Discussion on Papers 13–16

Mr W.R.G. EAKIN (Ward Asheroft & Parknan, Liverpool) : I agree with Mr Berren (Paper 13) that for some very low-grade road projects the conventional procedure of awarding the construction of the road to a contractor who has tendered on a fully designed and documented project may not be appropriate. However, the disadvantage of the method he describes is that the profit motive does not exist. There is no incentive to carry out the work as quickly and efficiently as possible and consequently the final cost may be high. Ttarget-cost1 type of contract may be better.

Mr BerrenTs main objective to the conventional procedure of awarding work to a private contractor is that it means that a full design is done in advance and this design is often too sophisticated and expensive for the purpose. I agree that designs have sometimes been of an unnecessarily high standard, but this is a fault of the design, not of the method. The design parameters adopted were not appropriate to the situation.