Case Study

Question 1

What does the red tick mean on the Slide for Key Issue 1?

Answer 1

It means that although lacking a formal tender process, Option 1 still achieved a degree of certainty for the client through:
* Measured rates
* A trusted and known contractor
* Benchmarking against industry-recognised rates e.g. BCIS, SPONS

Question 2

You mention cracks in the masonry due to saturation. What else could have caused these, and how did you discount other possibilities?

Answer 2

• Defect mechanism = Ground movement e.g subsidence, settlement, heave. Why Discounted? - walls were plumb, cracking was the same size at both ends.
• Defect mechanism = Expansion or contraction of brickwork due to changes in temperature. Why discounted? - Not discounted completely. Clay brickwork so likely to have expanded in early stages, possibly leading to cracks. Could be contributing factor.
• Defect mechanism = Structural effects e.g. failure of lintels or openings being made. Why discounted? Not discounted. Certainly a contributary factor. Openings could have added to strain and loadings contributing to ‘creep’ in the masonry over time.

Question 3

If you had pursued Option 1, how would you have worked out abortive costs?

Answer 3

• Pro-rata the contractor’s prelims
• Assess how Prelim costs spread across contract duration
• Look at upfront costs for scaffold hire, materials etc.
• Request expenditure evidence e.g. invoices, supplier notes.
• Works costs on a % basis

Question 4

If you had pursued Option 2, what would be the implications of having 2 contractors on site under different contracts, in terms of the CDM Regulations?

Answer 4

• CDM Regs are clear that there should be only one Principal Contractor.
• Only time it can be considered are if there are 2 projects on site at same time and they are run independently of each other, and where one Principal Contractor can’t be in overall control.

Question 5

For Option 3, who decided on the measured rates? How were they established? How did you check costs?

Answer 5

• I proposed measured rates in requesting costs for the additional work.
• Used where any uncertainty existed to the extent e.g. brickwork repairs. Render reinstatement.
• e.g. 0.25 m2 brickwork

Question 6

What did you need to consider in re-rendering the walls in terms of compliance with Part-L of the Building REgulations?

Answer 6

• If more than 50% of the surface area of an individual thermal element is being renovated, then the whole of that element should be improved to the standard set (external walls are 0.30 Watts per metre square Kelvin)
• In this case, we had an approved inspector on board, who agreed that less than 50% of the wall was being renovated, and in any case the wall was not cost-effective to insulate due to detailing.
• Or, if the works constitute a ‘Major Renovation’ where more than 25% of the surface area of building envelope is being renovated, improvement is required.
• This didnt apply in this instance.

Question 7

How did you quantify Prov Sums in the Schedule of Works?

Answer 7

These were based on a budget estimate of the likely works involved. Where possible, they were based on a known rate and scaled to the likely quantity required.

Question 8

What detailing did you identify to the roof/wall-plate junction to achieve adequate thermal qualities?

Answer 8

Ask Mat?

Question 9

How did you ensure design quality with the negotiated works?

Answer 9

• There was a detailed specification agreed with the contractor prior to pricing.
• Specification was written with reference to British Standards e.g. for render repairs, and Building Regs Part A for structural repairs to roof.

Question 10

What is the contractual status of progress meeting minutes?

Answer 10

• Not a contractual document.
• Do give prima fascia evidence of progress if they are dated, signed and filed correctly.
• Same applied to Site Notes.

Question 11

How did you go about formalising the additional time spent on the structural works? Was there an EOT granted? How was this agreed and formalised?

Answer 11

• An instruction was issued for the additional structural works. This was based on a detailed specification for the additional works to provide clarity over what was being priced.
• The contractor provided written confirmation that a delay had occured caused by a ‘relevant event’ i.e. the variation.
• This was accepted and the completion date was adjusted.
• The length of the extension was not immediately decided, as the contractor had to find lead times etc from appropriate sub-contractors.
• The variation also constituted a ‘relevant-matter’ and entitled the contractor to claim loss and expense.

Question 12

What are Relevant Matters in JCT Contracts?

Answer 12

• A Relevant Matter is something caused by the client that affects the progress of the works.
• Relevant Matters entitle the contractor to claim loss and/or expense.
• A Relevant Matter need not always result in a delay to the Completion Date, so may not always entitle the contractor to an Extension of Time.

Question 13

What are some examples of Relevant Matters?

Answer 13

• Failure to give a contractor access to site
• Delay in providing instructions
• Discrepancies in the contract docs
• Failure to supply goods or services
• Instructions relating to variations or expenditure of provisional sums

Question 14

What is a Relevant Event?

Answer 14

• Events that cause a delay to the Completion date, either caused by the Client or by a neutral party. They entitle the contractor to claim an Extension of Time.
• A Relevant Event does not necessarily entitle the contractor to claim loss and expense.

Question 15

What is the difference between defined and undefined provisional sums?

Answer 15

• Defined = Contractor will have deemed to have made allowance for these in their programme, pricing and planning prelims.
• Undefined = Contractor will not have deemed to have made an allowance for the above.

Question 16

Where does the risk lie with defined and undefined provisional sums?

Answer 16

• Undefined - Client bears cost and scheduling risks.
• Defined - Contractor bears scheduling and other prelim risks but the sum is a clear commitment from the client to do the work with the contractor.

Question 17

How was the structural engineer appointed and how did you advise the client on the terms of that appointment? Scope of services, fee basis, form of appointment? Direct appointment to client or subconsultant to PMP? What would be the risks associated with the latter?

Answer 17

• Direct client appointment creates direct contractual relationship and clear recourse for client in event advice given is wrong
• I would advise client of need to perform due diligence and offer to review levels of PI cover, appointent docs and insurances.
• Also Checked scope of services to avoid unnecessary expense.
• With direct client appointment - no need to novate to contractor or create a collateral warranty.
• If appointed by PMP as a sub-consultant - no direct contractual link for client. They would have to sue PMP who in turn would sue S.E.

Question 18

How did you deal with any issues relating to the neighbouring properties and works that might impinge upon them?

Answer 18

• Good relationships established with neighbour early in process.
• Signed ‘Scaffold License’ in place with compensation for inconvenience.
• I advised client of the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992 which gives statutory right to use neighbouring land to preserve and maintain property.
• Installation of felt and at upstand to their building used the existing cover flashing and a self-flashing felt. If a chase had been necessary, I would have advised on need for Section 2 Notice under terms of the Party Wall Act.
• Had good relations not been in place, I would have advised on a Section 2 notice.

Question 19

Wyh was the client’s maintenance contractor not used to complete opening up of the ceiling / boarding as part of the investigation stages, given the presence of roof leaks and building generally?

Answer 19

• Disruption to client and management of store.
• Questions over competence of retained maintenance contractor.
• Lines of communication would have been complex.

Question 20

You acted as Contract Administrator and Principal Designer on the same project. What issues might this create and how might you overcome them?

Answer 20

• Acting as CA and PD can be a conflict of interest in the pre-contract phase. Your interests in seeking the most competitive options for your client, can conflict with your duties under as Principal Designer.
• Strategy - work with senior collegue to review risk assessments to see if they are adequate.

Question 21

Which standard form of contract was administered, if not JCT? Were the procurement options and suitable form of contract advised to your client beforehand?

Answer 21

• It’s a JCT Minor Works with a schedule of ammendments that client adopts to carry out works to its premises.
• Administered as if a JCT Minor Works.

Question 22

Can you give me an example of how the Framework Agreement differs from a standard JCT Minor Works?

Answer 22

• Provision for LADs. These are based on works impinging on store opening hours or reduced customer access. Has put some tendering contractor off because of the risks.
• Delay and Loss / Expense Procedures: No difference.
• Insurance provisions: No difference.
• Retention - at client’s discretion.

Question 23

What design and construction improvements were considered and ultimately made to the roof and the rest of the relevant areas of building fabric in undertaking the works and why?

Answer 23

Widening of valley gutters - to improve drainage provision.
Widening of parapet outlets - as above.
Installation of lay-boards to increase height of upstands.
Encapsulation of parapet copings with waterproofing inc drip detail.
Replacement of waterprooinf to flat roof and additio of insulation.
Strengthening works to external walls..

Question 24

How did you manage asbestos during the project, and during investigative works?

Answer 24

• Existing Refurbishment and Demolition Survey had ‘limitations’ and did not cover areas we needed to access.
• New R&D instructed, with specific instructions to test for samples above ceiling and within roof void above boarding prior to inspection.

Question 25

What did you do from a H&S perspective when additional works were uncovered?

Answer 25

• Reviewed Risk Assessent. Additional work required provision of internal scaffold and additional screening to keep work separate from store employees..
• Made the contractor aware of this need and checked their provision for carrying this out.
• Contractor corresponding loss and expense claim assessed accordingly.

Question 26

Was there engagement with the landlord?

Answer 26

• The Landlord was not very engaged.
• However, we sent a copy of the specification of works, provided email updates throughout and notified when the work was complete.

Question 27

What advise did you give your client when assesing the revised programme? Prolongation costs - scaffolding and other costs?

Answer 27

• Advised that delay would be substantial as CA would need a fair and reasonable assessment of time it would take C to coordinate works. (Relevant matter and relevant event).
• As well as costs of the works themselves, there would be a L and E claim from the C - these would be based on ACTUAL loss of the C - based on fair assessment of prelim and attendance costs.
• Advised that additional cost for CDM requirements of additional works - internal scaffold and screening.
• EoT would preserve their right to LADs.
• Advised on additional CA fees - as fee was based on a %

Question 28

What did you do at Practical Completion? What is the role of the CA?

Answer 28

• CA discretion to decide if PC has been achieved.
• Unlikely if long list of snagging items still to be finished, but ‘de-minimus’ items can be outstanding.
• 50% retention released - designed to cover latent defects arising during Rectification period and not outstanding items.
• Rectification period starts.
• Emplyer takes over responsibility for the site, and C no longer has to insure if using 5.4A or 5.4C. Insurers should be informed. E becomes occupier and could be liable for H&S claims.
• Contractor liability for LADs end.
• Payment provisions continue after PC with only difference being in amount of retention retained.
• Handover meeting - not required.

Question 29

What were your findings during the initial inspection?

Answer 29

• Flat roof weathered in torch-on felt.
• Pitched Roof timber structure with concrete tiles and sarking felt.
• Valley and Parapet gutters originally torch on felt over timber sole board but subsequently re-lined with DPM material commonly used in masonry construction. This dressed under coping stones and tiles.
• Water ingress occurring as DPM not sealed to parapet (some coping stones loose), and where dressed under tiles not enough height. Water backing up and tracking over DPM and behind it where loose.
• DPM restricting width of gutters, exacerbating issue.
• DPM sheets sealed with silicone which had failed.

Question 30

What is the recommended height of an upstand on a flat roof?

Answer 30

• NHBC and manufacturers commonly specify 150mm minimum height – this is best practise and not a requirement of Regs.

Question 31

What was the sequence of your actions Pre-Contract at Kingswood?

Answer 31

• Initial Inspection – no intrusive investigations. Visual only, based on info in Asbestos Management Plan. Some ceiling tiles and close boarding already missing, allowing a limited view into roof void.
• S. Engineer instructed to comment on integrity of flank wall due to cracking – purely visual inspection (not described in Case Study).
• Advice given to AS Watson, based on their intentions and desire to reduce disruption to store as much as possible. Advised further investigations but described alternatives and associated risks.
• Provided Scope of Works based on their intentions. Included additional works as follows:
  o Flat Roof Replacement
  o Timber door and Window Replacement to Flank Wall
  o External Staircase Decorations
  o Removal of boiler and flue
• Instructions received to tender works without further investigations in full sight of risks.
• Tender Docs drafted – with input from senior colleague, dealt with uncertainty around scope with undefined lump sum provisional sums (based on similar works and scaling appropriately).
• Asbestos R&D to cover previously unaccessed areas.
• Neighbourly matters concerning scaffolding.
• Tender Docs finalised inc CDM.

Question 32

What was the sequence of your actions post-Contract?

Answer 32

• Contract signed
• Opening up works
• S.Engineer instructed
• Additional works decided and costs requested (inc measured rate for brickwork replacement)
• Costs reviewed with Contractor (inc L&E) and instructed as variation.
• Revised programme received.
• Notice of delay received and EoT granted.

Question 33

What were the additional works at Kingswood?

Answer 33

• Rebuilding with engineering bricks and blocks
• Timber wall-plate and rafter ends replaced and strapped down to masonry.
• Helifix stitching – bars extend 500mm beyond cracking at either side and every 4-6 courses.
• Lintel replacement / repair
• Steel angle brackets discovered in wall – treat corrosion and decorate.
• Stainless steel Armanet mesh and render to exposed areas.
• Gable end and verge repairs

Question 34

What are the complexities of having more than one contractor on site at any one time? Does this ever happen?

Answer 34

• One contractor could claim delay and /or loss & expense due to the actions of the other contractor.
  *Difficult to establish responsibility for defects.
• 2 rectification periods
• No single-point recourse for defects arising.
• Difficult to define handover period between the 2 contracors - who pays for shared prelim items e.g. scaffold, skips etc.

Question 35

Why did you allow contractors to submit alternative products on the roof spec? What was taken forward?

Answer 35

• There are so many products on the market, many with comparable levels of performance.
• This serves the interest of the client, as it opens up the tender process to other products, while maintaining control over quality as alternative products need to demonstrate equal levels of performance and longevity.
• Contractor’s get to price products they may have more familiarity with or have more contact with installers.
• Alumasc high performance elastometric felt was specified. Winning contractor put forward alternative but similar ‘Borner’ product - TORCH SAFE elasomeric bitumen membrane.

Question 36

What special considerations did you need to have for the areas close to the timber pitched structures?

Answer 36

• That they were deemed ‘safe-to-torch’ or used self-adhesive membranes at these points.