The Selection of Building Services Consulting Engineers in Northern Ireland

The selection of Building Services Consulting Engineers in Northern Ireland J. G Gunning1 and Y. McNally2 1Senior Lecturer, University of Ulster, Faculty of Engineering, School of the Built Environment, Jordanstown, BT37 0QB, Northern Ireland 2Postgraduate Student, University of Ulster, Faculty of Engineering, School of the Built Environment, Jordanstown, BT37 0QB, Northern Ireland Email: [email protected] Abstract: The two main objectives of this research were to quantify opinions on the expected and perceived levels of the service/performance required by the client, and to quantify the level of importance assigned to various criteria used in the selection process. The views of six major consulting engineering practices and eight developers/project managers in both public and private sectors were obtained using semi structured interviews. A Servqual-type model was developed to analyse the gaps between the clients’ expectations of the engineers’ perception of their own performance, as well as the gap between the perceptions and expectations of the engineers’ performance from both clients and engineers themselves. The results indicated that the engineers clearly misunderstood what the client expected from them in terms of controlling time, cost and quality and of resources and communication. Clients were dissatisfied with all aspects of the service received other than the amount of the professional fee paid – presumably arising from the current competitive climate surrounding fees. In other words, prices were reduced in order to obtain work but the low fees earned do not permit the full service expected by developers. Clients indicated that the lowness of the fee paid was much less important to them than the level of service received, but engineers thought otherwise. Recommendations were made on how selection methods could be improved, including better briefing, greater emphasis on personal relationships, a transparent scoring system and the use of smaller shortlists. Engineers were advised to be more open and enthusiastic, and to use job-specific written submissions based on thorough research into the clients’ needs. A modest increase in professional fees might lead to increased satisfaction for all concerned with the provision or the receipt of building services engineering consultancy on projects. Key Words: Building Services Consultants, Northern Ireland, Selection Criteria. 1. Introduction The pre-qualification criteria used by over 90% of clients in the United Kingdom is established on an ad hoc basis to reflect the client’s specific requirements for each project (Ng, 1996). The selection criteria generally used for those short-listed are experience, past performance, capability, resources and fee etc. Many different approaches have been proposed over the years to assess the influence/weight of the selection criteria used by the decision maker –with the aim to obtain the best service. Morledge et al (2006) prioritise the 218 key factors as capability, competence, staff and cost. Kashiwagi (2004) emphasises previous success as a primary criterion, with best value for money rather than lowest price being the overall objective. In today’s competitive, tight- knit industry, the perceived service given by the consulting engineer must be seen as effective. Carlzon (1989) identified poor service as the main reason why clients felt they must change to another competitor. Svensson (2004) identified the service given to clients as the most important feature for “developing and maintaining fruitful and successful relationships”. The ideal consulting engineering firm should at least meet, if not exceed, the expectations of the client in relation to the brief. To do this they must have an accurate understanding of what the client expects from them (during the pre-qualification and short list selection stages, and throughout the design and construction phase of the project). The success and growth of the consulting engineering firm is dependant upon it. 2. Selection of Consulting Engineers Clients come from a variety of backgrounds, but this research focuses on how public sector clients, project managers, architects and private developers in Northern Ireland select building services consulting engineers. Cheung et al (2002) proposed the use of a computer model capable of making a decision regarding the appointment of various architects tendering for a project. For this research, a similar model was used. Their model was based on five main selection criteria: 1. Firms’ background (reputation, technical competence/qualifications, experience with similar projects). 2. Past performance (cost control, quality of work, time control). 3. Capacity to accomplish the project (present workload, availability to qualified personnel, professional qualification/experience). 4. Project approach (approach to time schedule, approach to quality and design methodology). 5. Professional fee. 3. Satisfaction of the Client Another objective of this research was to investigate the difference between the client’s expected service from the engineer and the actual service that he received; i.e. if his expectations were not met, or were exceeded. This was then compared to the service that the engineer thought the client should receive, and what in reality he actually got. In summary, this analysis showed how satisfied the client was with the engineer’s performance and how satisfied the engineer thought the client was. Quigley (2000) justified the use of a service quality gap analysis tool known as SERVQUAL for a similar research project. Using this tool, the satisfaction of the client was measured by calculating the difference in score of his perceptions less his expectations. Although the assessment criteria and response scale are different to Quigley’s study, it does follow the same principles. 219 4. Questionnaire Development Results were collected from semi-structured interviews using a questionnaire based on the top ten pre-qualification criteria identified by Quigley (2000), the five service quality variants in SERVQUAL , and Cheung’s (2002) research model. The questionnaire had four sections; •The first section asked respondents to detail demographic information about themselves/ their company. •The second section asked respondents about their expectations prior to a consulting engineer being appointed i.e. how an ideal consulting engineer should perform. •The third section asked respondents about the perceptions after a consulting engineer was appointed i.e. in reality how a consulting engineer actually performed. •The fourth section asked respondents to rate the importance of criteria which may be used in the selection process. The responses for the second and third section were recorded using a 6-point Likert scale, indicating the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with a statement. A six point scale was used to avoid the respondent picking a “mid way answer”. When the importance of the selection criteria was investigated in the fourth section of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to make each part total 100 points. (See Table 1). 5. Pre-qualification of Consulting Engineers Consulting engineers are often “pre-selected” in terms of general capabilities before they are invited to submit their technical and fee proposals. The engineers must detail their relevant experience, competence and financial standing etc. The client assesses their submission and uses it to limit the number of firms to be given further consideration (Bennett, 2003). Pre- qualification selection of consulting engineers aims to save the time and resources of the client that would otherwise be spent on unqualified/ unsuitable prospective engineers. It separates eligible consulting engineers from interested consulting engineers (Palaneeswaran & Kumaraswamy, 2001) 6. Methods of Selection of Consulting Engineers Cost-oriented methods are used when the client wants to maximise profit whilst satisfying the minimum user requirements. Quality- oriented selection methods are more suited to complex and prestigious projects. A large emphasis is placed on the suitability and capability of the engineer rather than his fee (Ng & Skitmore, 1999). There are five methods commonly used for the selection of consulting engineers (CIC, 1998); these are the two envelope method, the cost weighted method, the budget method, design competition with prices and, finally, price negotiation. The ACE (2003) recommend that the client, or his representative, should review all the information submitted by the engineer – weightings should be applied to “reflect the priority and importance “of each selection criterion. They encourage the client to focus on the personal relationship with the engineer; the client should meet the proposed design team in the engineer’s office. Additionally the reputation of the engineer is important – the client 220 should assess how well the engineer has performed with other clients. Finally the ACE highlights that “lowest price does not necessarily mean best value” 7. Worldwide Selection Trends There is a wide range of selection procedures used globally (Palaneeswaran & Kumaraswamy, 2001). When consulting engineering firms are being selected in Denmark, the two highest and two lowest tenderers are automatically excluded. The firm with the professional fees closest to the average of the remaining tenderers is appointed (Hatush & Skitmore, 1996). In Italy, Peru, South Korea and Portugal, a similar procedure is used, but only the lowest and highest tender are automatically

Load more