Fuentes literarias utilizadas en este “misterio” bergaminiano.

Originally the QS’s primary role involved measuring and valuing of construction works based on the design and specifications (Cartlidge, 2011; Opoku, 2013). To carry this out, a Bill of Quantities (BOQ) was produced to measure materials so that tendering contractors could price the works for the purposes of generating a price for

19

the job (Seeley, 1996). The technique of measuring quantities from drawings and specifications prepared by designers (Architects and Engineers) is known in the construction industry as Quantity Take Off (QTO) (Kirkham, 2012). Cartlidge (2011) states the use of BOQs and QTO dates back to the 18th century where costs for producing a BOQ were shared by the contractors who were tendering on the project. Gradually the client became responsible for paying the QS for the generation of the BOQ and a distinct profession of Quantity Surveying providing a cost management service for the client emerged (Drogemuller & Tucker, 2003).

Kirkham (2012) notes that particular issue with the traditional QS role was that the client did not know how much a building was going to cost until it was tendered. A more formulated staged process throughout the design period emerged in the 1960s as a way to provide cost checks up to the tender date (Ashworth et al., 2013; Cartlidge, 2011). This led to a cost management process known as ‘cost planning’ where there is a focus on maintaining a ‘target cost’ throughout the design and construction of the project (Cartlidge, 2011). Cost planning starts at inception when indicative costs are produced on the project brief. It then continues with preliminary estimates on early designs, as the design evolves more detailed estimating is carried out and eventually a BOQ is produced for final price checking and tendering (Ashworth et al., 2013; Seeley, 1996). Deviation from this target cost at any stage of the cost planning process indicates that the cost of the project has gone over budget and measures must be taken to get it back on track (Ashworth et al., 2013; Kirkham, 2012; Seeley, 1996).

Good practise in cost planning and cost control requires that the QS allocates the overall estimated costs into a number of cost holding categories known as ‘elements’ or Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). These elements are based on the functional components of the design, such as the substructure; external walls; internal walls and doors & windows (Ashworth et al., 2013; Dept. of Finance, 2009; Kirkham, 2012). Different jurisdictions have alternative elemental classification categories but operate in a similar manner. In Ireland the elements are organised in accordance to the National Standard Building Elements (NSBE). In UK these elements are arranged according to the framework from the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS). Elemental costs can be compared to the elemental totals in similar projects. They may also be compared to the cost of the corresponding element in the previous

20

estimate to isolate areas in the design that could have increased in cost (Ashworth et al., 2013; Kirkham, 2012).

Traditionally, the cost planning process was carried out in an ad-hoc manner. Many organisations had their own procedures and documentation and there was no industry wide approach to the measurement and description of building works for preliminary estimates and cost plans (Ashworth et al., 2013; Cartlidge, 2011). In 2009, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), in an effort to standardise the cost planning process, published the New Rules of Measurement 1 (NRM 1) (RICS, 2012a). NRM 1 sets out a process where cost plans and estimates are prepared by the QS at various stages of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Plan of Work (POW) (Ashworth et al., 2013). The RIBA POW is an industry-wide recognised framework that organises the design and administration of the building into eleven sequential steps (Ashworth et al., 2013). The RICS has determined in NRM 1 that a series of six formal cost planning stages are mapped to the RIBA work stages. NRM 1 also outlines the structure and scope of what is included in the estimate at each stage of the cost planning process (RICS, 2012a).

The RICS followed the publication of NRM 1 with NRM 2 (RICS, 2012b) and NRM 3 (RICS, 2014). These publications form the NRM suite of documents, written to provide a standard set of measurement rules that can be applied throughout the full procurement process through to managing the built asset (RICS, 2012a). NRM 2 (RICS, 2012b) was published to replace and update the Standard Method of Measurement 7 (SMM7), which in various editions had been in operation for nearly one hundred years (Ashworth et al., 2013; Seeley, 2012; Kirkam, 2012). NRM 2 provides guidance on the detailed measurement and description of building works for the purposes of obtaining a tender price (RICS, 2012b).

The cost management process traditionally focused on the CAPex of the construction project. As outlined in the next section, there has been a growing awareness and movement to provide more value enhancing services for construction clients in the industry (Cartlidge, 2011; Kirkham, 2005; Smith, 2014). Kirkham (2012) and Kishk et al. (2003) maintain that the QS’s role on construction projects now covers a range of activities which include financial appraisal, value management, risk management

21

Although reports such as Latham (1994) and Egan (1997) identified LCC as way to increase value for construction clients, it has not become standard practice by QSs providing cost services (Clift, 2003; Opoku, 2013; Schaude, 2011). The following section discusses a number of documents that have been published in the last ten years to provide guidance to QSs producing LCC estimates. As will be outlined in more detail in Section 2.4.3, NRM 3 (RICS, 2014) provides rules and guidelines for the quantification and measurement of building maintenance and renewal works for LCC (RICS, 2014).