Procurement is a pain. For architects seeking work in the public sector, progressive design & building knowledge is often overlooked for the cheapest and quickest means to meet the end. The requisite qualification seems to be held within organisations and methods that are perceived as being ‘risk adverse’ and in those parties who can offer fees that are just crazy small. Part of this problem is how the public sector is required to comply with OJEU standards and the accompanying bureaucracy. 

The alliance between private and public bodies, whilst deemed necessary in our current times, remains unperfected and flawed. If a post-Brexit economy is to be better as some proclaim, then will Britain’s public sector both simplify and open up its tendering procedures to alternatives, so that maybe architects with smaller, more dynamic and hungrier practices can win a job once in a while? Can public projects take on a new dimension through their delivery. We doubt it. The clues are in the Grenfell tragedy: a multitude of vested interests, subcontracts and cutting corners at many levels being a structural problem through its procurement.

The bidding for public work may be competitive and no doubt in many cases ‘rigged’ through frameworks of bidding, so we ask if there is scope for new forms of competition, new ways of assessing what is of value, and how to ensure that a culture of attaining value for money exists and becomes the norm. Can there be a public sector emancipated from conservatism, blown budgets, and the inefficiencies and fears of Little Britain politics?

Speakers:

Russell Curtis, RCKa (Chair)
Rae Whittow-Williams, Greater London Authority
Merlin Fulcher, Architects' Journal
Hilary Satchwell, Tibbards
Lisa Woo, Enfield Council

On the night….