The design team, Gustafson Porter (GP), state on their website that they are ‘familiar with a wide range of working methods and best practice.’ They describe one of their core strengths as being ‘the ability to deliver high-quality design on prestigious projects, in successful, close relationship with our clients, on time and within budgets.’
At the initial stage of the selection procedure GP would have been asked to ‘describe their attitude towards teamworking’ (from The Royal Parks memo 27/7/01, revised proposal for the design team competition). In the design team interviews, as part of the process of evaluation GP would have been asked about their workload and ability to complete the project to the deadline, the structure and resources of their team and details of the experience of senior personnel responsible for the project.
In the scoring of the three top design teams by the Fountain Design Committee, the quality of key personnel in GP was given the equal highest score with another design team. GP had the highest score in the ‘ability to deliver to programme’ category.
GP expressed their concern about lack of co-ordination between the various parties involved in the contract. For example, GP noted (in a minuted meeting on 18/3/05) that contactors were not working from the latest drawings but from the drawing issued with the tender.
A lot of the subsequent revisions were associated with unexpected visitor numbers and behaviours. GP have presumably refined how they analyse how a construction will be utilised. There were delays caused by the design’s interface with drainage and this level of detailing is likely to have been improved by GP. They had difficulties finding a sub-contractor with the financial credentials to satisfy the appointment procedure. GP are likely to have improved their list of viable sub-contractors.
The re-sculpting of the landform by GP in 2005 resulted in further additional cost and delay. From the minutes of meetings it is apparent that there was a tension between GP wanting to achieve a high quality finished product and budgetary and time constraints that are the main considerations of other parties. For example, with regard to the hardstanding chamber covers, GP wanted to use bespoke expensive covers whereas The Royal Parks favoured a cheaper alternative and re-using an old cover.
The report prepared by EC Harris, built asset consultants, states that ‘serious shortcomings in the original design’ were highlighted in a review for The Royal Parks (TRP). The fountain design was complex and its scale and scope exceeded the original strategic brief. They assert that GP were appointed on the basis of their concept design and not on the basis of design services, as had been the original intention. This resulted in the capacity to develop the concept to meet the brief being severely curtailed. GP, it says, were ‘challenged by the detailed design of the Fountain’ as in order to facilitate the stone cutting they had to produce CNC design files. The lack of clear project ownership, leadership and management may explain why, when TRP tried to constrain costs, GP appealed directly to DCMS.
The City of Westminster has instituted a 10 Year Principle whereby no decision on a memorial will be made until at least 10 years after the death as decisions made too soon after an event ‘can lead to the emotional investment in the subject over-riding issues of aesthetic design or good planning.’ It may well be the case that the GP design team would be similarly wary.
Location
