Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Design and Build damned by Dumfries leisure centre probe

Hrp dg one 01

A range of problems with Design and Build contracts have been highlighted in a damning report into construction failures at a Scottish leisure centre

The report was drawn up by procurement industry expert John Cole, who was appointed by Dumfries and Galloway Council after significant building safety concerns were uncovered at the DG One complex in Dumfries.

It concluded that the nature of the Design and Build contract was responsible for defects including the inadequate installation of wall ties and poor waterproofing.

In his report, Cole said: ‘A key point here is the lack of a direct relationship between the client and the professional consultants or direct knowledge on the part of the client in regard to how they were performing the scheduled services or how they were being instructed, managed or paid during the construction phase.’

Cole said the council, which commissioned the building, placed reliance on the contractor ensuring effective oversight of its contractors and subcontractors.

His report said: ‘This is a fundamental characteristic of Design and Build contracts, where the separation between the client and the members of the professional design team prevents the client having access to or understanding of how their appointment is being managed by the contractor and to what degree the specified services, aimed at protecting the quality of the construction are actually being undertaken.’

The original design and build contract was awarded to Kier Northern in March 2006, with a design team including architects William Saunders Partnership.

However, Cole’s report said: ‘The relationship between design team and client is seen by many as a key to successful projects.

‘In the DG One project there was effectively no relationship and little contact between the council and the design team members employed by Kier.’

In addition, Cole said that one of the arguments traditionally made in favour of Design and Build is that significant amounts of detailed design do not need to be completed prior to tender, or even by the time the building starts on site.

But the report said: ‘While this may allow for an early start, it also means that there has not been the opportunity for full co-ordination of all the elements of the design, particularly in relation to the many changes that are often proposed or simply implemented as part of the work of specialist subcontractors.

‘Failures in the proper co-ordination of the interdependencies and interfaces between construction elements are often the underlying cause of building failures and that is evident in the DG One building.’

Evidence provided to Cole’s inquiry showed that in many key areas, what was built was not in line with drawings submitted with the tender, ‘or even with those submitted by the contractor as part of the as-built documentation’.

Cole also took issue with another argument often made in favour of Design and Build, that clients can pursue the contractor as a single point for damages.

These failures are indicative of systemic problems in the quality of work provided by the construction industry

He said: ‘However, as events have shown in the case of DG One, the ability to sue is no recompense to the public for being deprived of the amenity in question for several years, and the process of suing is often prolonged, complex and expensive, and offers little assurance that a client will recover all costs incurred, both as a result of having to undertake the remedial works to the building and in pursuing this legal route.

‘In this case significantly less than half the costs incurred by the council as a result of the defects in the design and build contract were recovered by the council.’

In addition, the report found that time and cost considerations took precedence over design quality in the original procurement process.

It said: ’It is difficult to understand the lack of inclusion and low overall relative weighting of quality-based criteria for what was originally conceived by the council to be a flagship building that would last at least 40 years and would help stimulate a vibrant regeneration of that area of Dumfries.’

The report also drew parallels with the Edinburgh schools fiasco in 2016, where building defects closed 17 Edinburgh schools, which Cole also investigated.

It said: ‘It is the view of the inquiry that the widespread presence of these same failures in the DG One building lends further support to the finding of the Edinburgh Schools Inquiry that these failures are indicative of systemic problems in the quality of work provided by the construction industry.’

Architect Hurd Rolland is currently working on a package of ‘remedial works and refurbishment of the public area’ having previously been appointed by local authority lawyers to carry out detailed investigations into what went wrong.


Readers' comments (4)

  • Can you post a link to the report ?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Given the findings of this report, Kier's website reads like a work of fiction, and the company surely deserves to find it impossible to insure its construction activities - as should the perpetrators of the Edinburgh schools fiasco.
    Or are we living in fantasy land?
    There's the urgent need to address the report's concerns on design quality, and the traditional role of clients' clerks of works - the ones equipped with teeth - can't be revived fast enough

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The Council's End of Project Review Report on DG One from 2008 makes very interesting reading: This is just part of it:

    3.15 Conclusion 3.15.1
    The project performed well against cost targets.

    The Design and Build model successfully ‘capped’ the cost of the project, and transferred the risk of construction related cost increases to the Contractor.

    The total cost of f 12.67m represented good value for money.

    National building cost indices based on a rate per square metre of floor area for leisure and sports facilities including swimming pools are some 17% higher than that obtained for the Leisure Complex.

    Information provided by sport scotland also indicated that the cost of DG One compared favourably with that of a similar major leisure facility completed recently by another Scottish local authority.

    5.42 Conclusions - Proiect Strengths

    This review has highlighted strengths and weaknesses of various aspects of the project, but in a number of respects this was a very successful project.

    Strengths identified include:- * DG One, the end product, met quality requirements and public expectations.

    The cost of the f 12.67m project was kept within budget. Clear Project Brief and Contract restricted any scope for dispute over design details and transferred an appropriate level of risk to the Contractor.

    Good range of Council representatives on the Board, forming a team with a common focus and a shared commitment to deliver a high quality facility for the Council. Specialist skills and knowledge helped to produce strong applications for external funding which attracted the largest Lottery and ERDF grants ever secured by the Council.

    Efficient financial controls and monitoring, as verified by recent EU audits. Full engagement and support from Council services, including Finance, Planning and Environment, and Combined Services. In-house project management ensured appropriate direct ‘ownership’ of the project.

    PRINCE2 was used and core groups of staff also met regularly to ensure
    Client Kontractor issues were addressed and resolved quickly. Open and transparent approach - regular progress reports to Members and through communication with the press and the public. No significant Health and Safety issues occurred during project.

    Project design demonstrates Council’s commitment to Sustainability, for example through the inclusion of a number of energy conservation measures in the project design.

    Project design also illustrated Council’s commitment to Equality and Accessibility, for example through the input of the Disability Access Forum to the design of the facility

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Phil Parker

    The failure is the project not the procurement route. Dumb title for this piece.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs

Discover architecture career opportunities. Search and apply online for your dream job.
Find out more