Elaine Knutt, editor
The Performance Gap has become such an accepted feature of the industry’s landscape that it’s hardly surprising there hasn’t been much interest in mapping its contours recently.
The team behind the £8m government-backed Building Performance Evaluation review has tackled a subject that’s not likely to be the subject of much tub-thumping: its outcomes are too familiar, its potential solutions too hard to grasp, its root causes too multi-faceted.
Readers of Construction Manager will be familiar with the ad hoc decisions on site that compromise thermal integrity, or the lack of linkage between critical subcontractor packages, or the temptation to install complex ventilation or renewable systems that ought to deliver carbon cuts but instead deliver ongoing maintenance costs and headaches for users.
So no one is surprised at the findings of the BPE research, which uncovered yawning performance gaps. But what was surprising was the degree of unanimity Construction Manager encountered over the need to address the regulatory system that guides project team behaviour. Put simply, it’s not working and needs review.
Read related articles
While there are arguments to be had over the level of aspiration enshrined in Part L, there’s little doubt that even the document we have is not proving effective in terms of the as-built building and operational performance.
With Part L compliance happening too early in the process, and enforcement notices over non-compliance never used in practice, there is not enough carrot or stick in the system to keep project teams on track.
And regulatory control stops as soon as Building Control signs off the completion certificate, which may be long before the building is occupied. While some in the industry are talking of “stretching” practical completion to allow for a greater degree of commissioning, tuning and energy monitoring within the contract period, for the moment it’s only talk.
Occupiers’ and residents’ contribution to the performance gap is, of course, well-documented, and is evident in the BPE reports. But property companies, commercial occupiers, home-buyers or renters would no doubt feel that they have acquired the rights to a smoothly-functioning building when they signed the lease or sale agreement.
To blame the occupier is to blame the customer, and what successful industry does that?
So why haven’t we yet evolved forms of contract that protect the end-users and occupiers, that commit the contractor and design team to the energy performance they promised, and indeed guarantee that new buildings will play their part in cutting carbon emissions?
Because the structure of the industry, with its siloed responsibilities and liabilities, makes it hard to achieve. We need new thinking, a challenge to “business as usual”. You could say we need a leap of faith. Or, as the Dutch would have it, an Energiesprong. Let’s hope it gets off the ground.
Elaine Knutt, editor
