©Leonhardt Andrä und Partner GmbH
6.8 The competitors are comprehensively briefed on the client’s requirements and aspirations. 6.9 There is sound engineering input to the design and the designer can demonstrate that the design is structurally sound and buildable. 6.10 The client appoints a jury that has the ability and knowledge to judge the entries, refer to Section 8.7. 6.11 The jury is appointed as early as possible and is comprehensively briefed on the client’s requirement. The jury must agree with the brief and with the client’s requirements and aspirations.
recommend their choice in a fair and transparent manner.
Tri-Countries Bridge, Weil Am Rhein, Germany
6.13 The jury has the ability to recommend with reasons a design that departs from the brief but has merits that go beyond the brief 6.14 The client’s independent consultant should vet the design for engineering adequacy and provide expert technical assistance to the jury in evaluating the technical performance costs or other queries on the design that are raised by the jury. 6.15 At least one entry satisfies the scrutinising procedure.
If possible involve the jury in writing the aspirations for the brief. The aspirations should be limited to statements that the jurors and client can agree on.
6.16 At least one of the entries satisfying the scrutinising procedure responds positively to the full scope of the requirements and presents its ideas clearly.
6.12 The jury impartially uses the client’s criteria and requirements to
6.17 The winning design is well received by the public. IABSE
35