Case Study Flashcards
What is the entity known as Advance Plus? Is this just a trading name, or a JV of some form?
Advance plus is a trading name for MWH Treatment Ltd
There is a SWA between MWH Treatment Ltd and J Murphy and Sons Ltd
It is unincorporated, both remain separate legal entities
What is the basis of the amendments to the contract used for the framework and the projects?
Their Client favoured amendments, such as:
- Removal of CE Clauses
- Amendment to the reply period for CE’s
- Additional reasons for disallowed costs
- Amended Payment Terms
Was the gain share 50/50?
Yes and there was a GMP
Was there a cap on the pain and gain?
Yes there was an upper and lower limit
What were the key dates in the contract?
Each project had a sectional completion, Verulam Rd’s was May 2023
What were the X7 delay damages?
£661 per day for Verulam Rd
What was the basis of the third party KPIs? How would noisy works have factored into them?
One of the third party KPI’s we were measured on is receiving WOW nominations - 2 / year / site. The more noise and disruption, the less likely we would receive a WOW nomination
Can you explain further how the carbon footprint calculations worked?
This was calculated by multiplying “unit of business operation” (in this instance projected litres of diesel) with “operation specific emission factor” to produce the carbon footprint
How does auger boring deal with services, both known and unknown? What about trees and the like?
Utility Surveys: Before commencing auger boring operations, thorough utility surveys are conducted to identify the location of existing underground services.
Mapping and Marking: Once utilities are identified, their locations are accurately mapped and marked on the ground surface to guide the auger boring equipment and minimize the risk of accidental strikes.
How does the auger deal with obstructions?
Mechanical excavation using auger attachments or specialised cutting tools
Auger can be stopped, removed and obstruction removed from breaking the surface
Was Clause 60.1 (12) amended? If so, in what way?
Within the main contract with the Employer, yes it was deleted
Within the Subcontract, we originally tried to remove it, however as the project location, Southport, is renowned for poor ground conditions, and with only a few trial holes or bore holes completed prior to the tender process, the ground conditions of the proposed route were largely unknown. This meant Subcontractors would not accept deletion of clause 60.1 (12)
Did you seek and obtain consent from your client to use the project for your case study?
Yes, consent was granted
At what stage of the project did you consider an alternative installation methodology?
Following initial design and an outlined programme being completed, based on the tender methodology of open-cut excavation, I undertook a task to determine where I believed there were risks to the project in relation to time and cost and how these risks could be mitigated by undertaking different methodologies
What consideration had been undertaken during the tender stage?
It was tendered on Open Cut for the following reasons:
- WI outlined the requirements
- Open cut is a tried and tested method that has been used for years
- Tendering team didn’t take into account project location and feasibility
- This was a lesson learnt from the project
- As a project delivery team, we looked at alternative methods for delivering the works
Did you test/check that the tender prices for open-cut were still valid?
I did test check it and the works were still in-line the tender sum:
- Priced using CESMM
- I issued a redacted BOQ to the market for their rates, which came in in-line with tender
