Award

AUGUST 2018 | 5 PERSPECTIVE A U G U S T 2 0 1 8 | V O L U M E 3 2 | N U M B E R 4 PUBLISHER Dan Chapman dchapman @ canadawide.com 604.473.0316 EDITOR Natalie Bruckner-Menchelli nbmenchelli @ canadawide.com ART DIRECTOR Scott Laurie slaurie @ canadawide.com CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Robin Brunet Laurie Jones Jessica Kirby Stacey McLachlan Susan Pederson Martha Uniacke Breen PRODUCTION MANAGERS Kristina Borys Kirsty Senior PRODUCTION SUPPORT TECHNICIAN Ina Bowerbank ACCOUNT MANAGER Alexander Sugden asugden @ canadawide.com ADVERTISING DESIGN + COORDINATION Allie Davison adavison @ canadawide.com SUBSCRIPTION INQUIRIES 604.299.2116 1.800.663.0518 CHAIRMAN, CEO Peter Legge, obc, lld. (hon) PRESIDENT Samantha Legge, mba SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF INTEGRATION Brad Liski VICE PRESIDENT OF SALES Rebecca Legge (on leave) VICE PRESIDENT OF CONTENT MARKETING Ryan McKenzie VICE PRESIDENT OF DIGITAL Kevin Hinton VICE PRESIDENT OF HR & ADMIN Joy Ginete-Cockle VICE PRESIDENT OF FINANCE Sonia Roxburgh, cpa, cga EXECUTIVE CREATIVE DIRECTOR Rick Thibert DIRECTOR OF EDITORIAL AND CUSTOM PUBLISHING Michael McCullough DIRECTOR OF PRODUCTION Kim McLane DIRECTOR OF CIRCULATION Tracy McRitchie DIRECTOR OF SALES Brianne Harper SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR Brian Fakhraie APPLICATION SUPPORT ANALYST Eileen Gajowski ACCOUNTING Terri Mason CIRCULATION Jacquie Aitken Rhiannon Jones Kelly Kalirai Lori North EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT Heather Vince Award magazine is published six times a year by Canada Wide Media Limited. Head office: 230, 4321 Still Creek Drive, Burnaby, BC V5C 6S7. Phone 604.299.7311, Fax 604.299.9188. Send covers of undeliverable copies to address above. Publications Mail Agreement No. 40065475. © 2012. No part of this magazine may be reproduced without written permission of the publisher. Award is distributed to architects, interior designers, landscape architects, consulting engineers, specification writers, development companies and major construction companies throughout Western Canada and Ontario. For subscription information call 604.299.1023 or email: subscriptions@canadawide.com National Library No. ISSN 1202-5925. Printed in Canada by Transcontinental LGM Graphics. Award magazine welcomes your letters, corporate announcements or company information. The statements, opinions and points of view expressed in articles published in this magazine are those of the authors and publication shall not be deemed to mean that they are necessarily those of the publisher, editor or Canada Wide Media Limited. The acceptance and publication of advertisement of products and services does not indicate endorsement of such products or services. The publishers cannot be held responsible for unsolicited manuscripts and photographs. by STEVE COHLMEYER President of Cohlmeyer Architecture T he RAIC's 2018 Festival of Architecture in Saint John, New Brunswick last spring featured a plenary session on pro- curement reform. The goal was to identify issues and opportunities for the RAIC and its partners to address con- cerns about public procurement practices and policies. Winnipeg architect Steve Cohlmeyer, FRAIC, was unable to join the panel discussion, as planned, but sent the following observations. The Burden Of RFPs For all of us who participate in the preparation of government proposals, the process has proven expensive; it is difficult to pre- pare even a relatively small offer for less than $10,000 in hard costs. With a typical success rate of one in 10 for most architects in Canada, the effective cost of a successful submission can easily rise to $100,000. With a profit margin of 10 percent of fee revenues, it takes a pretty big project even to begin to make sense. The most important phenomenon related to fee evaluation over the past 45 years has been the evolving predominance of total fees as the real basis for selection. As we all try to get work, we collectively reduce our fee submissions to try to beat the competi- tion with lower and lower fees. This behaviour is not a question of the same product for lower government expense; lower fees force lower quality production at every stage of our projects. I heard a story from last year in which a federal politician said that Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) was not going to happen under his watch because the taxpayer deserves to get everything for the lowest possible cost. Professional services are not toilet paper, and the price of poorly delivered professional services can be immense – which is why some jurisdictions have come to see that QBS in some guise is the best way to assure real value for taxpayer monies. In the 1950s and 1960s, the GSA, which is the purchasing arm for acquisitions in the U.S., was using a selection process in which the cost of services was the determining evaluative metric. The federal government realized that lower fees were resulting in lower qual- ity services as the architect teams tried to perform at diminished margins. The results of this decline included poorer planning and functionality; higher change-order costs; higher maintenance costs and earlier replacement of unsatisfactory buildings. The GSA went on to revamp its processes for all architect team selections. Qualifications and proposed services became the entire basis for selection, and have remained so for nearly 50 years. Firms are ranked first, second and third; the first team negotiates fees with the GSA; if the first team and the GSA cannot reach agreement on fees, negotiations are commenced with the second then the third team. The GSA has completed evaluations of their change in policy over the decades and has stuck with it. We are a smaller firm, working from Winnipeg and Montreal, with projects across Canada. We have been able to demonstrate our abilities, and have ranked high on selection and performance evaluations for government work. However, we often find that we come up "just short" in final point assessments for technical scoring (regularly second or third in open competition across the country). We believe that this is, to some extent, due to the mas- sive personnel numbers that the larger firms can demonstrate. We believe that smaller firms are unfairly penalized because of a per- ception that bigger is better. About 25 years ago, the federal government established requirements that related projects must have been completed within five years. Larger firms can respond to this requirement for recent specific project types because of the size of their operation. As a smaller firm, we have completed a wide range of public- sector and private-sector projects, and our projects can qualify as "related" projects – except many were completed more than five years ago. Because we work on diverse projects, and each proj- ect type comes along at irregular intervals, we are often unable to present the necessary number of recently completed projects (even though we have the requisite projects completed by active members of the firm). As a result, we elect not to submit an offer of services. If skillsets and experience of firm members can be presented and evaluated, without the relatively short timeframe restrictions, we suggest that the government can have a wider range of realistic choice and evaluation – and the public interest will be well served. There is a serious discussion at the federal government level regarding implementation of a qualifications-based selection pro- cess. There is also an entrenched view at the political level that cheaper is better. In the interests of real benefit and savings, it will be important to build an understanding that the right scope, pro- fessional expertise, and budget encourage innovation and ensure the best possible outcome and value for taxpayers. A Procurement Process Challenges For Architects

• Cover