Det blev år 1994 tillåtet i Sverige att bygga hus med stomme av trä högre än två våningar. Det finns många fördelar med att bygga med trästomme, inte minst ur miljösynpunkt, men det byggs trots detta väldigt få flervåningshus högre än två våningar med trästomme jämfört med andra stomkonstruktioner. Syftet med denna studie är att ta reda på hur beställare resonerar kring att bygga eller inte bygga flervåningshus med trästomme högre än två våningar och hur deras inställning är gentemot denna stomkonstruktion. För att ta reda på detta så har en kvalitativ undersökning genomförts där fem personer i beställarposition har intervjuats. Resultaten visade att det finns en viss kunskapsbrist om trästommar. Information finns men få har tagit del av den och tryggheten i att bygga i betong överväger i många fall de fördelar som träkonstruktioner faktiskt har. Kostnader är av självklara skäl den viktigaste aspekten för många företag. Om det finns kostnadsfördelar med trästomme råder det delade meningar om, men om så är fallet så behöver det bli tydligare för att beställare ska våga sig på det som alternativ. Kommunerna är i många fall de som får även mindre erfarna beställare att faktiskt bygga med trästomme då de på vissa platser har som krav att det ska vara trästomme. Att föreslå trästomme kan också vara ett sätt att stå ut från mängden och på så sätt vinna en markanvisning hos kommunen. Kommunernas inflytande på företagens val av stomme är något som författarna tycker att det bör forskas mer om. Överlag verkade det som att det fanns en ganska positiv bild av trästommar ur beställarens perspektiv, främst angående miljöaspekterna. Dock är det ännu inte tillräckligt för att de mindre träerfarna beställarna frivilligt ska våga prova på det då deras kunskap om det brister och det faktum att det inte visat sig ha kostnadsfördelar i alla lägen. / In 1994, it became legal in Sweden to build residential houses with wooden frames higher than two storeys. There are many advantages to building houses with wooden frames, not least from an environmental point of view, but very few multi-storey houses with wooden frames are built in comparison to frames of other materials. The purpose of this study is to examine how clients reason when deciding on whether to build or not to build multi-storey houses with wooden frames and how their attitudes are towards this form of construction. To do this, a qualitative study has been conducted in which five people in a customer position have been interviewed. The results show that there is a certain lack of knowledge about wooden frames. Information is available, but few have taken part of it and the certainty of building in concrete in many cases exceeds the advantages that wooden frames actually have. Costs are for obvious reasons the most important aspect for many. There are different opinions regarding cost advantages in wooden frames, but if there are any, they need to be made clearer for clients if they are to explore wooden frames as an alternative. In many cases, it is the municipalities who get the less experienced clients to actually buy and build wooden framed houses, as in some places they require a wooden frame. Proposing a wooden framed building can also be a way of standing out from the crowd and thus gaining a landmark at the municipality. The influence of municipalities on companies’ choice of frame is something that the authors think should be researched further. Overall, it appears that there is a fairly positive view of wooden frames from the clients’ perspective, mainly regarding environmental aspects. However, it is not yet enough for the clients who are less experienced with wooden frames to willingly try it, as their knowledge of it is lacking and the fact that it has not proven to have cost advantages in all situations.

In the mid 1990s a previous prohibitions against multi-story buildings higher than two floors with a wooden frame was changed. Today multi-storey buildings are being built in Skellefteå, Sundsvall, Växjö, and Stockholm with others. Despite this only one of five houses being built today has a wooden frame. Since the municipality is a key force to get projects with wooden frames, this papers purpose is to improve tender document for the opportunity to submit bids and building with wooden frames. To help us forward with our work three questions were formulated. 1) What is the basis from a wooden constructions company perspective, of which they determines if they can place a bid or not? 2) What is the difference between tender documents made by a municipality compared to a private buyer? 3) How can tender documents be improved to create an opportunity to place a bid containing an alternative frame system? To answer these questions a literature study was carried out. The literature study is the basis of this paper. To obtain empirical data a document analysis of tender documents was carried out. The result of the study shows that wood frames are hard to adapt to an already finished technical specification, or to a tender document containing an extensive technical specification. To obtain alternative solutions, the buyer should focus on object design, form and function, or a general technical specification. Instead the technical specifications should be drawn up by the supplier, or in collaboration with them. The tender evaluation should be made by the most economically advantageous rather then the lowest price. Then the buyer can evaluate the offers against each other, rather then choosing the lowest price. This also gives the possibility for suppliers to make a bid containing an alternative solution. As a continuation of this paper, we recommend a study on which impact a general technical specification has on the project final cost.  Furthermore a study exploring which possibilities partner procurement can have alternative solutions in the Swedish procurement act. This report deal exclusively with how tender documents should be formulated. Life cycle analysis, carbon dioxide emissions and strength calculations will not be executed.