Letters

Sir; In your recent article 'The Lure of Fresh Pastures'(CJ, 5 May 1994), you referred to Willmott Dixon as a company that 'appeared a couple of years ago' and 'disappeared again like the morning mist.'

Unfortunately, your comments are inaccurate and do not represent the true situation.

The company was founded in Cambridgeshire in 1852! Willmott Dixon acquired WW Gould and Bush Builders over a decade ago and has had a considerable share of the East Anglian market for many years having constructed numerous buildings for a number of varied clients in the public and private sector including Norwich Union, Cambridge University, Anglia Polytechnic University, East Anglia Regional Health Authority, Hinchinbrooke School, Dencora Plc, North Norfolk District Council, Norfolk Country Council, Friendly Lodge (UK) Ltd, Lotus Cars and British Sugar - to name but a few.

For the record we still have an office in Norwich where we operate both our construction and maintenance companies. Some of the current projects include a œ2.9 million project at the University of East Anglia, a œ1.9 million Flight Refurbishing facility at RAF Lakenheath and a œ1.2 million new primary school at Chatteris.

Your article is correct in the fact that the construction market has been difficult and that most contractors have faced a decrease in workload. However we have consolidated our position in the Eastern Region and look forward to a steady increase in workload in the future months - you can be reassured Willmott Dixon are still a force to be reckoned with in East Anglia.

John Frankiewicz

Managing Director

Willmott Dixon Construction Eastern Region

Hitchin,

Herts.

Sir; Your article in Contract Journal, 5-ll May l994, surveying the view of major contractors made extremely interesting reading and I hope that Sir Michael Latham takes note of its contents.

Contractors and subcontractors are well worth listening to as they are on the receiving end of bad procurement strategies and inadequate tendering documents.

The combined effects of the recession and the enforced changes in the way their services are procured have all but emasculated the British Construction Professional. They no longer seem to have the power to promote good practice or to devote the appropriate amount of time in carrying out pre and post contract duties. It is sad to hear that private practices in my own discipline of quantity surveying can no longer be trusted to be fair and reasonable administrators of construction contracts, but that is a direct result of the commercial pressures now influencing their professionalism.

The answer to the adversarial atmosphere pervading the industry is obvious to those who have long experience in the industry, namely the matching of the appropriate procurement strategy to each individual project together with the provision of complete tender documentation and the allowance of adequate time pre and post contract for design development and construction. There is nothing wrong with our existing methods, it is just that they are being abused or inappropriately applied.

It is up to the industry as a whole to bring back some sanity to the situation by reminding clients and Government that quality and professionalism cannot be bought on the cheap or by taking short cuts. Adversarialism will diminish if each member of the building team is allowed to do their job properly.

Douglas Chalmers,

Chairman,

RICS Surrey Branch

Partner

Bampton & Lockwood,

Chartered Quantity Surveyors

Sir; I refer to John Leitch's article, 5 May l994, 'The Dead Who Won't Lie Down.' This issue does need bringing to the industry's notice but more importantly to the clients' notice.

The quick 'revival' of companies under an almost instantly different label is, frankly, a despicable practice especially when you bear in mind the dreadful problems and unfairness that this causes to unpaid suppliers, services and subcontractors, let alone the clients!

The brazen attitude of many of the directors and managers, who simply brush off their own failures almost as an acceptable way of life in the industry, is quite appalling and needs the utmost condemnation.

There are a growing number of building contractors in the traditional/specialist sector of the industry who wish full and comprehensive exposure of these practices even to the point of, once again, endeavouring to strengthen the law to protect clients and suppliers from this continuing exploitation.

Regrettably, it is quite extraordinary that a number of clients, architects and quantity surveyors also almost find this bad practice 'acceptable', re-listing the reformed contractor to compete against those of us who do honour our debts, who do continuously invest in training and good practice and high quality; those of use who do manage survival, still with great risk and cost to our shareholders, find that the results of this recession produce just the short of dishonourable practices of which this industry needs to be rid!

Whilst, of course, excluding some of the examples of 'takeover', except that the new owner often takes on the senior staff who previously failed due to bad management, the industry is rife with newly revived groupings of, one has to say, less than competent staff, sometimes two or three times failed and revived too!

In your article, you do name mostly the larger contractors who should have less excuse than the small to medium sized contractors.

We do not want our clients and suppliers 'tarred with the same brush' that you have portrayed in your article, and our efforts will be increased to get the legislation tightened up on this subject.

David Linford

Chairman

F & EV Linford Ltd

Specialists in construction

Quonians,

Lichfield,

Staffordshire.