Too many cooks and too many "Cs"

Once again the Scottish Executive is out of step with construction best practice on its roads programme. After it made a pig's ear of selecting Scotland's trunk road management and maintenance contractors, it is perhaps not surprising that the Scottish Executive has become confused about its design and build (d&b) contract specifications. The real surprise is that the 'usually-on-the-money' Highways Agency has become caught up in the row about how many bidders to allow.

Okay, the procurement departments in question have a dilemma. Do they follow best practice as defined by Sir Michael Latham in Constructing the Team and appoint no more than four bidders, or do they pre-empt a possible European Court of Justice ruling expected to call for no less than five bidders on restricted procedure contracts?

There is little doubt what their contractor partners would suggest - the fewer the better - simply because of the heavy time and cost commitments of d&b tendering. Let's hope that the sensible prevail over the jobsworths.

Another numbers game is being played this week after the Design & Build Foundation and the Reading Construction Forum announced their alliance, partly to reduce the plethora of associations and initiatives at work in the construction industry. Is the proliferation of acronyms - CC, CCC, CIC, CLG, GCCP, CBPP, CRT, MCG, NCG, ICE, ACE, CIOB, CITB, CPA, CPA, CIRIA, CICA, CECA, CEA, ECA, FCA, BCSA, HVCA, SECG, NFDC, FPDC, NFRC, RICS etc - confusing? You bet it is. Ask any industry newcomer. And these are only the ones with a "C" in their name! While most of these august bodies serve their members and their purpose well, there must be some areas of duplication where rationalisation would be appropriate. We need clarity, not confusion, from our industry associations.