SELECTION IS A TWO WAY PROCESS

Article from Architect magazine, January-February 1997 by Lecki Ord (Architect is the official journal of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects Victorian Chapter) While some clients can only see COST as the primary determining factor in selection, more experienced ones are able to see that in the long run (ie the length of the project and not just the initial approval process) VALUE is more important to the organisation. The challenge is to make the value of your service explicit in a way that all clients can understand, appreciate and justify to their supervisors. It can be difficult in the current legislative circumstances for clients to know what questions to ask of consultants in order to extract the specific information they need to select the best consultant. CCT is a formalised requirement for some organisations, but others also have strict accountability requirements which set limitations on their ability to make decisions by requiring specific parameters to be considered during the selection process. Quality Based Selection The RAIA has produced an excellent document on Quality Based Selection which we have used to assist a local council to select consultants. It sets out what types of information should be requested, and how it should be evaluated. Once an organisation has developed the first set of documents based on this system, it should be easy to modify them for succeeding projects. In that instance the Council was surprised to receive only 10 submissions at the end of the first stage of the process. However, on analysing these submissions it was clear that only those consultants that met the criteria had submitted, and that all submissions were of an extremely high quality. This certainly reduced the time required for evaluation. We proceeded with a rational weighting system to short list and then interview 4 firms. While there was a range of fees proposed, they were all within approximately 15% of the average, so it was felt that they represented a consensus of the amount of work required. The tender documents contained a list of criteria and weighting that would be applied to the selection, and "Value to Council" had a weighting of 15%. By the time we reached the interview stage, it was clear that any one of the firms had the capability to do the job well, and we were really looking to differentiate the services at a very fine level, and to decide who would work best with the Council. Ultimately, there can only be one "winner" selected, but the other shortlisted firms should feel that the process has been fair. Architects should be willing to be compared to others in a short list of peers, chosen for their competence &emdash; if they have the chance to present their ideas and the feeling that they have been listened to. Clients The interview process should work in both directions, allowing the architect to evaluate what type of client he / she might be about to form a relationship with. While some architects may be prepared to work for any organisation, it is clear that some clients are more experienced than others, and have defined procedures for project delivery. Working for an inexperienced client, either the person or the organisation, can increase the cost of producing the documents, and sometimes, the building. Clients who have clear consultation and approval processes (and stick to them) deserve comparatively lower fees because they reduce consultants' costs. Usually, only a long term working relationship between clients and architects who have confidence in each other can deliver such benefits. The ancient practice of reading the Tender Advertisements in Saturday's newspapers While the individual registration of interest advertisement can be a useful technique for clients, it is pretty grim for consultants. If clients have more than one building project, it would be more productive to develop a register of consultants that they can shortlist for any particular building project. It is not only a great loss of productive time for 30-50 firms to put together information for advertised projects, but it also requires time for staff to evaluate the submissions. Many clients have been shocked at the scale of response to advertisements, and have needed to extend their selection timelines in order to evaluate the information received. In that situation, newer firms or younger architects are unlikely to succeed &emdash; who needs to take a chance when the established practitioners can guarantee delivery of a product? It may not be the freshest, but it is a safe option. Some of these practices may need to work in association with others until they can build up appropriate experience to break through such barriers. In 25 years of practice, this firm has only once "won" a job through responding to an advertisement, other than when we have been asked to apply by the client. Most of our projects come through referral by satisfied clients, and after talking to others within the profession I believe that this is not unusual for small firms. Rather than play the CCT or other tendering games, small firms might consider a boycott of those organisations until they agree to Quality Based Selection procedures. .