Why facade specialists need a seat at the design table

So the topic we're talking about that I know lots of people in the industry are going to be really interested in is ‘why facade specialists need a seat at the design table.’ Where do you most often see the gap between architectural intent and then what actually gets built? 

Well it's mostly at the interfaces, all the problems around the edges. The headline design, the design that's been put forward by the architect, may look resolved and in its essence is perhaps resolved, but it's the interfaces – it's when you get to balcony edges, around the edges of windows, parapets, spandrel panels, soffits, walkways, canopies – it's when you start looking at the substructure and looking at the load pathways that's when the real design intent starts to break down.

So the drawings express an idea. They do a good job of expressing an idea, the architect's model, but unless someone actually owns the junctions, owns the interfaces, and someone's responsible for delivering those, then you start to build in problems into the design – sequencing problems, interaction problems – which become difficult to solve later on in the programme. 

Is it fair to say architects have great ideas and go wild with their drawings, but when it actually gets to a main contractor who's got to build it, it's not even physically possible – and the price, they wouldn't be able to make any money?

I want to say that at the same time we have to help them come up with a buildable solution that still adds value to their building by making it look beautiful. One of the things that really upsets architects is when their design intent is eroded and it's a constant battle. Contractors are always trying to erode design intent and value engineer to make things cheaper. The Building Safety Act has somewhat slowed that down but we're still seeing it happening – and what LockMetal can do, where we can add value to the client, to the architect, and to the contractor, is work to the design intent, understand what the architect wanted the building to look like, and provide a solution that allows that to happen within the areas of ‘buildable’ and ‘safe’. 

So a good example of how we can achieve architectural intent but meet the needs of the programme, meet the needs of the cost base of the project, would be where we've been working with contractors to swap out stone or GRC for a specialised powder-coated aluminium product, which is lighter, shorter lead time, at least as fire resistant as the original project product, and looks very similar meets the aesthetics requirements for the project. 

For people that don't know, at what stage are façade specialists typically brought in and why is that often too late? 

Well typically facade specialists are brought in in line with the procurement programme, which is very late – decisions have been baked in long before the contractor needs to place the order. The change in the industry that's been brought in by the Building Safety Act means contractors are bringing specialists in earlier and there are some commercial issues surrounding that that they're being worked on. Typically they're bringing them in ahead of their Gateway 2 submissions. The problem is that even at that point, design decisions have been made, parameters have been set, and a specialist isn't really providing/we're not able to provide the full scope of design advice that we could if we were at the table when those structural decisions and aesthetic decisions were being made, so we can provide a product, a solution that meets the design intent but really works commercially.

What are the consequences of late involvement of facade specialists on design, quality, and safety? 

Late involvement of specialists always narrows the options. You get to a point where you're just responding to decisions that have been made by other people, and you're not able to bring in solutions that would really add value to the project. You're having to compromise work around things. The construction industry is very good at working around problems, at providing solutions, but that's not necessarily an efficient, effective way of working and it's not necessarily safe – and it certainly leads to poor quality installations.

Another problem that late involvement really causes is drift on the programme. Nobody allows enough time in the programme for the design, the interaction, the redesign, the collaboration with other packages, and so the whole thing shifts. Then there's tension and pressure to try and accelerate, which has a negative effect on quality. 

How does early collaboration inform material selection, detailing and coordination? 

Early collaboration allows you to look at a wide range of potential materials, potential solutions, potential connections, and detailing. It allows you to work with other areas of the design as they emerge, so that the most effective solution can be facilitated. It allows you time for testing, time for design iteration, so that the design develops in parallel with other areas of the building towards an optimal solution.

What types of architectural features are at most risk without that specialist input? 

Areas that are most at risk are areas where there's a high risk of rainwater penetration, high risk of condensation, but also where there's fixed closing dimensions, where there are differences in tolerance between materials. So, for example, the brickwork might go in at plus or minus 10 millimetres, the windows at plus or minus one millimetre. That provides a problem that the closing dimension has to solve. Small errors, small differences. When you get to site it is very difficult to resolve the quality of the original intended build. So thinking about those areas, rainwater penetration, tolerance and structure, those are the key ones to be focusing on.

What does designing with buildability in mind actually look like in practice? 

In practice, it means asking blunt questions. It means talking to people. It means picking up the phone. It means arranging a meeting. It means finding out who owns the interface, who owns the detail. And if that's not known yet, it's highlighting that, putting a ring around it, and saying, ‘This bit is potentially a problem.’ It's understanding: Where's the structure? Where's the load path? What has actually been designed? And what has actually been just hoped for? And then really digging into that. It’s making sure that the information is handed over in a timely fashion. It's asking hard questions of manufacturers – about whether their tests are relevant to the type of building, or the area of the building that we're putting their products on. It's checking if their test certificates are in date. It's checking if different types of material are compatible. It's really, in a nutshell, being competent. If you're designing to be buildable, it's imperative that you understand tolerance, too, understand the differences in tolerance between different materials. It's imperative you have allowed for the cumulative effect of tolerance, and you've actually specified what that means. So the joint detailing, the edge detailing, the fixing detailing is all dependent on that. And if that isn't paid attention to, the result can look a terrible mess. But if it is paid attention to, then the project proceeds on programme, in budget and looks nice. 

So we've talked a lot about the problems that come around when site specialists aren't involved early. What does this mean commercially if it's not addressed early?

Well, there are huge commercial risks in not involving a specialist early enough in the programme. There's the deliverable risk – will the contractor actually be able to procure on time, actually be able to get the build done within the programme? But then there's the design liability risk – making sure that the design liability chain hasn't broken at any point. They can go back to each individual designer to make sure that they have taken into account all the risks. And if that falls over, the costs can be substantial.

There's the need to collaborate with warranty providers. There's the need to collaborate with the Building Safety Regulator and provide proper information that's going to be trusted by those bodies. And again, the implications of not doing that are large amounts of time. The Building Safety Regulator could take 8 weeks, 10 weeks, 12 weeks – just to approve a change of material. And the contractual costs, the contractual costs for programme overrun, are well known and certainly best avoided. No one wants programme overrun.

Maintaining the professional indemnity insurance (PII) chain is also very important. It's an invisible kind of risk – like all insurance doesn't crystallise until something happens. But if the specialist contractor hasn't done the due diligence, hasn't got proper insurance cover from a reputable insurance company, and hasn't met the terms of that insurance in some way, then that could be hugely expensive. 

The Gateway environment has massively increased the risks of not engaging with a specialist contractor. The tendency to rely on professionals, professional designers, who haven't had installation experience, who don't have the ‘buildable’ mindset that we have, is all compounded by the fact that the evidence trail is now mandated. The regulator insists on seeing the evidence of a completed design at the beginning, and will insist on seeing the evidence of the completed installation at the end. The financial, contractual, and reputational damage that not doing that causes is immense. 

What LockMetal brings to the table is competence. We've had the experience, we've got the determination to learn, we've got the guiding ethos of beautiful, buildable, safe. And we have also got, frankly, the guts to get things done, the resources to get things done. That is where we add value to a project. 

Adrian, you've been in the industry for quite a while, seen it change. So tell me, why do facade specialists need a seat at a design table now more than ever? 

Because without the competent input from specialist subcontractors, it's unlikely that the design is going to be deemed sufficient to pass the Gateway regime.

How does the main contractor know if they need a specialist? 

Because sometimes it's not until they have a bad experience and face the cost. Really, they need a specialist by default. Take, for example, Luton Way. So, it was a capital project and they went to Hill with a cheaper contractor. And then they had massive remedial issues. So to them, it looked like a simple job but actually they probably needed a specialist. They were way over budget because their capping was a way wider gap than what they'd allowed for. So it was such a small, simple job – but yet they lost out both in terms of commercially and to remedial.

There's a huge temptation for main contractors, especially the commercial departments, to try and overcome holes in their budget by cutting out specialist advice, and cutting out specialist contractors. We've seen time and time again where that's a short-term gain and a long-term problem, a really massive problem, because the costs of insolvency, the costs of poor advice, the costs of failing at Gateway 2, the costs even more of failing at Gateway 3, mean not only financially, but reputationally, the idea of making a short-term saving to fix a budget hole is a very, very poor investment.