Whose responsibility is it anyway?

Design responsibility and its co-ordination can be challenging, says Simon Cash, but help is available.

Many disputes in building engineering services contracts relate to the vagaries of design responsibility between the service design consultant, the main contractor, the principal services contractor and the specialist contractor.

Due to the nature of the design of engineering services, all members of the supply chain – from services design consultant down to the specialist contractor – are involved in the development of a fully detailed and co-ordinated design. The issues arise in understanding where that responsibility starts and finishes for each team member and ensuring that it is adequately captured in the contract documents, thus avoiding later confusion and disagreements.

It starts with the appointment of the services design consultant. At this stage, the client already needs to be thinking about design responsibility to ensure there are no gaps in the chain, so as to avoid ambiguities and the risk of errors.

When drafting documentation, it is important to properly define the meaning of ‘design’ and how it relates to the meaning of ‘design’ and how it relates to the various stages and levels of design, e.g. performance design, detailed design, co-ordinated design, etc.

It is important for clients to consider the wider picture of how all the various design consultant appointments will interface.

For example, a services design consultant will design and size in a pipework installation based on notional routes and particular plant and equipment selections. However, the services contractor will be responsible for the final routing of the pipework and selection of plant and equipment. This in turn may impact the performance of the installation. Who is responsible for checking and re-calculating the pipework sizes? And who takes responsibility for the design when it comes to the successful operation of the installation? Clarity is needed from the very start.

Another area that can have similar consequences is where the services design consultant selects a specific item of plant or equipment and, through a tender submission or value engineering exercise, a tenderer proposes an alternative manufacturer. The services contractor is not responsible for design, but the services design consultant will not take responsibility for incorporating the alternative plant or equipment into the design. The result is impasse.

The issue of co-ordination is a constant problem. When a services design consultant is appointed to carry out a detailed design, the client needs to be fully aware of what is being procured and that this does not necessarily mean that the consultant I fully responsible for the detailed co-ordination of the design. Similarly, the services contractor would normally only be expected to take responsibility for dimensional co-ordination of services, but not spatial fit, on the basis that the services design consultant is satisfied that the services design will actually fit in the space allocated (albeit not having gone to the detail of adding dimensions). Both are forms of co-ordination, but it needs to be made clear where the boundaries lie.

These issues and more need to be addressed properly in the preparation of any consultant appointments and tender documents for the main contractor, the principal services contractor and the specialist contractor.

The wider picture

The key is that, even in the early stages of engaging a design team, it is important for clients to consider the wider picture of how all the various design consultant appointments interface not only with each other, but also with the potential procurement route and contract conditions that will be used when brining a contractor on board.

The Association of Consulting Engineers has recognised that this is a major issue and the 2009 edition of its standard conditions of engagement sets out a full list of duties expected of the services design consultant, which require very careful selection.

Other publications are available that help set out clear lines of responsibility, such as BSRIA’s Design Framework for Building Services toolkit. This can be used as a checklist against design activities, drawing deliverables and drawing definitions, clearly identifying the boundaries of responsibility between all parties involved in the building process.

Whilst these toolkits are readily available, not enough people are aware of their existence or are prepared to par to consult with those who have the knowledge. The premium of engaging with professionals who have a clear understanding of the procurement of building engineering services from the outset of a project can pay dividends in the long run.

(This article was first published in the April-May edition of RICS Construction News)

Simon Cash is Director of Cost Management at AppleyardsDWB and Chair of the RICS Building Engineering Services Business Group. simon.cash@appleyardsdwb.co.uk

07/04/2010