Risk under performance-based contracting in the UK construction sector

As a method of procuring the services of the built environment, performance-based contracting (PBC) seeks to link the building supplier to longer term commitments than has traditionally been the case in the construction sector. By rewarding the building producer according to the way that building or structure delivers the users' requirements, rather than according to a list of assembled parts, a number of additional risks are taken by contractors, including fitness for purpose, costs and briefing. The extent to which contractors recognize these risks and their methods of dealing with them vary considerably and are influenced by their attitudes towards risk. As the risks associated with PBC are seen as large, uninsurable, and vulnerable to changing client requirements, the majority of respondents would reject the use of PBC as a method of contracting. Nevertheless, PBC may be used under particular conditions, where rewards are deemed sufficient to compensate for the additional risk to the contractor of undertaking work on the basis of a stream of payments paid over the life of a structure depending on the satisfactory performance of the building or as part of a private finance initiative.

Labour and Low Energy Buildings: the energy performance gap as Social Practice

Buildings are responsible for approximately 30% of EU end-use emissions (Bettgenhäuser , et al, 2009) and are at the forefront of efforts to meet emissions targets arising from their design, construction and operation. For the first time in its history, construction industry outputs must meet specific energy targets if planned reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are to be achieved through nearly zero energy buildings (nZEB) (EC, 2010) supported by on-site renewable heat and power. Where individual UK dwellings have been tested before occupation to assess whether they meet energy design criteria, the results indicate what is described as an ‘energy performance gap’, that is, energy use is almost always more than that specified. This leads to the conclusion that the performance gap is, inter alia, a function of the labour process and thus a function of social practice. Social practice theory, based on Schatzki’s model (2002), is utilised to explore the performance gap as a result of the changes demanded in the social practice of building initiated by new energy efficiency rules. The paper aims to open a discussion where failure in technical performance is addressed as a social phenomenon.