It makes me feel old to start a post like this but does anyone remember the good old days?
The ones I’m specifically referring too, are the days when at the beginning of a project there used to be the Holy Trinity of an architect, a structural engineer and a QS?
The architect would design the clients dreams, the engineer would make sure it could be built and the QS would ensure it met the client’s budget and provide a standardised basis for going out to tender.
Now we usually get the architect who asks the clients budget and tries to design something to it. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. The danger here is they will use a norm or metric which works sometimes but often any complexities in the build won’t be taken account of.
They will usually still engage the services of an engineer but often they will just design beams not carry out a constructability review.
Why is it that the QS was deemed surplus to requirements? And that the architect could carry out their role or at least part of it?
They will argue that as part of their training they did sections on how to manage contracts and carry out tenders. As part of my QS training, we did building designs and drawings, but that doesn’t mean I’m competent or capable of selling it as part of my services.
I don’t disagree that engaging a QS up front will increase your initial outlay on a project but the reality is that this will always be money well spent.