Thinking Note from the editor: The launch of the third edition of Thinking Space Fit Out for the future Making the sums add up Different deal structures offer universities new ways to fund development A home from home Focus on what you want to achieve from the process, says Queen Mary’s Stephen Wells How to choose a procurement route Selecting the contract strategy Focused on flexibility Ramphal Building, University of Warwick Contents Contributors: Berman Guedes Stretton Chris Hale, Business Director Currie and Brown Marcus Lyon, Director Imperial College London Jane Neary, Director of Campus Services Morgan Sindall Investments James Williams-Ellis, Higher Education Development Manager Overbury Oliver Ridley, Environment Manager Tim Smith, Commercial Director Queen Mary, University of London Stephen Wells, Director of Estates and Facilities RBS Stewart Ward, Head of Education Sector University of Warwick Dr Nicholas Monk, Institute for Advanced Teaching and Learning Production team: Editors: Karen Bewick, Emma Keyse, Overbury Copywriter: Matthew Blackbourn, Polon Designer: Roc Spring 2013 | Issue #3 Note from the editor 01 Note from the editor: The launch of the third edition of Thinking Space Overbury’s business magazine for the Higher Education estates and property community, gives me the opportunity to introduce myself as the new Managing Director of Overbury Education. In recent weeks I’ve had the chance to meet with a number of you in the sector and have enjoyed hearing your thoughts and ideas on the challenges and opportunities for Higher Education in the UK. I look forward to meeting with many more of you over the coming months. This issue of Thinking Space seeks to address some of the key themes emerging from those discussions, and looks at how university estates can evolve to meet the demands of an increasingly commercial environment. We talk to Tim Robinson, RICS Director of Information Products about a new environmental fit out assessment to help universities ensure development projects meet the sustainability expectations of current and future generations. We look at alternative ways to fund development, speaking with financial services experts including the Head of RBS’ Education Sector, and we consider the type of development required to meet the accommodation needs of today’s financially conscious student. Finally, we discuss the different procurement and contract options available to Higher Education institutions, particularly the pros and cons of opting out of OJEU for those able to do so. Our contributors to this edition share their expert views on just a few of the influences impacting Higher Education estates. I hope you enjoy reading this edition and find the content valuable. If you have any feedback or suggestions for future themes we’d love to hear from you at [email protected] Bob Banister Managing Director, Overbury Education 02 Fit Out for the future Fit Out for the future Overbury is working with RICS on a new environmental fit out assessment to help universities ensure their buildings are fit for future generations Recently featured in the UK Government’s Low Carbon Action Plan, Ska Rating is an environmental assessment method, benchmark and standard for non-domestic fit outs. It’s led and owned by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). Ska helps landlords and tenants assess fit out projects against a set of sustainability good practice criteria. It helps organisations make informed decisions about fit out projects in the context of the growing importance of sustainability and increasing legislation. Assessment for office and retail fit outs are already up and running. There are 500 projects currently registered for Ska certification in the UK, with 418 of them for offices and 82 for retail. Having achieved the UK’s first Ska Gold rated project for RWE npower, Overbury has partnered with RICS to lend its expertise to developing a Ska assessment specifically for higher education. In issue two of Thinking Space, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Spring 2013 | Issue #3 launched a call to action asking the higher education community to get involved in a new Ska environmental assessment method aimed specifically at universities. Since then, Overbury has acted as a development partner for the initiative – providing technical advice and hosting AUDE Sustainability Group round tables bringing together universities from across the country. At the seminars, delegates heard Tim Robinson, RICS Director of Information Products, talk about the first two universities to pilot Ska in higher education. ‘University College London is applying the method on ten projects and has even developed a custom laboratory module based on Ska,’ explains Robinson. ‘And City University London is working with an existing version of Ska developed for office fit outs.’ ‘The feedback from the pilots is that Ska offers a low-cost, simple and structured approach. Neither City nor UCL feel that Ska has added capital cost and both believe that it has encouraged operating savings. They also felt it can be an effective 03 ‘The feedback from the pilots is that Ska offers a low-cost, simple and structured approach.’ 04 Fit Out for the future means of educating suppliers on university requirements.’ ‘UCL found that not only that there was no extra project cost, but also that Ska should actually help the university save money. For example, the pilot highlighted the potential for reducing costs by using thermostatic valves on radiators and these are now standard for all refurbishments.’ With the University of Liverpool also using the approach, Robinson believes the pilots show there’s an appetite for Ska. ‘I think there’s potential for it to become embedded across all the major universities very quickly,’ he says. ‘A Ska scheme specific to higher education will be based on that for offices but could include extra criteria for labs, lecture theatres, libraries and other facilities.’ To those who wonder whether the industry needs another green accreditation system, Robinson has a simple answer: ‘Anyone who’s tried to use BREEAM for Education on a minor refurbishment or fit out project will have found that for this type of project it’s relatively expensive and not really designed to do what they need it to do. Ska will plug this gap in the market.’ ‘It’s about what you can do now on the project in front of you,’ Robinson continues. ‘The base building might be beyond your control, but Ska gives you a fast and flexible framework for taking decisions that can make a real difference to the fit out. This might be relatively low impact but there are thousands of these projects going on at any time around the world and at the moment there’s no framework for capturing this and making improvements.’ Robinson also believes that an assessment focussed on fit outs reflects universities’ current priorities: ‘Ska is about aiding the improvement of existing building stock and that’s where most universities are putting their effort at the moment, rather than expensive brand-new building projects.’ Overbury’s Environment Manager, Oliver Ridley, agrees that there is a demand for a more flexible approach to assessing fit outs. ‘Because fit out projects often need to be completed in the holidays, the deadlines are very tight,’ he explains. ‘And budgets are very constrained. So when I’ve spoken to people in the higher education sector about a more flexible approach to rating fit outs, they’ve certainly been interested.’ ‘Developing Ska for education could play a fundamental part in shaping higher education spaces of the future in a way that meets budgetary and programme constraints faced by universities in the present. Overbury is fully supportive of the RICS in getting this tool to market, as it provides the client with so much flexibility, yet still delivers the same output as other assessment methods, which is improving the environmental performance of floor space. As Tim Robinson says, it Spring 2013 | Issue #3 ‘It’s about what you can do now on the project in front of you.’ bridges that gap between what already exists and what is in demand.’ With other providers potentially keen to meet this demand too, Robinson says RICS would like to build on the global potential for Ska. ‘RICS is a global organisation so we don’t see the future for Ska as linking up with one national building system provider, but rather linking up with multiple systems,’ he says. ‘Ultimately, we’d like to build a bridge between Ska, LEED, BREEAM, Green Star, DGMB and all the other national building rating systems.’ In the meantime, the institution is keen to get push ahead with Ska for higher education. ‘To capitalise on Ska’s potential for higher education, RICS requires modest funding to develop the assessment method,’ says Robinson. ‘So we’re actively seeking further development partners including funding bodies, education associations, consultancies and contractors.’ Anyone interested in supporting Ska for higher education should contact RICS at [email protected] for more information on how to get involved. Environmental case study Environmental case study: Faraday Complex, Lancaster University Overbury’s work at Lancaster University shows what’s possible when it comes to making a fit out green – and includes the kind of measures a Ska assessment for higher education would look to cover. At Lancaster, Overbury delivered a new lecture theatre complex for the university. The project, featured five lecture theatres, common areas and toilet facilities. As well as ensuring all timber used in the build was FSC certified and choosing paints with low levels of VOCs, the Overbury team adapted the design and reused elements to boost environmental credentials and save money. For example, the existing ductwork was cleaned and adapted for use as part of the ventilation strategy, rather than simply installing new ductwork throughout. Similarly, instead of ripping out and replacing the old toilets and washbasins, Overbury stripped them all out, cleaned and reinstalled them. Specialist contractors removed all waste from site, after it was separated into designated bins. Over 75% of all waste from site was recycled. With the project squeezed into a 12-week contract with a two-week run-in, students at the Faraday Complex were sitting down to lectures just two hours after Overbury had completed the project. 05 06 Making the sums add up ‘It’s about tailoring the solution to the individual Institution enabling them to achieve their strategic objectives.’ Making the sums add up Different deal structures offer universities new ways to fund development ‘There’s a lot of upheaval and uncertainty facing the higher education sector, and a lot of work going on to align estate strategies with academic and corporate visions. With funding being squeezed there’s potential to make use of mechanisms that don’t just rely on cash.’ Williams-Ellis believes that the sort of deal structures employed by other private and public sector estate holders – such as using land assets instead of cash to fund projects – are readily applicable and transferable to the higher education sector. Indeed, he points out that some of these deals already involve universities. ‘In one of our local asset backed vehicle (LABV) joint ventures with a local authority, a nearby university needed additional student accommodation,’ Williams-Ellis explains. ‘So we are negotiating to provide nearly 400 student beds on one of the sites included in this LABV.’ ‘Other universities are looking seriously at this sort of option. I know one university recently announced that it is acquiring a Spring 2013 | Issue #3 ‘With funding being squeezed there’s potential to make use of mechanisms that don’t rely just on cash.’ large new site and as part of that deal is looking at its entire estates strategy. I’d expect that to involve rationalising current facilities, which creates an opportunity to use surplus land assets to fund new development.’ Crucially, says Williams-Ellis, these sorts of deal structures offer the flexibility that estates directors need: ‘What we tend to find is that although the original starting point might be one of our standard approaches, each project quickly becomes tailored to specific client requirements or localised factors. So, for example, to ensure projects move forward with sufficient momentum we’ll often set up bespoke governance and decision-making processes that suit both joint venture partners.’ ‘This is why it’s essential to involve investment experts at the earliest opportunity,’ he continues. ‘We like to talk to clients early in the process to run through their particular needs. If we have a better understanding of the opportunities and constraints we will be in a good position to Case study ‘It’s a good time to look at the different deal structures available to fund developing higher education estates.’ 07 Case study: Providing 21st century education facilities through partnership working The New North Community School is the result of joint working and partnership between Morgan Sindall Investments (MSIL) and the landowner, the London Borough of Islington. MSIL provided a single point of contact for all the contracts relating to the development. The merger of two schools provided the opportunity for a new build school on the first site. This was funded by residential development on the second site and developing part of the first site for affordable housing. suggest the most appropriate deal structure for them.’ Stewart Ward, Head of Education Sector at RBS, agrees that the time is right for Higher Education Institutions to look at all the available funding options available to them: ‘There are currently numerous opportunities for Universities to raise finance for general corporate purposes and to support capital development and expansion. These can be stand-alone or complimentary to land schemes. It’s about tailoring the solution to the individual Institution enabling them to achieve their strategic objectives. The banking sector has played a key role in Higher Education funding for many years, and as Ward explains: ‘Universities continue to have the ability to work with banks like RBS to raise senior debt at the current prevailing market rates. Generally these facilities will have a legal maturity of 5 - 7 years but we are able to offer longer term amortisation profiles (up to 25 years) so the overall debt service costs still have similar cash flow impacts of a traditional transaction seen up to 2008’. Ward acknowledges however that the structure of such facilities prevents a university from taking advantage of the long dated (20 years plus) fixed rate market. ‘There are a number of ways that Universities can access long dated fixed rate finance that can be matched to the overall life of the assets that they are constructing or financing’, Ward explains. ‘Many universities have already either taken advantage of, or are exploring the opportunities which exist in the Debt Capital Markets. These alternatives to standard bank financing allow Universities to raise finance from £30m upwards, on terms of up to 50 years on an all-in fixed rate basis.’ In Ward’s view this is currently an attractive option as rates are historically low and deal structures can be tailored to each institution with a reasonable amount of inbuilt flexibility. His advice to Universities is to ‘engage with the key banks in the sector, such as RBS, to ensure that all options and alternatives are considered in line with your strategic capital plans over the coming months and years’. MSIL was contracted to build and finance the new school development. When this was complete it received a transfer of the housing site, paid the council for the housing site and was paid by the council for the new school development. An overage mechanism was in place to ensure the council benefitted if the land value increased or if the cost of the development decreased. As a result of this project, the council benefitted from £8.3m of new educational facilities fit for the 21st century with no impact on their capital budget. This type of land swap structure applies equally well to the higher education sector. 08 A home from home A home from home Providing the high-spec accommodation students expect According to the National Union of Students (NUS), 55% of purpose-built student accommodation now has en-suite bathrooms. This, says Jane Neary, Director of Campus Services at Imperial College London, reflects students’ increasing expectations. ‘I think we’ll see a greater and greater demand for a home from home,’ says Neary. ‘Looking back at my own university experience, I had a single bed at home so it was normal to have a single bed at university. Now that’s unusual – many teenagers have a double bed at home and they expect the same in halls. As expectations increase at home, they increase at university too.’ The increase in en-suite accommodation is mirrored by an increase in average weekly rent in London – up 26% to £157.48 since 2009-10, according to the NUS. With rising tuition fees putting pressure on students’ finances, how can universities like Imperial make sure accommodation remains affordable? ‘ We don’t just offer our students one type of accommodation. We’re committed to offering a range of room types, rents and experiences to ensure fair access to good quality housing for all students, regardless of their income background. That’s one of the driving principles behind the redevelopment and expansion of our halls of residence at Wilson House.’ Neary continues ‘from a development perspective en-suite accommodation doesn’t necessarily take up more space so if you’re building from scratch there’s no advantage or disadvantage in terms of footprint to creating en-suite accommodation.’ En-suite rooms are also vital for taking advantage of the summer vacation trade during the university holidays, the profits from which are channelled directly back into supporting the university’s education and research mission, she explains. ‘Our students pay for 39 weeks’ accommodation, because we don’t want to charge them for something they don’t need. And if we’re trying to let our empty rooms in the summer, accommodation without en-suites is much more difficult to sell.’ Spring 2013 | Issue #3 39% of purpose-built student accommodation is now in the private sector (up from just 4% in 2003) If specification and price are key issues for students, then so is sustainability – as Chris Hale, Business Director at Berman Guedes Stretton, explains. His practice works with universities to design student accommodation. ‘At Jesus College, Cambridge we engaged with students about the refurbishment of existing accommodation,’ says Hale. ‘They were really concerned with sustainability. They wanted to know what initiatives we were going to bring in to make it a lower carbon development. So I’d say sustainability is starting to rise up the agenda, although it’s being squeezed by the pressure on budgets.’ This pressure may also see more universities opt to bring in private developers to provide student accommodation. 39% of purpose-built student accommodation is now in the private sector (up from just 4% in 2003), indicating that many universities have already gone down this route. But Neary believes there could be downsides if Imperial were to follow in their footsteps. ‘As a university, providing your own halls of residence means you retain control and can ensure you’re providing a good standard and range of accommodation.’ Case study 09 Case study: Wilson House, Imperial College London Imperial College London is currently refurbishing and expanding its Wilson House student accommodation in Sussex Gardens with help from architect Berman Guedes Stretton and contractors Overbury and Morgan Sindall. Wilson House is a terrace of 22 listed buildings located in a conservation area,that have been converted into student halls of residence by the university. By September 2013, Overbury will have refurbished the terrace and Morgan Sindall will have built a new 78-bedroom student accommodation development on the site where the sports hall and squash courts currently stand. Snapshot Student accommodation There are 460,000 purposebuilt bed spaces currently available in the UK, and around a quarter of these are privately owned. 55% of accommodation is now en-suite, up from 48% in 2009/10. Average weekly rent has gone up 25% since 2009 to £123.96 nationwide. In 2003, 4% of stock was private sector. In 2012, it’s 39%. The private sector is now driving over 75% of all growth in the purpose-built student accommodation sector. What do students want? Feedback from students at Imperial College London suggests that undergraduates are looking for: accommodation within 30 minutes travel time of the campus where they’re studying; en-suite facilities; ‘cluster’ bedrooms; a location close to a main travel hub; and a hall that provides a community feel. Affordable accommodation Jane Neary, Director of Campus Services at Imperial College London, explains that the refurbished building will provide non en-suite accommodation while the new development will house en-suite rooms. ‘Wherever possible we want to ensure we provide affordable accommodation close enough to teaching,’ she explains. ‘Wilson House is a great location, in that it’s a cycle ride across Hyde Park to our South Kensington campus, and it’s also good for our medical campuses.’ Chris Hale, Business Director at Berman Guedes Stretton, believes that refurbishing existing buildings in this way to provide affordable accommodation was a pragmatic choice. ‘For the refurbishment, we worked with the structure of the building rather than trying to squeeze in more accommodation or en-suite facilities,’ he explains. ‘As a result, it should be a simpler build and easier to deliver what the university needs on time. Sometimes, it’s quite radical to do things simply and that’s exactly what Wilson House needed.’ Modular construction to a tight deadline Using a modular system and modern methods of construction for the new-build element of the project reduced the programme by 12 months, explains Neary. ‘Originally we only had 273 bed spaces at Wilson House, so demolishing the back area and using the modular build meant we could create 400 bed spaces in total. Reconfiguring the communal spaces means we’ve also been able to improve the ratio of kitchens and bathrooms to beds. And because it could all be turned around within one year it became a viable proposition at cost per bed space – we couldn’t afford to have it out of action for longer than a year.’ The new build portion of the development is on track to attain a BRE Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) rating of ‘Excellent’ 10 Procurement How to choose a procurement route Focus on what you want to achieve from the process, says Queen Mary’s Stephen Wells Faced with a growing range of options for procuring construction contractors, which route should estates directors choose? ‘I think it’s important to understand what you, as a client, want to get out of the procurement process and how you can best get that,’ says Stephen Wells, the newly appointed Director of Estates and Facilities at Queen Mary, University of London. ‘Your choices need to be based on your institution’s situation,’ he continues. ‘What is your capital programme going to be? What is your plan of work for the coming years? Do you have design expertise available in-house or will you need to appoint consultants? For us, the main drivers of procurement are value for money and the need to deliver the project in a timely manner.’ Wells, who previously held the same role at London South Bank University, points out that higher education institutions may have particular situations they can turn to their advantage: ‘Queen Mary is in the University of London, and that enables us to procure with the other universities in the collegiate system. We’re also co-located with NHS estates, so we’re looking at whether there are opportunities to procure services together.’ Should universities still follow OJEU? The options available to estates directors like Wells have increased because universities with more than 50% private funding are not bound by rules laid down by the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU). So will institutions opt out of following the OJEU process? ‘Queen Mary is one of the universities considering opting out,’ says Wells. ‘However, even if we did pursue this option, we wouldn’t deviate significantly from the OJEU process because it contains best practice elements that you’d want in any procurement process.’ ‘Another advantage of the OJEU process is that it can bring in new contractors or consultants that you would never have heard of otherwise. For the new student centre and enterprise centre at South Bank, we went through the OJEU process specifically because it brought new blood into the system and we appointed a slightly smaller, lesser known architect who did a fantastic job for us.’ Spring 2013 | Issue #3 Frameworks, preferred supplier lists or competitions? While many institutions continue to follow traditional procurement approaches, the use of frameworks appears to be on the increase. ‘From the contracting perspective, we’ve definitely seen an increase in the number of clients preferring to go down a framework route as opposed to a traditional contracting route,’ says Marcus Lyon, Director of construction consultants Currie and Brown. So would Wells consider using a national framework like Scape or a regional framework like iESE? ‘I haven’t personally used iESE or Scape frameworks, although I have used the London Universities Purchasing Consortium framework in the past, he says. ‘The advantage of using a pretendered framework is that you can get the contractor started very quickly. The difficulty is determining whether that would also provide the best value for money.’ ‘I think the debate at the moment is whether you could get better value for money by going to the market for each project and so get a more competitive situation,’ he continues. ‘My concern is that some of these frameworks are quite old and may have been let when costs were higher.’ Lyon believes that preferred supplier lists can offer universities more flexibility than frameworks. ‘National frameworks tend to be dominated by the bigger suppliers,’ he says. ‘With preferred supplier lists, universities can go to smaller companies. These companies may be part of the supply chain under frameworks but the university won’t have as much control over them.’ 11 ‘It’s important to understand what you, as a client, want to get out of the procurement process and how you can best get that.’ Wells also suggests that combining a smaller framework with an element of competition might be a good option. ‘If you have a list of ten contractors on a framework, some of them might never be used. When I was at South Bank, we had four framework contractors and when we had a project to procure we held a mini competition between them.’ Whichever route an institution chooses to procure a project, delivering it successfully still relies to a large extent on people and relationships. ‘Having a long-term arrangement with a contractor enables you ‘Having a long-term arrangement with a contractor enables you to establish a good working relationship and learn lessons from projects.’ to establish a good working relationship and learn lessons from projects,’ says Lyon. ‘You still need to find the right contractor but I believe that a long-term relationship ultimately gives you better service, better quality and better value.’ Wells echoes these comments: ‘Our business is a lot about personalities and when you let a construction contract, you should insist on seeing the people who will actually be doing the work: the site foreman, the site manager. You want to see them during the procurement process to judge whether they’re capable of doing the job for you.’ 12 Selecting the contract strategy Traditional fit out contractual links Contractor Client Architect Selecting the contract strategy Over recent years the Higher Education sector has seen a proliferation of major refurbishment projects as universities seek to attract new students in an increasingly competitive market. Such projects represent a significant capital outlay for institutions already operating under considerable financial pressure, so it is more important than ever to get the job right first time. Yet with so many parties often involved in a major project, from in-house teams to consultants, architects and contractors it Alliance guarantee contractual links Project Manager Quantity Surveyor can be difficult to make sure everyone is pulling in the same direction. ‘Maintaining consistent communication between all parties is one of the biggest challenges of a complex project’, comments Overbury commercial director Tim Smith. Minor design and schedule changes can quickly escalate into much bigger issues if a project team lacks a shared sense of responsibility, focus and trust.’ In the worst cases the breakdown of project relationships can lead to formal disputes and costly litigation, resulting in a negative outcome for everyone involved, not to mention the project owner. So what can universities do to ensure their fit out or refurbishment project stays on track? Client Project board - shared financial pain and gain Spring 2013 | Issue #3 Contractor Project Manager Architect Quantity Surveyor Technical Consultant Technical Consultant ‘Maintaining consistent communication between all parties is one of the biggest challenges of a complex project.’ Case sudy ‘Partnering can be an incredibly effective way of encouraging a project team to work more closely’ says Smith. ‘Existing partnering agreements go some way in building goodwill and trust by getting a commitment from all parties to work together to improve communications and avoid disputes. Nevertheless, most agreements aren’t legally binding so there’s little to discourage project partners from resorting to legal action if things go wrong’. To tackle this problem Overbury has developed its own, innovative form of partnering contract – the Alliance Agreement, tailored to the specific needs of fast track fit out projects and requiring a much stronger, legal commitment from all project parties. The Alliance Agreement requires all parties to commit to a no-blame culture where disputes and issues must be resolved among participants and adjudicated by an Alliance Board. Contract author Tim Smith explains ‘Asking all participants to share in risk and reward equally means it’s in everyone’s interests to resolve issues as quickly as possible. The longer disagreements continue then the smaller the rewards for all.’ Yet what does this mean in practice, particularly when other partnering agreements have failed to encourage true collaboration? According to Smith ‘The key difference with between the Alliance Agreement and other partnering contracts is the fact that the partnership is legally binding. Abandoning the agreement and resorting to the courts is not an option so the advantages of maintaining open, honest relationships with the rest of the project team is obvious to all.’ Overbury completed its first project under an Alliance contract for Macquarie Bank in 2011. A real team effort was needed to meet the challenges of the project in terms of programme, cost and design. Under the Alliance, Macquarie and Overbury had joint ownership of delivery and shared any savings or overspend. The Alliance team was organised into groups based not on the company they belonged to but on the role they played in the project: design, quality, financial or delivery. Every role on the project was filled by the person best placed to deliver and the groups were situated close together to facilitate good communication. The entry cost was agreed as a team and every decision had to be unanimously agreed by the Alliance Board to be in the best interests of the project. Because of the Alliance contract, the new Macquarie workplace was a result that all parties felt they’d worked together to achieve. ‘Asking all participants to share in risk and reward equally means it’s in everyone’s interests to resolve issues as quickly as possible.’ 13 Alliance Principles To adhere to the Alliance Charter; To work together in an innovative manner so as to produce outstanding results in delivering the Works; T o share risk and reward associated with the delivery of the Works. Risks and responsibilities shall be shared and managed collectively by the Participants working in Alliance, rather than allocated to individual Participants; To have a peer relationship where each Participant has an equal say in decisions of the Alliance; T o empower the Management Team to make decisions and take actions under this Alliance Agreement; To ensure that important decisions are made, and processes and systems are adopted, on a Best for Project basis; To provide ‘best-in-class’ resources to the Alliance; T o develop a culture that promotes and drives collaboration, innovation and outstanding performance; To develop a ‘communication culture’ and shall be transparent in all of their dealings with each other. Communication shall be open, straight and honest so as to enable informed decision making by the Alliance; To act reasonably and do all things properly and reasonably within their power that are necessary to give effect to the spirit and intent of this Alliance Agreement; To give due regard to the representations of the Participants and to act reasonably when reaching any decisions including decisions as to the giving or withholding of consent or approval, or when exercising any other discretion pursuant to this Alliance Agreement; T o avoid disputes by adopting a no blame culture. Each Participant shall notify the other Participants in the event of any real or perceived dispute, difference of opinion and/ or conflict of interest immediately that they arise and strive to promptly resolve those disputes, differences and conflicts; If you’d like to know more about the Alliance Agreement contract please do give us a call on 0207 307 9000 To ensure that any documentation prepared by a Participant for the purposes of the Project (and any information, analysis or methodology contained in that documentation) is understood by the other Participants; T o demonstrate ethical and responsible behaviour and to act in compliance with Law at all times. 14 Focus on flexibility Focused on flexibility Ramphal Building, University of Warwick Overbury’s refurbishment of the Ramphal Building saw teaching rooms re-designed so they could be easily reconfigured for different teaching styles and uses The University of Warwick’s Ramphal Building was refurbished in phases to provide open, light, flexible and userfriendly spaces. Overbury worked closely with building users to ensure that work was carried out around pre-existing teaching and conference commitments. Dr Nicholas Monk of the university’s Institute for Advanced Teaching and Learning explains the thinking behind the project: ‘The brief to create physically and metaphorically ‘open’ spaces, in which student-centred learning can flourish, has been balanced by an acknowledgement that much excellent teaching around the university takes place in ‘standard’ room layouts.’ To accommodate standard layouts with rows of desks alongside completely open configurations, Overbury and architect Berman Guedes Stretton put flexibility at the heart of the refurbishment. In the teaching rooms, surplus tables can be stored out of sight behind the timber doors, and chairs stacked at the side of the room. Bespoke furniture in the teaching rooms and on the first floor balcony provides storage for study benches and seating. ‘The re-designed spaces make it possible – using the light, stackable furniture, advanced technical specs and audiovisual equipment storage – to transform the rooms very easily into a multitude of configurations,’ says Dr Monk. ‘The spaces will accommodate the widest possible choice of potential teaching and learning scenarios.’ To encourage an atmosphere that’s conducive to learning, the teaching rooms will be passively ventilated and new windows on internal walls facing the atrium will let in more natural light. Although all the teaching rooms were provided with upgraded AV facilities – with lighting, speakers and projectors integrated into acoustic ceiling rafts – one room was also equipped with high-definition videoconferencing. This ‘international portal’ will enable collaborative teaching with partner universities overseas. Spring 2013 | Issue #3 ‘The spaces will accommodate the widest possible choice of potential teaching and learning scenarios.’ As part of the project, Overbury also refreshed the Ramphal Building’s public areas to create friendly, attractive areas for students and staff. The whole project took just 16 weeks and was completed in time for the new academic year in September 2012. Project highlights The project demanded that Overbury worked with Cosmic Wallpaper by Simon Patterson, the University’s iconic work of art that sits on the curved wall of the building’s lecture theatre. Project highlights Upgraded acoustics, including underlay and acoustic dampers Upgraded lighting Upgraded AV Upgraded mechanical and electrical systems New high-definition video conferencing New natural ventilation New lightweight, manageable furniture New storage for study benches and seating New windows in internal walls to increase natural light 15 16 Who’s Who at Overbury Who’s Who at Overbury Our specialist education team work with universities across country and would love to share ideas and innovations that could help you achieve Perfect Delivery in your estates. 01. Chris Mann Education Sector Head National T: 020 7307 4451 M: 07980 883 571 E: [email protected] 02. Emma Keyse Business Development Manager National T: 0207 307 4406 M: 07855 435 992 E: [email protected] 03. David Johnson Account Manager Midlands T: 0121 748 8622 M: 07891 672 861 E: [email protected] 04. Peter Knight Divisional Director North T: 0161 829 3400 M: 07973 157 869 E: [email protected] Spring 2013 | Issue #3 01. 03. 17 02. 04. 77 Newman Street, London W1T 3EW T 020 7307 9000 1-2 Berners Street, London W1T 3LA T 020 7307 4400 11 Bracknell Beeches, Old Bracknell Lane West, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 7BW T 01344 386 600 Unit 207, 2nd Floor, Fort Dunlop, Fort Parkway, Birmingham B24 9FD T 0121 748 8600 The Zenith Building, 26 Spring Gardens, Manchester M2 1AB T 0161 829 3400 Fifth Floor, Fountain House, 4 South Parade, Leeds LS1 5QX T 0113 241 2000 www.overbury.com Part of Morgan Sindall Group plc
© Copyright 2024