The rules andregulations of the ongoing competition organized by the State Treasury and the State Forests National Forest Holding for an architectural concept for the construction of an office building for the Człuchów Forest District, along with accompanying infrastructure, raise doubts in the Council of the Pomeranian District Chamber of Architects of the Republic of Poland. The Council has issued a letter with comments on the rules and regulations, hoping that the organizers will refine their content.
The purpose of the ongoing competition is to obtain the most advantageous, in terms of functionality and space, architectural concept for the office building facility. The organizers expect modern functional and architectural solutions, taking into account ecological and economic considerations at the stage of use. The presented concept should show modern, future-oriented solutions, but at the same time realistic for implementation.
However, the regulations of the competition raise doubts of the Council of the Pomeranian District Chamber of Architects of the Republic of Poland.
comments on the regulations
Below we publish the content of the letter addressed to the organizers of the competition by Bartosz Macikowski, IARP architect, Chairman of the Council of the Pomeranian District Chamber of Architects of the Republic of Poland.
The Pomeranian District Chamber of Architects welcomed the news about the organization of the competition for the development of the concept of the office building of the Człuchów Forest District. The activities of the professional body of architects promote the method of procurement of design services, in which the selection of the contractor is made through an architectural competition. We represent the view that the terms and conditions of the competition should be objective, and its regulations should be clear and not raise doubts about the principles of selecting the best competition work.
Having analyzed the terms and conditions of the competition, the regulations and the model contract, we, as the Professional Self-Government, are obliged to submit our comments on the proceedings:
- Unclearly worded is para. 4.5.2., when the assignment of works by the Competition Jury takes place, it should be added: "after their evaluation and selection of the awarded works".
- Chapter 5. lacks basic background material. In particular, there is no information on whether a Local Land Use Plan [MPZT] has been adopted for the site on which the building is to be designed, or a Decision of Location of Public Purpose [DLCP] or a Decision of Conditions of Development [DWZ] has been issued. The recalled information on regulations under the Spatial Planning Law should be obligatorily fulfilled by the participants. This makes it possible to select a REAL work for implementation and a worthwhile architectural and construction concept. Similarly, a flaw in the regulations is the failure to include geological studies of the ground in the competition regulations. This causes that the assumptions and spatial dispositions adopted in the competition work selected for implementation may be unrealistic. Dispositions in the investment program regarding the designed garage and utility building (item 5.4.20) should also be clarified by indicating what type of vehicles it will be used for and what operations will be performed in it. Clarification is also required as to what economic functions the referenced building is to serve. The program does not describe what method of communication links (paragraph 5.4.3.) the Employer requires.
- The wording of para. 5.5. is unclear quote: "The concept should take into account all elements of infrastructure necessary for the operation of the office building in accordance with the applicable legal regulations." The infrastructure elements of the facility are largely a result of the requirements of the Employer. Such a provision of the Regulations means that the work in this area will not be objectively comparable.
- The effect that the Contracting Authority has specified in para. 5.7 quote: "The purpose of the Competition is to obtain the most advantageous, in terms of functionality and space, architectural concept for the object covered by the Competition. The Employer expects modern functional and architectural solutions, taking into account ecological and economic considerations at the stage of use. The presented concept should show modern, future-oriented solutions, but at the same time realistic for implementation. The competition works submitted by the Participants will be evaluated by an independent, professional Competition Jury, which will select the best works on the basis of the criteria for evaluation of works specified in Chapter 8, item 8.4 of the Regulations and decide on the awarding of prizes." Is questionable and unrealistic to achieve due to the lack of obligation for the competition works to meet the requirements of the zoning regulations. (No information on MPZT, DLCP or DWZ).
- The estimated value of the design work in the amount of PLN 270,000.00 is incorrectly estimated and inconsistent with the Decree of the Minister of Development and Technology of December 20, 2021 on determining the methods and bases for preparing the investor's cost estimate, calculating the planned costs of design work and the planned costs of construction works specified in the functional-utility program. (D. U. 2021.2458). We suggest checking the estimation of the value of the contracted service.
- In para. 6.4. 1) and para. 18.104.22.168 Defectively set conditions: quote: "The eligibility requirements will be considered fulfilled if the Competitor demonstrates that it has: 1) at least one person with an architectural degree in the field of architecture or architecture and urban planning, with a master's degree in architecture or architectural engineering." Determination of the cited condition in its current form, due to the fact that the competition is a form of selecting the contractor for the service in accordance with the provisions of the Public Procurement Law, violates Art. 12.par. 1 pt.1), and Art. 91. pt. 2 of the Act of 07.07.1994 Construction Law (i.e. D. U. 2021.2351. with amendments). In the opinion of the Chamber, leaving aside the violation of the criminal provisions of the Act with such a provision, the parameter of ensuring the reality of the implementation of the selected work is guaranteed only by the participation in the design team of an architect who has statutory rights without limitations in the architectural specialty, who has adequate professional liability insurance and who is a member of the Chamber of Architects, guarding the proper and ethical practice of the profession.
- The provision of para. 6.4. 2) quote: "...2) at least three persons with a total of three construction authorizations to design in the specializations required by applicable laws, i.e..: design construction authorizations in industries: construction authorizations in the field of construction and civil engineering without limitations, construction authorizations in the field of road engineering without limitations, construction authorizations in the field of installation in the field of networks, installations and telecommunications equipment without limitations, construction authorizations in the field of installation in the field of networks, installations andheat, ventilation, gas, water supply and sewage equipment without limitations, construction authorization in installation specialty in the field of networks, installations and electrical and electric power equipment without limitations" should be rewritten, as it suggests that each of the three persons should have all the authorizations, which is obviously unlikely.
- The provision in para. 7.3.1. quote: "The Contracting Authority may change the content of the Competition Regulations only in justified cases before the deadline for submission of the competition works. Changing the content of the Competition Regulations after the deadline for submission of the competition works, is inadmissible, unless it concerns changing the composition of the jury. " does not ensure equal competition between the participants of the competition and deprives them of the possibility to obtain additional explanations of the changes introduced to the regulations. We suggest the notation "after the expiration of the period obliging the Contracting Authority to provide clarifications to the Rules of Competition".
- The provision in para. 7.4.1 of the Regulations quotes: "In case the explanations of the competition participant can summon the Competition Participant for clarification." violates the principles of equal competition of the contest participants, by treating the contest participants unequally. Causes that some contest participants will have the opportunity to "convince" or advertise their concept, while others are deprived of this. Is in contradiction with para. 7.4.2
- The provision in para. 8.1.1 is unclear and requires clarification of who the Employer means by participant. Is it a business entity, and is it an architect, the author of another work, who may be in another or multiple competition teams.
- The scope of the criteria for the competition works (paragraph 8.1.5.) does not oblige the competition participant to present projections and cross-sections of the designed buildings. Building projections and cross-sections are the basic element defining the correctness of the object's function and allowing to assess architectural qualities. The provision disqualifies objective and substantive evaluation of competition works. Causes the impossibility of verifying the real implementation of the selected work in reality. It is in fundamental contradiction with para. 22.214.171.124., para. 126.96.36.199.
- The provision in para. 12.5 quote: "The Participant of the competition, agrees to use the Competition Work in whole or in part exclusively for drawing up the design documentation for the task Drawing up the design documentation for the construction of the office building of the Człuchów Forestry Commission with the accompanying infrastructure%" is incomprehensible and/or extremely unfavorable to the participants of the competition. The Contracting Authority, deciding to award only one prize and resigning from the prizes in the form of distinctions, requires that also the authors of non-awarded works, transfer to the Contracting Authority the copyright to their works in the scope of their use in the preparation of the design documentation and the realized building. The provision raises ethical and legal questions.
- In para. 13.2, the Contracting Authority stipulates that only the awarded work will be made available to the public. In the opinion of the Chamber of Architects, abandoning the exhibition of all works participating in the competition lowers the interest and rank of the competition. It also deprives it of its social aspect and contradicts the described selection of work in para. 5.7 of the regulations.
- The clarification should be made in para. 16.1.3. of the regulations. The current provisions do not cease to the currently required form of project documentation separating the Land Development Design, Architectural Design and Technical Design.
We hope that the comments made will contribute to the refinement of the competition regulations. They will make it possible to formulate competition conditions that ensure equal competition among the participants of the proceedings and objective evaluation of the competition works.We offer our experience in case of doubts in the formulation of competition requirements. This opinion does not refer to the contract template proposed by the Ordering Party as an attachment to the competition regulations. We represent the view that the participants of the competition, as economic entities, have the economic freedom to shape their relations," concludes Bartosz Macikowski, Chairman of the Council of the Pomeranian Regional Chamber of Architects of the Republic of Poland, in the letter.