|
|
 |
EDITORIAL One of the articles in this edition asks the question whether the architect should retain the role of the independent certifier. As an architect myself I am fully aware of the difficulties architects face when implementing a project and of the frustrations when things go wrong. The situation is not unlike that faced by FIDIC when, in the latest editions of its contracts, the role of the Engineer was changed so that it was not the final determiner of disputes, that role was changed and given to the Dispute Board. This in turn is not much different to that of the Adjudicator in a construction contract in the UK. The main difference is whereas both parties contribute to the cost of the Dispute Board, that is not necessarily the case with the Adjudicator; the costs of the adjudicator's fees usually being awarded on the basis of which party was the winner in the dispute. If we are to introduce the role of independent certifier to all construction contracts, the question arises as to who is going to pay for this and who that individual will be. The risks and difficulties involved in taking on that role are considerable, as any architect will know, so which of the professions is prepared to take that risk? It remains to be seen. It is all too easy for a contractor faced with a problem to blame the architect. The architect does not have a crystal ball and cannot predict all the problems that may occur during a contract. Neither does time or fees usually allow the architect to design every single aspect of a project down to the last nut and bolt, and neither should he need to do so. This is because contractors should use their own experience when carrying out a contract, although that role can be compromised by poor or incomplete contract information, which I agree does happen sometimes. I have personally never had a problem with any of this and have always tried to be fair. I have never had any complaints from contractors that my role as certifier was anything other than that, but then my office also prided itself on producing high quality production information, although the odd mistake or omission happened on the basis that we too are human and were usually dealt with quickly and amicably. So, we have a choice. We can create another role in the professional team, although who will take it on remains to be seen. Or, the architect and contractor can try to see what both do in context. The architect needs to understand what the contractor requires to implement the contract. The contractor needs to understand that the architect cannot resolve absolutely everything and that some things do fall to the contractor to be responsible for. That is the collaborative nature of construction, something we will continue to move away from if the industry requires more and more professionals to act as referees. |
||