Exports and Trade workstream will I hope include Europe as a priority.
For the industry to improve its opportunities on the continent an aim should be to further simplify access to European work and reduce the costs for all practices wishing to do so. One way this can be done is by seeking that the UK engage early with the establishment of the single European procurement passport (ref. Directive2014/24/EU). In addition we could be further lobbying for the raising of the EU thresholds without loss of transparency of opportunity, so that the economic costs of procurement are proportionate.
A more detailed explanation of this and other issues can be found here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/author/analytics?trk=hp-identity-wvmposts
I would be happy to provide further research background.
Comment on: HS2 looking to employ smaller practices
Major infrastructure lasts generations, serves huge numbers of people and deserves to be robust, sustainable and built efficiently to the highest design quality. To achieve this also requires it should be well briefed and competitive access given to the widest possible market on a level playing field to elicit the best creative and appropriate responses. The aspirations towards standardisation maybe appropriate but are communicated in this article in such a way as to infer that this standardisation is in effect a dumbing down.
Does this large and highly visible commissioning have any real design vision or aspirations?
Keeping an eye out for OJEU notices as a way towards alignment with the Gov. policy on pre-market engagement for a project of the scale of HS2 seems remiss. Network Rail was a signatory to the Govs Procurement Pledge of Dec. 2010 which set out early measures intended to represent a long-term reform of public procurement that would help to ensure a level playing field and improve access to public procurement for potential providers of all types and sizes. Is HS2 not covered by this pledge?
While this announcement represents a shift in HS2s procurement position bringing it closer towards this pledge, it seems there is a considerable distance still to travel.
Draft policy 2.1.13 states the LP SPG will ... ‘adopt’ the Govs nationally described space standards, which will apply to all homes and will apply ‘optional’ building reg. M4 (2) ‘accessible and adaptable’ dwellings to 90% of homes, and optional building reg. M4 (3) ‘wheelchair user dwellings’ to 10% of homes.....
Building Reg. M4 (1) has been excluded in its entirety. The rationalisation & simplification of the Building Regs was meant to deliver more intelligence and sanity. But this is a total absurdity.
All architects working in housing should respond to this consultation to highlight this issue.
Paul your comments seemed somewhat disparaging particularly as I couldn't believe you'ld have even read the guide, so wanted to send copy if this in fact you
This enlightened approach to UK infrastructure is welcome and long overdue. Lets hope Victoria Hills get the government, GLA and professions full support to opening up the opportunities for achieving best quality and value at this important hub which represents such a major long term future investment. To deliver the best results from such a design contest needs the full engagement of a top rank competition programmer.