好色先生TV

There鈥檚 always a reason

Your story 鈥溾��, (10 October, www.building.co.uk) does not record the reasons given by QSs for their criticism of BIM. I am sure there is good reason.
QSs have to rely on the QS software providers to develop BIM-compatible capability into their established packages. This is not happening fast enough and as usual in the IT industry there are too many fingers in the pie causing too much diversity when standardisation is required, with no one party seeming to be able to take the lead and produce a complete and seamless model.

The two main problems with BIM are:

• Who will take ownership of a project鈥檚 BIM model: client, contractor or lead consultant? The legalities must be made clear.
• The procurement process demands standardisation of methods of measurement, specifications and so on in order for accurate pricing by cost planners and contractors.

QSs are all for using BIM at the earliest opportunity. The above two critical factors should have been addressed from the outset but remain unresolved. Maybe if leading
QSs had been consulted from the outset these two critical factors could already have been fully resolved.

Arthur George Bradley, via www.building.co.uk

QSs love BIM, honest

Far from rejecting BIM, at Faithful+Gould we are embracing it. We operate in the United States where BIM has been increasingly adopted over a number of years. This has given us a head-start in introducing BIM into our UK offices.

The lead for BIM must come from elsewhere in the supply chain - typically the client or architect. However, we are sharing our enthusiasm for BIM with our clients frequently and continuing to invest in our systems, processes and training to ensure that we can help our clients benefit from the advantages BIM can bring to a project.

As Arthur correctly identifies (above), work is required to improve software, and to develop protocols and standards - we are engaging positively with suppliers and industry bodies to achieve this.

Adrian Malone, via www.building.co.uk

Say it like is

Regarding Tony Bingham鈥檚 article 鈥溾�� (7 October, page 58), three cheers for a lawyer telling it like it really is. Anyone with three working brain cells knows that adjudication has been taken way too far in terms of its original remit. Unfortunately the government has missed an opportunity to make matters simpler instead of the pig鈥檚 ear we presently have.

H Mooney, via www.building.co.uk

Here鈥檚 to the pier

Your story 鈥溾�� (10 October, building.co.uk), is great news. I am involved with the enhancement of the sixties civic centre in Southend and enjoy putting something back. The pier has history and it is encouraging to see that the people running our town feel the same. It is important this regeneration continues and branches out to other areas.

Phil Perry, via www.building.co.uk