4.9 The Co-ordinated Project Information (CPI) initiative arose from work by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) in the 1970s. That revealed serious deficiencies in preparing the information necessary for the builder. Following further work within the industry, the Co-ordinating Committee for Project Information published its Codes of Procedure for Production Drawings, Project Specification and a Common Arrangement of Work Sections for Building Work in 1987. These Codes also co-ordinated with the newly published Standard Method of Measurement (SMM) 7. The initiative was supported by DOE Ministers. CPI has been adopted in the National Building Specification and in other influential documents. But its use is still limited, and the Building Project Information Committee (BPIC) is seeking to persuade more Schools of Architecture and Design to include CPI within their curricula. BPIC is also participating in the development of an international classification system for construction information. (Source: BPIC16 evidence, February 1994.)
4.10 To achieve co-ordination in the documents available to the constructors on site seems basic common sense. As one client commented "If Knowledge Based Engineering is tomorrow's technology for construction, CPI ought to be yesterday's. Surely we can harmonise the basic works information?" The CIEC's final report also recommends the use (with some modifications) of CPI in civil engineering.
4.11 Some may wonder whether full design preparation of the project in this way is practical and really reflects clients' wishes and work patterns. The reality of many commercial schemes is that the client dictates the pace of design by responding to external pressures from funders, potential supply/demands of tenants or other considerations. If the client wishes work to start on site before the scheme is fully designed, and requires the drawings to be prepared sequentially, the system must adapt to that. It is best practice if all projects are fully planned, as has been recommended by previous reports such as Banwell. That remains the ideal. But, as the ACA comments in its evidence, "This assumes perfection and no changes of circumstance in time, demand or finance. If the client is the core of the need for an industry's response, should the processes of the industry not allow these changes to be made? The answer must be yes, and without recrimination." (ACA evidence, March 1994.)
4.12 I agree. The system must be robust enough to meet the wishes of clients, not vice versa. But:-
1. The client whose commercial requirements demand an early start on site and sequential design during the course of the work should choose a procurement route which will accommodate those wishes in a flexible manner and which avoids adversarial attitudes. Construction management or management contracting will be most appropriate. A lump sum contract such as JCT 80 or a design and build route would be a recipe for disaster17 if the work is intended to progress on site while design is still proceeding.
2. It is still both practicable and desirable to use CPI in such circumstances. The Codes and SMM 7 recognise that certain elements of the work may not have been fully designed when the contractor was preparing the tender. SMM 7 therefore provides for the use of provisional sums for both defined and undefined work. Use of CPI is possible regardless of when the information is produced, pre or post tender, and irrespective of the contract documentation used.
__________________________________________________________________________
16 BPIC comprises representatives from the Building Employers Confederation (BEC), the RIBA, the RICS and the Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE).
17 An example which illustrates the potential pitfalls was the New Glasshouse at the Efford Experimental Horticultural Centre, Hampshire. The appraisal first estimate in August 1989 was £0.25 million. The contract price in December 1989 was £0.28 million. The revised estimate in June 1992 was £0.55 million. The National Audit Office (NAO) commented "To gain the full benefits of the fast-track "design and build" contractual method it is essential that the user's requirements are carefully and fully defined at the outset. In this case, because of deficiencies in the user's brief, which formed the basis of the investment appraisal, there were 13 contract variation orders covering additional requirements which almost doubled the cost and more than doubled the timescale". The Public Accounts Committee reported "The Ministry told us that the lapses in control resulted partly from the project sponsors not having been appointed at the beginning of the project and partly because procedures were not sufficiently established at the time. They also told us that the users of the New Glasshouse had not thought sufficiently about what they wanted and that revisions to the specification after the start of the contract had greatly increased the cost". (Sources: "Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, management of Works Services", report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, February 1993, page 32, and Fourth Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, Session 1993/4, December 1993, page vii, paragraph 5.)