Architectural competitions are sexy. Spectacular concepts, the thrill of competition, the glamour (even if temporary and local), the glare of the spotlights. For a moment, we architects feel like creators, investors like patrons of culture and progress, and residents like beneficiaries of the hope of positively transforming a piece of the world around them.
When writing and discussing competitions, we most often focus on the accuracy and novelty of the solutions proposed in the projects and the validity of the jury's verdicts. For us architects, on the other hand , a competition is first and foremost about work. One of the ways of acquiring and then executing orders. A fundamental issue - the financial and legal security of us and our studios - depends on how the terms of the competition itself and the subsequent design contract are structured. Strangely enough, these issues (apparently less sexy) are addressed much less often in professional publications. That's why, invited to a patchwork of circular texts for a change, I take on this aspect.
It can be said that the architectural community has always promoted the competition as a method of selecting the concept and designer. Since the entry into force of the Public Procurement Law (2004) in particular. The competition has become the only qualitative alternative to the tender dictate of the lowest price. Today, the vast majority of architectural competitions are public investments. I will therefore focus on them. In social terms, we (we architects) point out that this is the best way for high-quality architecture to emerge. We see this as an opportunity, among other things, to get a decent salary for the project and to improve the image of architects in society.
It is important to note the activities of the Association of Polish Architects, the Chamber of Architects of Poland and architecture-related NGOs. This promotion is indeed carried out, both at the central and local levels. Through consultations of legal acts, festivals, conferences, as well as direct lobbying of institutions. In our Szczecin branch, for example, virtually every one of the thirteen Westivali (a cyclical architecture festival) to date has addressed these issues. Its ninth edition in 2015 - "Winning Szczecin" - was devoted entirely to competitions (westival.pl). As a result of these activities, in the last fifteen years in Szczecin, as a result of competitions, more than a dozen of the most important cultural, scientific and sports facilities have been built or are under construction. This includes the internationally recognized and award-winning buildings of the Szczecin Philharmonic and the "Przełomy" Dialogue Center; several more are in the pipeline. And this is only a regional slice of the nationwide competition cake. The cherries on it are practically all the most important architectural buildings of the 21st century. At the same time, according to a report by the President of the Public Procurement Office, there were only fifty-seven in 2019. So success, but not quite yet.
Especially since in the pursuit of quantity, unfortunately, we often agree to dangerous compromises with the procurers. In this way, we have allowed toxic standards of our work to become entrenched. I consciously write "we", because in the preparation of competitions practically always someone from among us - architects - participates. Despite this, in the vast majority of competitions, as participants we are exposed to the consequences of very unfavorable or even dangerous provisions of the regulations and contracts: costly scopes of competition work, liability for an unrealistic investment budget, loss of property subsidiary rights in the price of the award, clarification of the final scope of work or the need to contribute performance bond. And these are just a few of a long list of competition sins. On top of that, there is usually a small number of financially rewarded works, and thus a greater risk of start-ups having to subsidize the business. So even if we consider the increase in the number of competitions to be some kind of success for architecture, it is unfortunately not at the same time a success for architects.
The public interest, that is, whose interest?
The point is not to lament here now, but to try to identify the sources of this aberration. One of them is a provident understanding of the public interest. Practice shows that the priority in spending public funds is short-term budget savings and protecting institutions (read: people representing them) from any liability in case of problems that usually arise. In short: shift the risk to the contractor, contract on short notice and at a low price, charge penalties, settle doubts in court. We know this all too well. This policy is particularly inappropriate and counterproductive for projects in the creative industries. Here, an expense that is consistent with the public interest should be one that yields solutions that are innovative and optimized in terms of long-term economics of implementation and maintenance. Meanwhile, the public procurement conditions signaled below often do not provide opportunities for their emergence. Taking a broader view, it is also in the public interest to see the development and economic success of local specialized companies. It is what stimulates the development of the local economy.
This problem applies equally strongly to competitions. What's after competing on quality when the winner "as a reward" gets the right to voluntarily shackle himself to unrealistic budgets, extreme deadlines and contractual penalties that threaten bankruptcy. In environmental discussions, these topics are by no means new. An interesting analysis of this problem was conducted and published in 2018 by the Malopolska Chamber of Architects. The SARP, after lengthy discussions, enacted new Regulations for SARP Competition Judges and Architectural and Urban Design Competitions in 2019. Reports from many SARP chapters paint a picture of endless battles with contracting authorities over safe provisions in bylaws and contracts. In the face of the ever-dominant market position of procurers, it is hard for contractors to break through with their demands, especially since the ruling line of the National Board of Appeals can be summarized as follows: "if you don't like the conditions, don't compete."
crisis - a time to look for solutions
Special circumstances open up special opportunities. The state of epidemiological emergency and the specter of a global crisis cause politicians at all levels to declare their willingness to support entrepreneurs. It is a rare situation when political interests may require consideration of the interests of the architectural community.
Under these circumstances, the Szczecin branch of SARP has come up with an idea to propose to local government officials to implement a special package of support for the creative industry. It is to consist in the introduction of solutions to improve the conditions for the implementation of public procurement in these industries. It is worth noting that this solution does not include any financial support. The assistance is to take into account the specifics of the industries and reduce unreasonable costs and risks. The program, which is under development, envisages dividing the solutions into two groups: preparation of investment assumptions and investment implementation principles.
The first includes: professional preparation of the scope of the contract (so that it is unambiguous and specific), provision of the necessary data for pricing, selection of the mode of procurement, maximization of non-financial (and non-terminal) evaluation criteria, length of time of recognized experience. The second is mainly concerned with the provisions of the contract, in particular: performance security, the scope and timing of the sale of copyrights, the mode of acceptance of documentation, the scope and duration of the warranty and guarantee, the scope and duration of author's supervision, the general symmetry of the provisions of the contract.
An important element of the document's assumptions is the indication of specific solutions with an indication of their benefits, both for the contractor and the ordering party. To avoid accusations of incompatibility of the postulates with the PPL, an experienced law firm was invited to participate in the preparation of the document. An important element of the program is the inclusion of significant changes for our industry in the new Public Procurement Law coming into force in 2021. Another idea of this proposal is the desire to develop it in cooperation with communities representing other areas of the so-called creative industries, which could increase its clout.
In the context of the activities undertaken in connection with Covid-19, the actions of the IARP National Council are also worth noting. It has addressed demands to the Ministry of Development related to the requirements of the Public Procurement Law, including the abolition of requirements for adequate contract security.
The project I initiated is still in development, but I decided to share its idea. Those interested are invited to contact me. I believe that actions that can shape favorable standards are worth taking locally, especially now, in view of such important changes introduced by the new Law on Public Procurement. Elimination of the possibility of procurement of "architecture" by open tender and the obligation to organize architectural competitions for contracts with a value above the so-called EU thresholds are just the main slogans of the changes. I encourage you to learn more about them, they are raised in his text by Piotr Mazuro, a lawyer cooperating on the project. The entry into force of new regulations gives a chance to develop new standards. Therefore - as architects - we must try to use this opportunity actively.
Tomasz MAKSYMIUK
The September issue of A&B was devoted to architectural competitions in Poland. You can find the freee-issue here.
