Public contracting authorities do not trust architectural competitions

Petr Pinkas: Memorial of aviator Jan Kašpar in Pardubice (1st prize in the art and architecture competition)

According to the Bulletin of Public Procurement published by the Ministry of Regional Development, the investment volume of public construction contracts from January to August of this year amounted to nearly 71 billion crowns. During the same period, only 23 design competitions were held, selecting designers for public construction contracts with an investment amount of 0.7 billion crowns. Thus, contracting authorities resorted to this transparent and verified method for only about 1% of the intended investment costs. This comparison clearly indicates that contracting authorities have not yet discovered the advantages of design competitions and all the possibilities they offer.

At the end of 2012, the Czech Chamber of Architects (ČKA) issued a pleasing press release informing that last year saw the highest number of architectural competitions in the history of the Czech Republic. There were a total of three dozen, and ČKA perceived this number as a sign that public contracting authorities are increasingly relying on architectural competitions. However, when comparing the total volume of planned investments in public construction contracts and investments awarded based on design competitions, the figures do not appear as positive.

While the total investment volume for the first eight months of this year stands at nearly 71 billion crowns, the volume of investments covered by design competitions under the Public Procurement Act during the same period was only 0.7 billion crowns. "This comparison shows that architectural competitions address less than 1% of the volume of public construction investments. The design competition, despite its transparency and cost-effectiveness, remains a significantly undervalued method of awarding construction contracts," states Petr Lešek, chairman of the ČKA Working Group for Competitions.
During the mentioned period, a total of 23 competitions were announced in the Czech Republic.

Despite the fact that according to CEEC Research analysis the investment volume of contracts decreased by nearly 28% year-on-year compared to the same period last year (January to September 2012), the number of awarded contracts increased by 33%. This inverse proportion between the volume of investments and the number of contracts is partly due to the reduction of the threshold for below-limit public contracts for construction works from 6 million to 3 million crowns as of April 2012 with the effect of the amendment to the Public Procurement Act. Thus, during a time of financial uncertainty, contracting authorities likely prefer smaller construction contracts over large construction projects.

Pressure for frugality at all costs plays a role here, regardless of the technical quality of execution. Caution is, however, warranted especially in the case of public buildings. These should be perceived by society as a meaningful tool for shaping the public environment and should also serve as a primary indicator of the architectural and urban quality of our cities and municipalities. Moreover, these buildings are not constructed for short-term or several-year profit, but rather, they are meant to serve for as long as possible with minimal operating costs. Contracting authorities must also consider the fact that public buildings always set an example and significantly, albeit indirectly, influence the nature of private investments. The benchmark should therefore not be low and these buildings underfunded.

Evaluating a building solely based on cost does not yield a quality and satisfactory result. Therefore, placing too much trust in commercial tenders may not be beneficial for contracting authorities. Unlike an architectural competition, they do not gain the opportunity to compare several specific solutions and select the most suitable one. The lowest price for a project can also turn out to be more expensive, because it often does not account for operating costs, which represent a significant item in the construction budget, and in the case of long-term operated public buildings, even an item that exceeds the construction costs by multiples.

Year	Competitions	Exhibitions	Student	Total
1993	8	0	0	8
1994	6	0	0	6
1995	18	0	0	18
1996	31	0	0	31
1997	30	0	0	30
1998	18	0	0	18
1999	22	3	1	26
2000	19	1	1	21
2001	20	1	1	22
2002	14	5	2	21
2003	12	2	1	15
2004	12	2	1	15
2005	14	4	3	21
2006	12	5	3	20
2007	20	7	4	31
2008	14	4	3	21
2009	23	3	6	32
2010	16	4	5	25
2011	15	2	6	23
2012	27	4	4	35
2013	29	1	7	37