Case Study - Key issue 1

Question 1

What is the BSA?

Answer 1

Introduced to ensure building and fire safety is managed. New building safety regulator.

In response to Grenfell.

Question 2

Was the project deemed to be a HRB, if so what is a HRB?

Answer 2

A residential building above 18m’s and/or 7 storeys tall.

At least 2 residential units.

Question 3

What are the new rules for HRB under the BSA?

Answer 3

All high risk buildings are regulated by the Building Safety Regulator and need to go through a 3 stage gateway process prior to start on site and occupation.

Question 4

How has BSA and HRB impacted the cost of a project?

Answer 4

Greater requirement for early contractor input increasing PCSA costs.

Question 5

What was the cost per unit for the PBSA project in the RIBA 3 cost plan?

Answer 5

£17m / £159k per unit

Question 6

What was included in the budget?

Answer 6

Measured works costs, on costs and inflation. Excluding design team costs and PCSA fees.

Question 7

What was included in the cost plan to represent a targeted September 2026 go live date?

Answer 7

Tender Inflation- (base TPI - TPI at SoS)/TPI at SOS = inflation factor

Construction inflation - (TPI at SoS - TPI at Midpoint)/ TPI at Midpoint = Inflation factor

Question 8

What was included in the cost plan to represent the high standard of living?

Answer 8

High amount of amenity space provided.

Allowances for interior finishes.

Allowances for FF&E.

Question 9

Why did you choose Design & Build as the procurement route?

Answer 9

a) Challenging site so early contractor involvement into the design was required.

b) Potential for earlier start on site due to overlapping.

c) Design risk transfer to the Contractor limiting potential post contract cost increases.

Question 10

Why does design risk transfer to the contractor limit the potential for cost increases post contract?

Answer 10

a) Once the contract has been let any changes associated with design development the cost is borne with the Contractor whereas for a traditional contract this would be with the client.

Question 11

When is it appropriate to use a design and build contract?

Answer 11

a) When detailed ER’s have been prepared.
b) When detailed contract provisions arg necessary.

Question 12

Does a design and build contract give you cost certainty?

Question 13

How are discrepancies in the ER’s & CP’s dealt with within?

Answer 13

a) If the contractor becomes aware of discrepancies in the ER’s CP’s or Instructions, they have to give notice to the Employer.

b) Contractor notifies of proposed amendment.

c) Employer decides between discrepadcies or accept the contractors proposal.
Contractor must comply with the decision by the Employer without cost to the Employer.

Question 14

Why was a traditional procurement route and contract not chosen?

Answer 14

a Sequential process therefore overlap between tendering and design and design and construction would not be possible.

b) Outturn cost is dependent on a fully robust design by the clients design team.

Question 15

How did your cost estimates differ from a cost plan?

Question 16

How are stakeholder identified?

Question 17

What changes did the operator propose?

Answer 17

a) Introduction of a Gym

b) Private dining space

c) TV’s to each room

d) Bespoke bathroom pod from a specific supplier

e) Access controls to all lifts and stair doors / openings

F) Luxury vinyl to studios

g) 1800mm wardrobes

h) Walled garden fit out - caravan, AV system, data points, coffee stall.

Question 18

What was the difference between the RIBA 2 cost plan and the interim-9IBA 3?

Answer 18

a) Approx. £850k

Question 19

What allowances were made in the cost plan to cover client changes?

Answer 19

b) Overall risk allowance @ 10%
c) Employers change @ 2.5%

Question 20

How was this risk allowance ascertained?

Answer 20

a) Based on a percentage as there was no risk register at this stage

Question 21

Why did you decide to do an interim cost plan?

Answer 21

a) There were many changes being proposed and the costs were based on high-level feasibility style information from the design team. Producing the interim RIBA 3 cost plan allowed the design team to provide more detailed design information and for me to demonstrate to the client the overall potential impact of the operator’s requirements.

Question 22

Why were the operator requirements important to the client?

Answer 22

a) There was an agreement with the Sperator that they could influence the design.

Question 23

Why was there no allowance for gym in the stage 2 cost plan?

Answer 23

a) There were allowances made for amenity space which comprised of break out and study areas but early on a gym was discounted by the client.

Question 24

Why did you think increasing the project budget was a reasonable proposal?

Answer 24

a) The client was in acceptance that there were scope changes which were as a direct result of the operator but the operator’s requirements had to be seriously considered.

Question 25

What were some of VE ideas which were included in the short list and how did they differ from scope reduction?

Answer 25

a) Omission of flooring to underside of beds, kitchens and wardrobes (£35k) - allowed the luxury vinyl to remain due to the reduction in quantity.

b) Alternative bathroom pod supplier (£105k) - instead of walker modulars pod which the operator had used before we got quotes for alternative pod types from Off Site Solutions which the operator could choose from.

c) Exposed soffits in amenity areas (£42k) - operator was happy with the look and feel so this was accepted.

d) Omit glazed screen to gym (€5k) - mirrors were provided in the gym along with 1 floor to floor window overlooking the walled garden so this was an acceptable compromise.

e) Gym equipment to be leased by operator (£50k) - the operator was owned by someone who owned a gym, so they were happy to lease the gym equipment which reduced the capital cost and removed the cost from the construction costs.

f) TV’s to be supplied by operator (£21k) - the operator had an agreement with a TV supplier which allowed the TV’s to be supplied and fitted outside of the construction contract.
Patressing and the tv point were still required.

g) Linen & cutlery starter pack by operator (£27k) - the operator decided to supply this themselves so omitted from the construction costs.

Question 26

Why was the project budget increased prior to the VE exercise conclusion?

Answer 26

b) The client was aware that there needed to be an increase in the budget to tacilitate the
operator requirements.

Question 27

How did vou carry out the VE exercise?

Answer 27

a) The design team proposed ideas which were then assessed bv technical acceptability and impact before they were costed.

Question 28

How did you estimate the VE options?

Answer 28

a) Used the design team sketches and designs to quantity the construction elements and then used previous tender returns to cost the items.

Question 29

Which options were rejected by the client?

Answer 29

a) All façade related VE option were discounted by the client as they did not want to impact planning related matters.

Question 30

How did you demonstrate construction tech knowledge on this project?

Question 31

W

Question 32

What did you learn from this key issue and how would you ensure this issue didn’t arise in the future?