In the press service of the Industry Center for Capital Construction of Rosatom (OCCS), the organizers of RISF-2015 were the Ministry of Construction and Housing and Communal Services of the Russian Federation, the National Association of Housing Developers, the National Association of Builders, the National Association of Designers and Surveyors, the National Agency for Low-Rise and Cottage Construction, the Foundation assistance to the development of housing construction, Agency for Housing Mortgage Lending.

Opening the all-Russian meeting “Investment potential of the Russian construction complex: current state, risks, development prospects,” the Minister of Construction and Housing and Communal Services of the Russian Federation Mikhail Men noted that, despite the difficult situation in the construction industry in 2014, the positive dynamics of the industry’s development have remained. “In 2014, 81 million square meters were built. m. of housing. Compared to 2013, the growth was 15%. This is a very serious breakthrough in development. For the first time in the history of modern Russia, we exceeded the indicators of the Soviet period of the RSFSR: In 1987, 72.8 million sq.m. were built. housing,” Men emphasized. He noted that the leading indicators of construction growth rates were recorded in the Sverdlovsk region, Krasnodar region, St. Petersburg, Moscow, Moscow region and Bashkiria. The head of the Russian Ministry of Construction said that today the Russian government is taking serious measures to support the construction industry, primarily this concerns mortgage support, since every third apartment in the country is sold through the mortgage lending system. “Thus, the mortgage lending support program, under which 20 billion rubles will be allocated to subsidize the interest rate on mortgage loans - the rate will not exceed 13%. In today’s conditions, this is a good figure,” he emphasized.

Deputy Mayor of Moscow Marat Khusnullin, who spoke at the meeting, noted that, despite the challenges of the time, the Moscow construction industry is not going to deviate from its plans. Thus, the plan of the Targeted Investment Program (TIP), the budget of which is 1 billion rubles, is scheduled for three years and will not be adjusted. As support for investors, the Moscow government is considering subsidizing interest rates and ensuring the provision of utilities. According to Khusnullin, the city will do everything to create jobs that would bring taxes to the budget. “We have invited all contractors to speed up construction work if possible. For our part, we are doing everything possible so that they can complete the construction ahead of schedule,” emphasized the Deputy Mayor of Moscow.

Commenting on the results of the all-Russian meeting, Gennady Sakharov, Director for Capital Investments of the Rosatom State Corporation, Director of the Rosatom OCKS, emphasized that “The Russian Investment and Construction Forum has become a representative platform where experts in the construction industry discuss the most important problems in this area.” “Today it is important to understand how to move forward in the current conditions, avoiding losses for the construction industry; you need to understand the development strategy of the construction industry. The forum touched upon the most important issues that are close to the construction complex of the nuclear industry, in particular, we plan to analyze whether the experience of the Moscow government can be used in the nuclear industry in terms of facilitating conditions for contractors participating in tenders - for example, the abolition of the mandatory provision of bank guarantees.” , Sakharov emphasized.

As part of the forum's business program, dozens of round tables were also held. The greatest interest and inspiration was generated by the round table dedicated to the development of the procurement system for construction services, moderated by the vice-president of the National Association of Builders (NOSTROY) Eduard Dadov. There was a large-scale discussion about what the new law on procurement in construction should be like. The main report was made by the director of the International Institute for the Development of the Contract System, Pavel Kolykhalov, who stated that the draft law being developed will concern all entities involved in construction activities. The main innovation will be the obligation of the contractor to carry out at least 75% of the work on its own, as well as the introduction of a rule on the provision of a qualification certificate, which is expected to be issued by an SRO. The chairman of the Committee on Competition Policy and Procurement in the Construction Sphere of NOSTROYA, Valery Mozolevsky, spoke out against this norm. He emphasized that “responsibility for the construction and safety of the facility falls on the customer, and not on the SRO.” Vladimir Malakhov, Deputy Director of the Rosatom Center for Engineering, who spoke at the round table, noted that a new procurement law is necessary because procurement of construction services is fundamentally different from procurement of materials and any other goods. “I am convinced that it is necessary to legislatively change the situation with pricing in construction - the last price should be the price of a conditional worker with a trowel, that is, the price of the final contractor, and the general contractor should compete for the general contracting margin, which should not exceed 20%,” said Vladimir Malakhov .

The round table on the topic: “Development of the Institute of Technical Customers” was also very popular among the forum participants. Standard contracts in construction." Thus, the majority of the discussion participants were of the opinion that the institution of technical customer should be developed in close connection with the development of standard technical specifications, standard contracts and other documentation. “The technical customer service should be a team of experts who can competently perform any work at all stages of construction: from surveys and design to attracting financing for a specific project,” noted Natalya Rotmistrova, a representative of SRO NP MAAP. She emphasized that standard documentation is designed to make the work of a non-professional customer easier. Vladimir Malakhov, Deputy Director of OCKS for Engineering, who spoke at the round table, proposed replacing the term “technical customer” with the international term “consulting engineer”, widely used throughout the world. “I believe that the technical customer responsible for construction results is the general contractor. According to the Urban Planning Code, the technical customer has about 30 functions, and only 4 of them are strictly technical, related to obtaining licenses and permits for the construction of a facility. Everything else is pure consulting. It turns out that the technical customer is forced to do the work that consulting engineers and technical consultants do. This is their direct work,” said Vladimir Malakhov.

Later, there was a visit to the forum’s exhibition exposition, where a wide range of investment construction projects from all over the Russian Federation was presented. In total, 250 exhibitors were presented at the exhibition, including 41 investment projects that reached the finals of the first Urban Planning Competition of the Ministry of Construction and Housing and Communal Services of the Russian Federation. The Industry Center for Capital Construction (OCCS) of Rosatom participated in the joint stand of the Russian Union of Builders.

OK- inform continues a series of publications about the current situation in Russian construction. The construction industry is a recognized “locomotive” of the state’s economic development, but the builders themselves say that this locomotive can easily end up in a sump on a siding. If systemic measures are not taken today to bring the construction industry out of “stagnation,” we will soon have to talk about real programs for its restoration, says our interlocutor today, the general director of an industrial development company in the oil industry, an expert consultant in the field of investment management. construction projects Vladimir Ivanovich Malakhov.

Vladimir Ivanovich, how do you assess the current state of the construction market in Russia, and what do you see as the main trends and directions of its development in the coming years?

How contradictory and unstable. On the one hand, we have quite large and even growing volumes of capital construction in the country in recent years, from 3-4 to 6-7 trillion rubles, on the other hand, there is a humiliatingly unsystematic state of the construction industry as a whole, with no real prospects for its qualitative change. The very fact of such volumes of construction should mean that the industry has tremendous opportunities to make an almost quantum leap forward, both in technology and in the resource base. But instead we have to note the ongoing stagnation of the construction cluster. This applies to personnel training, the use of advanced technologies in construction, and the use of the best project management tools. Moreover, I am sure that soon we will have to talk about real programs for the development and restoration of the construction industry.

And here there is no point in referring to crises. Despite the fact that the construction industry, due to the inertia of its economic mechanism, was the last to feel the consequences of the crisis, it still significantly hit development companies. At the same time, the total volumes of construction production almost did not decrease due to the presence of both large-scale government projects (such as the APEC Far Eastern Summit, Sochi Olympics, Kazan Universiade, etc.) and large corporate programs of Gazprom, Transneft, Rosneft, Rosatom, Rostelecom and others players in the commodity and energy sectors, which are not so easy to cancel or suspend. In a certain sense, here lies the contradiction - these projects, on the one hand, save our construction industry, on the other, they destroy it.

But still, the main reasons for the disconsolate position of the industry, in my opinion, are not related to crises. Rather, it is the low quality of public administration and regulation, including through the SRO system, and growing corruption. Imperfect legislation on public procurement, manual management of large infrastructure projects through affiliated contractors and the lack of basic planning, no matter how funny it may sound in a market economy, also contribute.

Can you speak a little more about these reasons? What ways out of this situation can be considered?

Let's try it in order. First, self-regulation. I think there is no need to prove to anyone that the creation of the SRO system in construction not only did not live up to anyone’s hopes, but confidently demonstrated the complete fallacy of the basic concept and the semantic paradigm of its existence. Self-regulation today has completely degenerated into funds for collecting money and ineptly managing contracting companies in order to increase fundraising. Managers do not yet have any other goals for self-regulation.

The goal of self-regulation in construction was initially correct - to create an institution to formulate the rules of the game in the market, which, in essence, provides a legal opportunity for the contracting sector to agree on achieving common interests, including those affecting clients. Such interests include both the creation of a unified regulatory and technical base for construction and regulation of activities in construction, and the creation of tools for protecting the rights and interests of builders before government agencies, customers and the market. Now let's think: can 200-300 self-regulatory organizations create some kind of unified regulatory framework, and even generate new requirements and rules in the market? Of course not! All communication with SROs among builders today comes down to paying dues and avoiding persecution of negligent people. At the same time, the state transferred part of the functions of licensing and monitoring the competencies of market participants to the SRO. But if these are government functions, why should the construction sector pay for them a second time out of its own pocket, since it already pays taxes to carry out government tasks?

- Can’t self-regulation in construction play a positive role?

We need to look at the situation from the market point of view: SRO should be an institution that provides contractors with clearly greater benefits and opportunities from participating in it than without it. Starting, for example, from joint defense of construction companies in courts to insurance of force majeure risks. An SRO may well insure the risks of damage to third parties if the cause of the insured event was the lack of knowledge of some processes or an unforeseen change in the original design conditions. In other words, risks that arise during the construction of a facility, but which cannot be unambiguously attributed to a specific person.

This is why an SRO system is needed, then every contractor and his owner will have peace of mind even after retirement and the closure of his company. In addition, if a SRO participant can get access to any consultations and materials, and his competitor without an SRO will be forced to buy all this documents from a single standardization center, then the benefits will become more tangible in material terms. In other words, if SROs begin to perform some of the generally accepted tasks of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in construction, then this can play a significant role in the formation of civilized small and medium-sized businesses in construction.

- What to do about corruption and the imperfection of the law on public procurement as it relates to builders?

Thousands of copies have already been broken on this occasion. It is unlikely that I will say anything new in terms of criticism of the very concept of public procurement. The laws seem to be improving, but corruption remains the same and is even increasing. Officials are coming up with new ways to ensure victory for their affiliated companies, and if this is impossible, they spoil the lives of those who won, until the winning contractor is replaced by their own accountable company, spoiling it to such an extent that third-party participants willy-nilly become unscrupulous performers. This often applies even to companies appointed “from above,” since lower-level officials do everything to ensure victory only for their entrepreneurial partners in budget development...

One government customer – one contract.

I believe that the introduction of just a few rules regarding the concept of public procurement can significantly reduce the corruption component:

First: the company that wins the tender cannot enter into new tenders with one specific government customer until the signed contract is fully executed. The principle is called: One government customer – one contract. No one prohibits other government customers from participating in tenders, but if a unified register of government contractors is subsequently created, then another customer will be able to use it to track the state of affairs on other government contracts and make appropriate decisions. This principle makes it possible for new companies to enter new tenders. The interest to return to their customer will force contractors to work better and, most importantly, faster. This leads to both lower overhead costs and competition for resources. And most importantly, knowing that there can only be one contract, strong companies will fight for the largest contracts in terms of capital investment volumes, leaving small contracts to small and medium-sized businesses. Isn't this government support for small businesses? This is exactly what builders expect from the state. Of course, there will be hundreds of arguments against such a rule, ranging from the lack of a sufficient number of contractors to the lack of contractors with the necessary resource and technical readiness. But these are all technical details that can be written down based on an analysis of the retrospective of contracts and the state of the markets.

The contract price is not a factor in determining the winner.

The second rule can be stated simply: The contract price is not a factor in determining the winner. To select a winner, very specific parameters or indicators must be assigned, based on the totality of which the winner is determined automatically, i.e. almost like a computer. Why can't you focus on price? Because there will always be companies that, including purposefully, by conspiracy, in order to eliminate competitors, will engage in dumping. In some contracts, dumping reaches 50%. What kind of competitions are these? Anyone, even a young specialist in construction economics, will tell you that this is impossible. Everyone understands that dumping of 30-40% is either the result of unqualified calculations or fraud of bidders... By stopping price competition, the connection between affiliated customers and contractors can be broken and, perhaps, real competition for quality and deadlines will finally appear. Stopping price competition will require solving the problem of adequately calculating the starting competitive price, and this is an issue that can be easily and clearly resolved.

Determining the selection of the winner should be such indicators as the “collateral protection coefficient of the government contract” (the ratio of the value of the company’s real estate to the amount of the contract at the time of filing the application) or the “liquidity ratio of the government contract” (the ratio of the company’s own working capital to the total portfolio of orders at the time of filing the application ). We can give a few more examples, but the main thing is that government orders should be received by companies with guarantees and own capital, then the level of responsibility for the results of the work of the owners will increase significantly.

- You also mentioned the pricing system, what can be done in this area?

The last rule concerns the pricing system. Today there is a lot of criticism of estimated pricing in Russia, although this only confirms the harsh truth about the disqualification of our management personnel. Estimated pricing is just a way of calculating the cost of work; it is based on laws and rules that we ourselves approve, so calling it backward or incorrect is at least ridiculous. The main thing is to understand that at the stage of the competition it is possible to calculate the value of the contract using more integral tariffs and estimates, consolidated or given unit prices, and at the stage of drawing up working documentation, of course, to operate with more accurate prices and volumes. The main thing in this is the ratio of the final cost of the contract to the contractor. Indeed, today the difference between the price of the general contractor and the final contractor can differ significantly. But they are considered according to uniform reference books and rules. The whole secret is in the subsequent undressing of the real performers by the owners of the first contract. Therefore, the rule here is simple: The estimated cost is the cost of the work of the last performer.

The estimated cost is the cost of the work of the last performer.

What does this rule mean? This means that the price is compiled only for the company that directly performs the work, with shovels and equipment. The law should establish that this last performer should not receive less than this estimate, either in wages or in covering other expenses. All other services, for example, general contracting, must be calculated using a separate coefficient and, accordingly, paid. Where it leads? First of all, this will force general contracting companies to compete on the cost of general contracting services, rather than construction work determined by the estimate. Reducing the cost of these services will be possible if such companies perform only part of the construction and installation work on their own. Or they will reduce the cost of maintaining the management apparatus. Indeed, today there is a complete imbalance in the pricing of low-level subcontracting. The general contractor, most often an affiliate of the Customer, takes for himself the maximum share of the profit margin, leaving the subcontract on a starvation diet. Hence the low quality of work, unprofessional staff and other problems. If the general contractor is obliged to pay down the entire estimate by law, then qualified personnel will go into line contracting, and there will be an opportunity for further development and competition. In addition, the very creation of a provision on assessing the cost of the services of a general contractor, EPC or EPCM contractor will allow competition specifically for these services, and not just for everything en masse. And their profit should be included in the cost of these services, and not taken away from the last performer.

Where it leads? Firstly, many medium-sized players will become significantly larger, truly powerful general contracting companies will appear that do a lot themselves, intermediaries squeezing out corruption margins will disappear, since they will have nothing to take 20-30% of the contract value from, and the number of transit intermediaries during implementation will decrease. projects and the monsters of the construction market doing nothing will be forced to transform into normal and economical general contracting structures. Secondly, many small companies will leave the market, since their work will be performed by average general contractors, which means that the general reduction of construction companies from the current terrible more than 100 thousand to an acceptable 20-30 thousand will significantly affect the professional level of business. Indeed, today, in fact, 15 thousand graduates of construction universities per year cannot cover even the minimum mandatory need for personnel turnover, not to mention growth. When in Soviet times, taking into account the strong system of construction technical schools, from 25 to 40 thousand construction specialists were trained per year, for, if my memory serves me correctly, 3-5 thousand construction organizations. Can you imagine the kind of personnel renewal such companies received back then? And today, half of construction graduates do not go into construction at all - there are no prospects. Qualitative changes in personnel training will begin when companies have a more or less foreseeable portfolio of contracts with a perspective of 2-3 years, which makes it possible to assess the development potential and provide appropriate budgets for advanced training. Today we have a one-contract business and everyone is preparing to dismiss the staff immediately upon completion of work. On the other hand, the construction industry, like bread, needs a fixed-term employment contract and, in general, all modern methods of attracting personnel for project periods, from outstaffing to remote office. Without this, the construction industry will not survive.

If, according to you, the SRO system cannot cope with such a volume of tasks, then how and who should resolve these issues?

First of all, the contractors themselves and other direct market participants need a system of self-regulation in order to avoid unnecessary hustle and bustle and organizational chaos. But these are slightly different tasks compared to the tasks of state regulation of the construction market.

Of course, regardless of the presence of an SRO, there must be a body of state control and regulation, which in general must carry out dispatch and coordination functions and translate the macroeconomic tasks of the country’s leadership into the governing documents of the construction industry. I don’t think that some kind of ministry is necessary for this, but some kind of construction agency must exist. After all, you need to understand that in the dialogue between participants in the construction market and the state there must be two sides: SRO - as representatives of business and an agency such as a state negotiator. In addition, in construction there are a number of exclusively government tasks: global state development, the formation of a pricing system for government contracts, these are the tasks of forming a resource base for the construction industry, starting from education and ending with assessing the need for materials and sources of their supply, supporting new technological construction industries materials up to joint investments and pilot plants, etc.

In general, it would be nice if pricing were set by two competing structures at once: from the state and, for example, from a powerful national SRO. This would allow for a constant dialogue in approaches to pricing between the state and business, and give the right to choose the optimal pricing system for commercial and government customers.

Of course, the industry still has enough competent and qualified specialists capable of solving these problems. But the discussion of problems of the second and third level does not in any way affect the solution of global, conceptual issues. We skillfully grind a block of granite with sandpaper, forgetting that first we had to cut a statue out of this block. At the same time, systemic decisions, decisions on a national scale must be made urgently; the industry has long become a laughing stock in the eyes of the population and the majority of participants in the construction market on the international stage.

ReferenceOK-inform

Vladimir Ivanovich Malakhov - General Director of an industrial development company in the oil industry, expert consultant in the field of investment and construction project management. Graduated from the Kharkov Aviation Institute. In construction since 1995. In the past, he was a top manager of the group of companies OJSC Stroytransgaz, LLC Stroygazmontazh and other large construction companies (Moscow). Doctor of Business Administration.

Malakhov Vladimir Ivanovich, vice-president of NAICS - National Association of Consulting Engineers in Construction, a well-known expert in the field of investment and construction project management, in the field of investment and construction engineering and real estate development.

“The number of projects being implemented today amounts to hundreds of thousands. Of these, construction projects occupy the most important place in terms of volume of financing and attraction of resources. At the same time, the share of investment and construction projects implemented on time and within budget remains statistically low. The main objective of this book is to develop the skill of preliminary understanding of the best model for the implementation of any investment and construction project, but not only with the goal of anticipating all possible risks in the future, but also with the goal of developing sustainable independent design thinking skills for future project managers. Today, many specialists associated with the management of investment and construction projects acquire their knowledge either through foreign standards and bodies of knowledge, or through project management programs optimized for a variety of industries, but not for construction project management. As a result, there is currently no stable and adequate methodology for managing investment and construction projects, including choosing the optimal set of contracts for a specific investment and construction project. Creating the prerequisites for the formation of a national methodology for managing construction projects is one of the strategic goals of this publication.”

Regarding the acquisition of the book by V.I. Malakhova, please contact by email [email protected]

The cost of one copy is 1000 rubles

You can submit a request to purchase the book at the office of the National Chamber of Engineers