls, boundary walls and excavations near neighbouring buildings'

The amount of Building Owners (a term used under the Act to describe the party who is undertaking the work), who choose to ignore the Act, whether through ignorance (which is no defence in law!) or a genuine desire to cut corners to save on time and expense, never ceases to amaze me. If the main purpose of the Act is to prevent and resolve disputes it seems a contradiction in terms that many of my appointments under the Party Wall etc. Act were usually made when a dispute had already occurred! (at this stage the dispute was in general terms and not a Party Wall dispute). The scenario below is a recent post on the Building Magazine Forum  and is typical of situations that I have been appointed to deal with on numerous occasions:

Have lived in current house for 4 years, it's a semi and the other half changed hands last year. New neighbour promptly guts house, relocates bathroom from side of property to rear. Digs deep holes in garden for sewerage but doesn't fill holes in. Moves into home in November.

January applies for planning for two storey side extension, single back extension and front porch. This would take it from 3 beds to 5 beds! Planners refuse but give permission on second application on scaled down side extension with only an a increase to 4 beds. He started 'official' work in April just after receiving permission however had dug front porch foundations before Christmas along with making the 'sewer' holes out the back into bigger foundation shaped holes!

Now my problem. His rear foundations are several feet below my land and right against my fence which is approx a foot from my conservatory. Yesterday I noticed that in fence is leaning and on inspecting it I discover it's floating! as the land my side has started to fall into his excavations. This is happening along about ten foot of the fence starting at the house. He has tied rope to the fence to try to hold it up right but it's not working.

Looking down from an above window I can see gaps appearing in the lead flashing of my conservatory on that side so am worried that his deep excavations, which have been open for some nine months, are damaging my property. First step will be to speak with him but what should I be asking he do? Do I need a Surveyor to check there is no damage?

Also the front porch he's built was supposed to be a lean to roof but he's built it as a ridge roof and water is now pouring onto my house and land. I've spoken to him about this and he plans to put guttering up 'sometime'.

Can he just change his plans like this?

Anyone who is affected by a 'Building Owner's' work as described above, where Party Wall Notices should have been issued but have not, cannot claim any benefits under the Act, because the provisions within the Act cannot be utilised until correct notification has been issued (the Act is then initialised).  Below is the response I posted to the above scenario:

I agree that the Party Wall etc. Act should apply, and your neighbour obviously has not notified you. Seek the advice of a Surveyor immediately. If you're property is being significantly affected in the way you suggest then the work next door needs to be stop immediately and possibly temporary support of your property needs to be undertaken.

If your neighbour refuses to stop work, then you can apply for a County Court injunction to enforce this. Once works are stopped your neighbour should then issue Party Wall notification, for which you will have a number of options. One such option will be that you dissent (do not agree) with the works and in which case you have the option to appoint your own surveyor, who's 'reasonable fees' must be met by your neighbour.

Your surveyor will then work with your neighbour's surveyor and agree a Party Wall Award which will include details about how the works should be completed and what should be done to rectify any damage. The award will be agreed before works re-commence and will give you the comfort of knowing that the works will be completed appropriately and if any damage is caused it will be dealt with.

There is an option for you to select an 'Agreed' surveyor, who will act impartially for you and your neighbour, however when I have been called in, in situation like this I often found that relationships between neighbours had become soured and they wanted to appoint separate surveyors.

I would advise you to contact a surveyor immediately who deals with Party Wall issues, who will go through the procedure with you and hopefully explain the above in more detail.

My response focused on the Party Wall issues, however there is also a possible breach of Planning Permission in respect of the porch roof that would need to be investigated.

In conclusion there appears to be a general lack of awareness of the Party Wall etc. Act and it's requirements by members of the public (and their advisers) which through lack of publicity, poor advice or genuine ignorance is not acceptable.  Legislation does not provide a choice, it must be complied with and those who fail to do this must be prepared to face the consequences, so be warned!

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog.

Quality Assurance - How accurate is your documentation?

Robust supervision and training of staff will help them to understand the significance of accurate documentation. Organisations should not lose sight of this, particularly in the current economic climate.

Source: http://www.pm-primer.com

In a recent article I discussed the importance of drawings and the consequences that are likely to occur in a construction project if they contain inaccuracies or omissions.  Drawings are one of the main components of tender documents, however, as important as they are, they are only a single component of the documentation. 

Drawings must reflect precisely the detail contained in the specification, and vice versa.  Any conflict between the two will lead to confusion from Contractors during the tender period, (assuming that the Contractors have read the documentation fully, which does not always happen!), and possibly disputes on site when the selected Contractor realises any inconsistency.  This can then lead to an embarrassing explanation to the Client, particularly if the Contractor tries to claim that his tender price did not include for the inconsistency and ultimately results in a dispute for which the Consultant is likely to be held accountable.

Consequently, the process of preparing tender documentation and in fact any documentation that is to leave the office, should be undertaken with care and attention, with organisations having robust quality assurance processes to ensure that the documentation is checked at various stages. Junior and new members of staff need to be trained and supervised throughout the whole process so that they understand the significance of preparing tender documentation and that each component cannot and should not be prepared in isolation.  Experienced and senior members of staff should not be excluded from the quality assurance process as they too are likely to make errors or omissions.  The point is that through the supervision and quality assurance processes, any errors or omissions are identified before the documentation leaves the office.

In today's challenging environment where profit margins are tight and staffing levels have been squeezed, it would be very easy to allow documentation to be issued as a result of sometimes poor or non existing supervision and quality assurance procedures. One of my former organisation's quality assurance procedures was that no documentation could leave the office until it has been signed off by a senior manager. I can remember many days when members of staff would pile drawings, specifications and all sorts of other documentation onto my desk for checking.  Now considering I still had my own workload, reading through and checking all of this documentation was challenging, however because I was signing the information off I had to take the time too look at it properly, which often meant working long hours, or taking work home. I am sure many reading this article will understand, having been in similar situations themselves. Although it was sometimes tempting to skim read documentation and drawings I was always aware of the implications, to my organisation and personally, if inaccurate documentation was issued.   Inevitably, errors in signed off documentation would sometimes be identified, however by adopting robust procedures we kept this to a minimum, and after all we are only human and we will sometimes miss something.

Those who prepare the documentation often do not appreciate the time that is necessary to read through and check what they have produced.  In some circumstances members of staff would bring documentation to me for checking and expect me to look at it, there and then and sign it off immediately, because of an imminent deadline (often down to their own poor time management!).  This is where mistakes can be made, and any organisation that works in this way or allows this to happen, even in isolated cases, are likely to keep their solicitors very busy! Organisations must have clear policies in place so that everyone understands and complies with quality assurance procedures and also has respect for the time of those who will be checking it.

As stated previously robust supervision and training of staff will help everyone (not just technical members of staff), to understand the significance of accurate documentation. Organisations should not lose sight of this, particularly in the current economic climate.  Client's are much more likely to cultivate relationships with those who they feel confident will deliver a project effectively and in a professionally manner.  Allowing inaccurate documentation to leave your office is not professional and gives a very negative impression.  There is a lot of competition out there and it will not take long to sour a relationship,  'youre only as good as your last project', comes to mind, so ignore this at your peril.

Above, I have used the example of tender documentation, as from experience I know the problems that can result from in inconsistencies in documentation. Tender documentation is a topic I will cover in more detail in a future article.


Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog.

To buy or not to buy? - Is NOT the question!

Despite significant cut backs in public spending and other austerity measures, the UK Government seem incapable of stimulating the economy and consequently bringing the construction industry back into life.

Source: http://www.amaresearch.co.uk/

Lord Freud's speech  at the Chartered Institute of Housing Conference emphasised the huge demands for rented accommodation in the housing sector:  'There are about 5 million people on the social housing waiting list in England and over a quarter of a million tenants living in overcrowded conditions'. This raises serious concerns with the amount of housing available to meet this demand.  The Government are more than aware of the shortage of housing in the UK, however the challenging economic conditions have impacted significantly on construction output, with the Office for National Statistics reporting that 'total output in the construction sector for April (2012) fell to £7.8bn, from a downward revised level of £9bn in March – a drop of 13.2 per cent month on month'.  It is therefore clear that due to reduced levels of construction output, construction of new houses will not even scratch the surface of what is needed in the rented private or social housing sectors, in fact the National Housing Federation (NHF) go onto to label the situation as "the country's burgeoning housing crisis". 

In 2007 The UK Government, (Labour, at the time) put affordable housing at the top of their agenda and set an ambitious target to build 3 million new homes by 2020 with other initiatives to bring vacant properties back into use.  Fast forward to 2012 and we now have a coalition Government who although they have inherited the problem, have little if any chance of achieving the target, and despite significant cut backs in public spending and other austerity measures, seem incapable of stimulating the economy and consequently bringing the construction industry back to life.

Not only are all of the ingredients for 'the burgeoning housing crisis' that the NHF suggest,  there is a high likelihood that things will get even worse.  Numbers of those who want to rent in the future are likely to continue to increase due to the high cost of purchasing a house.  On June 7th 2012 the Halifax reported that 'house prices prices rose by 0.5% month-on-month across the UK in May, following a 2.3% monthly fall in April, to reach £160,941 on average, the bank added. In the three months to May, house prices were 0.8% higher than between December 2011 and February this year, marking the biggest increase over three months since last August'. Even though these statistics demonstrate a housing market that is struggling in parallel with the economy, the average house price will frighten many, particularly first time buyers.  Lenders are now much more caution about borrowing and few are prepared to give the 100% or 95% mortgages that was commonplace in the 1980's and 1990's.  This results in first time buyers having to save a sizable deposit (a 80% mortgage based on the average house price above, would require a £32,000 deposit), before they can consider climbing the first rung of the property ladder.  In today's challenging economic conditions first time buyers could take many years to save this deposit, and in the meantime may look at rented accommodation as an interim solution. This is illustrated quite well in the video at the end of this article.

In the UK we now have a situation where we desperately need to build new houses, but are not, we have an increasing demand for rented accommodation with a limited supply available, and those who want to leave rented accommodation and purchase a property are faced with the reality of saving a large deposit before they are able to consider moving.  A recent article in the Guardian suggests that renting will be the new way of life, as ownership continues to decline. Interestingly the article suggests that the Government is doing little to make any impact 'despite the growing pressure on the rental market, the government's recent housing strategy virtually ignored the sector and did little to address the issues of affordability, stability and quality that so many renters face. It's time government woke up to the fact that 'rental Britain' is here to stay'.

The problems of the housing market in the UK are complex and something that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.  New homes, not only need to be built in large numbers (and quickly), but they also need to be affordable.  It is only when this starts to happen that first time buyers may again start to enter the market and consequently start to reduce the pressure on the rented sector.  The Government should think long and hard about their medium to long term strategy for dealing with this problem or face the consequences of increased hardship, overcrowding and even homelessness, particularly for those at the lower end of the social spectrum.

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog.

You have to draw the line somewhere! - Internal measured surveys

Errors or omissions in a drawing can result in serious consequences which can manifest themselves into confusion and disagreement, delays, additional costs and ultimately disputes.  These problems can be avoided by ensuring that those who undertake measured surveys are adequately trained and supervised. 

Source:http://basebc.co.uk/Building-Survey-Services

Drawings are arguably the most effective form of communication within a construction project and are used at all stages.  It is therefore fundamentally important that all of those who are responsible for taking measurements and preparing drawings understand the significance of what they are doing.  The 'life' of a drawing will be developed throughout a project and will vary depending upon the complexity and type of project.  For example concept drawings may be required, which can then become initial design drawings, followed by detailed design drawings.  From this stage the drawings could then be developed into construction drawings and used for tendering and also contract drawings.  Eventually, the drawings will become 'as built' and will be included into a Health & Safety File, a requirement under the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2007. The above examples of where drawings could be used in a construction project is not exhaustive, however demonstrates their importance.

Errors or omissions in a drawing can result in serious consequences which can manifest themselves into confusion and disagreement, delays, additional costs and ultimately disputes.  These problems can be avoided by ensuring that those who undertake measured surveys are adequately trained and supervised.  It would be very unwise to assume that undertaking a measured survey is a simple process and a skill that everyone should naturally have.  This is because buildings differ significantly in size, construction and form and the amount of information needed will vary depending on the scope of the project. One thing however that is for certain is that undertaking a measured survey is far more than just obtaining dimensions! A common issues I often found with my surveyors when undertaking an internal measured survey would be that they would sometimes miss key information such as floor to ceiling heights, window cill height, joist direction, services intake of a building, diagonal check measurements and sometimes even forgetting to note wall construction. If a re-visit is necessary to collect missing information then this will be a cost to the business and can impact on profitability.

It is important that the right measuring equipment is taken and used. This will include a folding measure and 5 or 10 metre steel tape (or both) for measuring shorter distances and 25 metre tape and a trundle wheel for measuring longer distances.  Nowadays a digital measure will also be taken which can also be used  to obtain, rooms sizes (sqm) as well as single dimension measurements.  When using measuring equipment the 'Surveyor' should be fully aware of the limitations of the equipment and also have an appreciation of distance to be able to discern whether digital dimension are accurate or not.  This is because inaccurate readings can be obtained from a digital measure when the laser comes into contact with reflective surfaces or glass.  If the Surveyor was to write down the measurement without asking themselves if the reading is reasonable, they will have problems when they return to the office and start to prepare their drawings.

Whilst undertaking a measured survey on site the Surveyor must appreciate that either they, or maybe somebody else like an Architectural Technologist will have to interpret the information that has been collected on site in order to prepare the drawings.  Many times I have witnessed Surveyors and Technologists look with complete dismay at a piece of paper in the office that has been given to them by someone who has undertaken a measured survey.  This is because what they are looking at is a rain drenched, smudged, excuse for a drawing that is so 'busy' with lines, dimensions and other information that it is difficult to tell the difference between each!, and they are expected to produce an accurate drawing from this!

To help minimise omissions and errors in drawings there are some simple basic techniques that can be very useful when undertaking measured surveys.  Firstly, I always advised my Surveyors to draw the building footprint (in pencil) first, before taking any dimensions, The pencil could then be overdrawn in pen later.  This would ensure that the drawing was well proportioned and avoid 'squashing' information into a small corner of a piece of paper, because there is no room left on the sheet, toward the end of the survey.  Next, use different colour pens for recording information.  It is much easier to interpret a drawing if say the building outline is in black, dimensions are in red, construction details are in green, sockets, switches and radiators are in blue etc.  Next, when using measuring tapes particularly for longer distances, ensure that there are no twists in the tape and that it is a tight as possible to avoid deflection.  Surveyors must also ensure that dimensions are taken at the same height.  For example is one Surveyor is holding the tape just above the skirting board and at the other end the Surveyor is holding the tape half way up the wall this could result in a significant inaccuracy in a single dimension.

The importance of a comprehensive and accurate measured survey cannot be understated, which can only be achieved through appropriate training and supervision.  Organisations should ignore this at their peril!

Please feel free to share this article and other articles on this site with friends, family and colleagues who you think would be interested

 

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog.

What's the crack? The importance of correct diagnosis of cracking in buildings

Due to the many different factors that can contribute to cracking, this is one of the most easily mis-diagnosed defects that can occur in buildings.

When cracking is identified in a building the usual reaction is one of alarm and sometimes panic.  Over the years as a Building Surveyor I have learned to be very cautious in diagnosing the cause of cracking, because it is necessary to fully understand the underlying factors that are causing it to ensure that an accurate and appropriate solution is recommended.

Cracking in a building can occur for a variety of reasons and sometimes there maybe a combination of factors that contribute to the problem.  For example drains could be damaged allowing surface or foul water to permeate into the sub-soil below a foundation.  Over time the soil will start to erode and the rate of erosion will depend on the type of soil (e.g granular soil will be more vulnerable than other types of soil), climatic condition, location etc. It is clear that the drainage will need to be rectified to ensure that the surface or foul water, finds its way through the drainage system correctly. However, what has caused the problem to the drains? Are there tree roots in the drains? Are there other trees in close proximity? Has the ground under the drains been affected in some way (i.e nearby excavations)? Is there a damaged rainwater down pipe or guttering in close proximity to the drains that are allowing large volumes of water into the sub-soil, particularly for shallow drainage? etc.etc.

It is therefore fundamentally important that anyone who undertakes inspections or gives advice in respect of cracking in buildings should not make rash judgements and should gather all of the evidence before arriving at a possible cause.  In order to aid the inspector, which can be a Building Surveyor or Structural Engineer, it might be necessary to recommend other investigations such as geo-technical surveys to establish ground type, composition, contaminants etc., trial holes to establish foundation depths, CCTV inspection of the drainage system and possibly an arbicultural survey to give advice on any trees that may be an influencing factor.   It may also be necessary to undertake monitoring of the crack to establish whether movement is still occurring. For cracking of a less significant nature these types of investigations might not be necessary at all. The choice of which investigations are needed will be decided once the inspector has made an initial assessment of the cracking.

Not all cracking in buildings is serious, which is why it is so fundamentally important to diagnose the cause correctly.  In some situations remedial measures may be as simply as rake out and re-point mortar joints, or possibly a technique called 'stitch repairing', which is basically raking out horizontal bed joints every five or six courses either side of a crack and installing steel bars which are set in epoxy resin (see video below). After the resin has cured the bed joints are simply re-pointed. At the other end of the scale however remedial measures could be much more substantial and include underpinning or possibly even partial or even full demolition and re-build.  Therefore it is clear that the costs of dealing with cracking in buildings is extremely wide ranging, and mis-diagnosis could result in either undertaking repairs that may not have been necessary (which can be very expensive), or not dealing with the problem appropriately, with the cracking re-occurring.

I sometimes have a rye smile when I watch property programmes such as Homes under the Hammer.  It is interesting to hear the presenters talk about defects that 'they have discovered' when they visit the various properties, particularly cracking.  You can bet that they will say, 'that could be serious and needs checking out', they obviously do not have a clue what the cause of the problem actually is.  What is even funnier is when they ask the purchaser if they were aware of the cracking when they had bid for the property and they will always say 'yes, but we had it checked out and it is nothing serious!'. In all of the many episodes of that programme that I have seen over the years I have never heard any purchaser be perfectly honest and admit that the cracking was serious and had cost them a fortune! I suppose it is because they do not want to admit too being a complete fool on national television!

The subject of cracking in buildings is extremely wide ranging and it is not the purpose of this article to try to consider every aspect, in fact there are numerous books and other publications that cover the topic extensively.  What is important however is that when cracking occurs that the reasons for it are fully investigated and understood so that appropriate remedial works can be carried out.  Due to the many different factors that can contribute to cracking in buildings, this is one of the most easily mis-diagnosed defects that can occur.  It would therefore seem sensible to seek the advice of a professional at the earliest opportunity. Although this advice may have a cost attached, it could prevent a much higher cost in the future.



Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog.

You've Been Framed - The Reality of Framework Agreements

Frameworks are generally poorly understood by Clients and are often not the lucrative cash stream that they initially suggest, unless of course you are one of the chosen few!

Source: Google Images

Under EU legislation all contracts from the public sector which are valued above a certain threshold must be published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU, formerly OJEC).  Many OJEU's advertise framework opportunities, and whilst working in Professional Practice, particularly as a Senior Manager I was often involved in preparing framework consultancy submissions.  

A framework agreement is essentially an ‘umbrella agreement’ which sets out the terms under which individual contracts (call-offs) can be made throughout the period of the agreement. Frameworks can vary in duration, however these are typically for a four year period. 

The principle of a framework is to establish and develop long term relationships between Clients, Consultants, Contractors etc. and to work together to achieve continuous improvement. This is measured in different ways, however the overriding objectives would be to improve quality, look for efficiencies and at the same time reduce costs.

An invitation to submit for a framework will only be given once the Client is satisfied that the Contractor or Consultant have the track record and resources needed.  This will be established from information submitted in a Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ).  The main submission will then require a whole host of different information relating to details of relevant projects, a organisational structure highlighting key personnel, health & safety policy and record, environmental credentials, numerous answers to all sorts of different questions and scenarios and obviously fees that will be charged. After assessment of the documentation and if successful, the Contractor or Consultant will be invited to an interview where eventually the Client will select a number (typically 4 to 6) to appoint to the framework.

Anyone who has prepared documentation for a framework submission, whether as a Contractor or a Consultant will be aware of how much work is involved. Typically, it will take a Senior Manager with administrative support a significant amount of time to pull the information discussed above, together.  When you consider the hourly rate of a Senior Manager and support staff, together with the bulky printing and preparation of the documentation, the whole exercise is a real cost to a business, and is completed on the principle that if successful, there will be a continuous flow of projects for the duration of the framework.  This however is rarely the outcome.

The initial euphoria of receiving confirmation of an appointment to a framework is often quickly tempered with frustration.  In reality what tends to happen is that a Client will call off work disproportionately, with some on the framework being allocated a high percentage of projects and others being allocated very little. One factor that may contribute to this is the mandatory nature of the OJEU procedure which many Clients do not really want.  Having this procedure imposed on them means that they can no longer just invite those Contractors and Consultants who they have probably worked with for many years, to tender for the framework, in fact by advertising through OJEU they are actually inviting submissions from all over Europe, not just the UK.  Obviously, these 'familiar' Contractors and Consultants can tender for the framework, but will have to go through the same selection criteria as everyone else who applies.

I can think of a number of examples where my company (property consultants), were appointed onto frameworks, having attended numerous meetings, passed the submission and selection procedure, and then not given anywhere near the volume of work to justify the costs.  Clients do not always appreciate that part of the fee calculation is based upon the likely value of work that will be allocated through the framework. Therefore, a much more competitive fee can be included if projects of a reasonable value are called off to your company. Clients who 'throw you the scraps from the table', by allocating the odd small project here and there, do not appreciate that the fee that has been submitted will not work for this extremely low volume of work, however the fee is expected to honored because this is what was tendered with the original submission.

There are two particular frameworks which come to mind, one with a Local Authority in the Midlands and one with a Housing Group in the North West, where my company were appointed onto the Framework, and when attending monthly framework meetings (which again is another cost to the business), it was clear that bulk of projects were being called off to the Consultants who had worked with the Client for many years. This was totally unacceptable, and despite some 'honest and frank' discussions with the Client, nothing changed.  I am sure that this will be the same in certain situations for Contractors.  Consequently, my company took a commercial decision to be much more selective of which frameworks to apply for in the future.  

Frameworks are generally poorly understood by Clients and are often not the lucrative cash stream that they initially suggest, unless of course you are one of the chosen few!

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice.