Last week it was Amec and Balfour Beatty with US engineering specialist Jacobs. Before that it was Laing O'Rourke with Mace, and Davis Langdon is tipped to be joining them.

Consortia are being formed constantly in our industry, seemingly with no one seriously questioning this way of working. These two latest consortia came about because the industry assumes this is the structure needed for such a massive job as the "delivery partner" role on the building programme for the 2012 Olympics. It's simply the way things are done. But accepted ways of working are coming under well-deserved scrutiny in this issue of QS News.

A new report for the RICS from the University of Reading university criticises the consortia approach (page 10). It warns that joining a consortium increases your risk because you're liable for the actions of all members as well as your own. The model also drives a wedge between the client and members of the consortium, as each member concentrates on its relationship with the consortium leader, rather than the client. And the set-up ferments problems within the consortium, the report says, as each member tends to have goals that conflict with those of the others.

Contracts are also under the spotlight (page 12) this week. Some 80% of construction projects are run under JCT forms but the ODA said this month that it would instead use NEC documents. After seeing the success of the NEC contract on T5, the government has said the same.

Fans of NEC contracts say they are simpler and more flexible than traditional forms, plus they may minimise disputes.

A gathering body of evidence suggests it's time to look again at the way we are working. With once-in-a-century projects such as the Olympics and Crossrail coming up, nothing but the best working practices will do.

Source

QS News