As I was delivering a bid to win workshop yesterday we covered the issue of project prices and costs, and as usual had the debate about the high cost of low price. The trick is to break the cycle of lowest cost tendering of course, but when we consider the amount of waste in the industry, waste in all of its forms, what used to be called MUDA in TQM days:
1/3 of all hard materials arriving at the site gate not used for intended purpose
skips cost £1500 not £100 each time when real and actual costs are taken into account
there is 35% wasted time in the industry – time from rework, waiting for detail, waiting for material, for preceding trades, etc etc
there is the assumed material wastage figure of 30% for our sector
…. the list goes on
Add into this debate the cost of green build, the perceived added cost of building sustainability (not only in design but also in local labour, local materials) and there starts to appear a no brainer. I use the word perceived on purpose – there are affordable new homes being built to good sustainability standards at next to no additional costs – such as the GreenGuage homes at Lingwood .
But why do we waste 30% on one hand and complain about additional costs to build green on the other?
So a suggestion for comment:
Tackle the waste (MUDA) in our sector, by selecting on ability to recover these waste costs, taking us away from the need to compete on lowest cost, compete (on sustainability issues – wow there is a thought)
…the savings generated will cover the profits of the supply side, AND cover the costs of green build AND allow for us to deal with social and diversity issues
…and of course lead to lower construction cost , a resilient and better fit for purpose, people and planet sector.