 |
 |
Ray gives an example where change is driven by competitive tendering. Another recent fiasco of this type concerns the extension to the British Museum (Daily Telegraph, 25 and 26 Aug). The invitation to tender specified "Portland Stone or similar", they accepted the lowest quote, and - surprise, surprise - the cheap stone was not "similar" enough. Note also the presence of the key word associated with fiasco, "millennium". Read Deming for a definitive rebuttal of the practice of accepting the lowest tender per se. "A PLAN to change the colour of the British Museum's new south portico, which has been built in a light-coloured French stone instead of the Portland limestone the museum asked for, has been agreed at a meeting of Camden council, the museum, English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund. The portico, built as part of a £97 million Millennium project designed by Lord Foster's architect practice, appears noticeably lighter than the surrounding weathered Portland stone now that scaffolding has been removed. First, the portico will be pressure-washed to remove dust from the stone pores. A test has already been tried on one area with good results: the cleaned sample became perceptibly darker. If the entire portico is pressure-cleaned, the council believes that it will blend with the adjacent Portland stone of Sir Robert Smirke's great court, which is being glassed over as part of the scheme. A further option discussed was "shelter coating" the stone using limewash. If several colours are used, the council believes it can "create the impression of weathered stonework". The council has not ruled out forcing the museum to take down the portico. Neither Lord Foster nor his practice was prepared to comment yesterday." R. Allan Reese Email: [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%