English (Canada)
čeština (Česká republika)
magyar (Magyarország)
Deutsch (Deutschland)
eesti (Eesti)
español (España)
português (Portugal)
English
suomi (Suomi)
français (France)
italiano (Italia)
Nederlands (Nederland)
norsk, bokmål (Norge)
polski (Polska)
svenska (Sverige)
Türkçe (Türkiye)
Written by Hitesh Pattni (North) and Neil Kirwan (South) - Specification Managers in SFS Group Fastening Technology Ltd.
Contents:
The reason that many projects achieve performance and not just compliance is because clients are committed to seeing the end result.
Whether it's Local Authorities who drive Passivhaus schemes at scale, or commercial clients who want to achieve a high BREEAM or LEED score, projects are characterised by clear goals. How active and engaged is the client on one of your current projects? Were they clear in what they asked for? Did they understand there might be other goals the project could achieve, or did they believe designing to building regulations is the best they should expect?
As architects and specifiers, can you get client's to be more engaged from the start, and then throughout?
When clients aren't engaged and projects feel very similar to one another, that's when specifications are more likely to be copied and pasted. They're no longer project specific, they're not collaborative, and they're not focused on the client's requirements. They're not robust, and performance gaps become more likely.
One of the biggest barriers to achieving robust specifications and closing performance gaps, is cost engineering.
Seeking to substitute products purely on cost grounds leads to more risk and greater uncertainty, as it doesn't take a 'whole building' view of the project. No reassurance that an alternative product is "similar approved" or has an equivalent warranty can surmount the fact that, often, the proposed substitution has not been tested or certified as part of the original build-up.
Rarely is it so simple, especially in a building envelope specification, that one product can simply be swapped out for another.
Cost engineering is often called value engineering, but the two processes are substantially different.
Value engineering takes a more holistic approach, and is as much concerned with avoiding over-specification. We can't afford to use more resources than a building needs, so value engineering looks at the most efficient way to achieve the required performance - and if it saves money at the same time then all the better.
Take a proposed building envelope with a significant thickness of insulation. Rather than simply trying to swap the insulation to an 'equivalent' that is cheaper, value engineering looks at details like the cladding brackets and fixing types. It identifies ways in which those component parts affect the overall thermal performance of the wall and proposes changes that have the knock-on effect of achieving the same result but with less insulation.
The end result is a wall build-up that uses resources more efficiently, is more likely to deliver its intended performance, and is ultimately more cost effective over the life cycle of the building. That can be 'cost effective' in purely financial terms, but also in terms of reducing impact on the planet, or giving people a healthier and more comfortable place to live, work or spend leisure time.
A client's goal might be to get their project delivered for the lowest cost. That is natural, but do they understand the wider and longer-term cost implications of making that the sole aim? Demonstrating the benefit of achieving the best overall value should lead to more robust specifications.
At SFS we see a lot of issues with projects done under design and build contracts. Theoretically, a design and build procurement route should be a positive thing. Clients can emerge with designer and contractor at the same time.
However, if the client doesn't set clear targets and deliverables then the contractor assumes more financial risk because the specification is open to interpretation. The contractor can then explain that by using cheaper materials and products to save cost, with no penalty for any shortfall in performance from the finished building.
Do we need new forms of contract and procurement? Do we need stronger clients willing to put more pressure on the professionals they employ? What if contracts were based on performance in use, with the building monitored for a year - or several years - to prove that design intent as realised?
Some voluntary standards for commercial buildings, where the aim is to be designated zero carbon, only award certification a minimum of one year after completion. LETI's net zero operational carbon guidance - not formalised as a standard - requires measurement and verification for five years.
Contract type can influence how likely it is that consultants and manufacturers are engaged early in a project's timeline. As we'll see in the fourth paper in this series, early engagement with experts can bring so many benefits to a project.
Just as no individual specifier can be an expert in all areas of the building envelope, so one document cannot cover all areas of building envelope specification in the necessary level of detail.
This paper is one of a series exploring different areas relating to building envelope specification, and looking at the performance criteria that must come together in order to meet the clients needs.
Specifications that are robust, and which are the best for the individual project. It's no exaggeration that specifiers face a more complex and evolving landscape than ever before. Throughout these documents, we'll show why the benefits of early specification, based on technical expertise provided by external parties, can far outweigh any potential drawbacks.
Does value engineering have a detrimental impact on a buildings performance?
Not necessarily, it depends on the reason for the value engineering. If it is to just save money then it is likely it will have a detrimental impact, however, it it is done with a holistic approach on a system to minimize over specification then the result should be positive.
How can client ensure outcomes for their building?
By having clear goals, maintaining engagement on the project to ensure they are met and having a contract that reflects these goals.
Robust Building Envelope Specifications
Paper 3: Getting clients active and engaged
Contents:
- What difference can clients make?
- Cost engineering vs value engineering
- Are current contract types fit for purpose?
- SFS robust specifications series
- About SFS Construction UK
What difference can clients make?
The reason that many projects achieve performance and not just compliance is because clients are committed to seeing the end result.
Whether it's Local Authorities who drive Passivhaus schemes at scale, or commercial clients who want to achieve a high BREEAM or LEED score, projects are characterised by clear goals. How active and engaged is the client on one of your current projects? Were they clear in what they asked for? Did they understand there might be other goals the project could achieve, or did they believe designing to building regulations is the best they should expect?
As architects and specifiers, can you get client's to be more engaged from the start, and then throughout?
When clients aren't engaged and projects feel very similar to one another, that's when specifications are more likely to be copied and pasted. They're no longer project specific, they're not collaborative, and they're not focused on the client's requirements. They're not robust, and performance gaps become more likely.
Cost Engineering vs Value Engineering
One of the biggest barriers to achieving robust specifications and closing performance gaps, is cost engineering.
Seeking to substitute products purely on cost grounds leads to more risk and greater uncertainty, as it doesn't take a 'whole building' view of the project. No reassurance that an alternative product is "similar approved" or has an equivalent warranty can surmount the fact that, often, the proposed substitution has not been tested or certified as part of the original build-up.
Rarely is it so simple, especially in a building envelope specification, that one product can simply be swapped out for another.
Cost engineering is often called value engineering, but the two processes are substantially different.
Value engineering takes a more holistic approach, and is as much concerned with avoiding over-specification. We can't afford to use more resources than a building needs, so value engineering looks at the most efficient way to achieve the required performance - and if it saves money at the same time then all the better.
Take a proposed building envelope with a significant thickness of insulation. Rather than simply trying to swap the insulation to an 'equivalent' that is cheaper, value engineering looks at details like the cladding brackets and fixing types. It identifies ways in which those component parts affect the overall thermal performance of the wall and proposes changes that have the knock-on effect of achieving the same result but with less insulation.
The end result is a wall build-up that uses resources more efficiently, is more likely to deliver its intended performance, and is ultimately more cost effective over the life cycle of the building. That can be 'cost effective' in purely financial terms, but also in terms of reducing impact on the planet, or giving people a healthier and more comfortable place to live, work or spend leisure time.
A client's goal might be to get their project delivered for the lowest cost. That is natural, but do they understand the wider and longer-term cost implications of making that the sole aim? Demonstrating the benefit of achieving the best overall value should lead to more robust specifications.
Are current contract types fit for purpose?
At SFS we see a lot of issues with projects done under design and build contracts. Theoretically, a design and build procurement route should be a positive thing. Clients can emerge with designer and contractor at the same time.
However, if the client doesn't set clear targets and deliverables then the contractor assumes more financial risk because the specification is open to interpretation. The contractor can then explain that by using cheaper materials and products to save cost, with no penalty for any shortfall in performance from the finished building.
Do we need new forms of contract and procurement? Do we need stronger clients willing to put more pressure on the professionals they employ? What if contracts were based on performance in use, with the building monitored for a year - or several years - to prove that design intent as realised?
Some voluntary standards for commercial buildings, where the aim is to be designated zero carbon, only award certification a minimum of one year after completion. LETI's net zero operational carbon guidance - not formalised as a standard - requires measurement and verification for five years.
Contract type can influence how likely it is that consultants and manufacturers are engaged early in a project's timeline. As we'll see in the fourth paper in this series, early engagement with experts can bring so many benefits to a project.
SFS robust specification series
Just as no individual specifier can be an expert in all areas of the building envelope, so one document cannot cover all areas of building envelope specification in the necessary level of detail.
This paper is one of a series exploring different areas relating to building envelope specification, and looking at the performance criteria that must come together in order to meet the clients needs.
- Defining robust specification
- The problem of performance gaps
- Getting clients active and engaged
- Early engagement: how do we get more of it?
- Thermal performance and sustainability
- Fire safety
- Corrosion, warranties and supply chain challenges
Specifications that are robust, and which are the best for the individual project. It's no exaggeration that specifiers face a more complex and evolving landscape than ever before. Throughout these documents, we'll show why the benefits of early specification, based on technical expertise provided by external parties, can far outweigh any potential drawbacks.
FAQs
Does value engineering have a detrimental impact on a buildings performance?
Not necessarily, it depends on the reason for the value engineering. If it is to just save money then it is likely it will have a detrimental impact, however, it it is done with a holistic approach on a system to minimize over specification then the result should be positive.
How can client ensure outcomes for their building?
By having clear goals, maintaining engagement on the project to ensure they are met and having a contract that reflects these goals.
