Critical Analysis

Question 1

Who prepare the LL SoC?

Answer 1

The landlords property surveyor

Question 2

Were you involved in checking it?

Answer 2

No, as this had already been undertaken prior to my involvement.

Question 3

What were you looking for?

Answer 3

At first I wanted to check what the LL report included, so I could cross reference it with my report, however, it was at this stage I identified the issue with progressing with the LL chosen method of construction.

Question 4

Why was the Conservation Case Officer involved?

Answer 4

As part of the expansion project, we was also instructed to replace the existing shop front window.

As the property is located within a conservation area, we needed to apply for planing permission for approval.

Question 5

M & E & SE procurement – how done?

Answer 5

A service-level agreement between the my client and consultants, for one of projects. Their fee is then negotiated, depending of the size and complexity of the project.

Question 6

Level of involvement? What service did they provide?

Answer 6

The structural engineer provided his service for inspecting the property (area of works) completing a design and specification for the works, and they for signing off the works on site.

Question 7

How instructed?

Answer 7

???

Question 8

What was level of PI required?

Answer 8

5m

Question 9

How was is it checked?

Answer 9

as they are approved consultants for NFUM, they had already undergone dul, which included having a copy of the most recent insurance documents on file.

Question 10

What other procurement methods are available?

Answer 10

???

Question 11

How was the liquidated damages calculated?

Answer 11

???

Question 12

What happened between end of tender adjudication 13.1.17 to 5.08-1.3.17 (6 weeks)

Answer 12

???

Question 13

Staff in occupation? Temp accommodation provided?

Answer 13

No, we had a separate entrance, so we were able to

Question 14

What were Party Wall issues to consider?

Answer 14

the right notice to used, the timescale involved, the award needed.

Question 15

What investigations were undertaken to the floor and when?

Answer 15

we allowed for opening up the floor in a 5-6 locations, to establish the condition of the sub floor and void.

Question 16

Why was Option 3 better than Option 1?

Answer 16

less disruptive, required less storage of materials, existing, quicker to installed, given the access restrictions.

Question 17

What was the required floor loading?

Answer 17

Historically, UK office buildings have been designed and marketed with live loadings significantly higher than the British Standard loading threshold of 2.5 kN/m2 (typically 3.5–4.0 kN/m2).

Question 18

What were the Party Wall issues?

Answer 18

Replacing a rear outbuilding asbetos roof covering, that bridge the adjacency property owners building.

Question 19

What measures could be taken/did you take to ensure variations were competitively priced by the contractor?

Answer 19

Bench marked the costs using a BCIS, and cross referenced the project cost against other like projects.

Question 20

What is the difference between a PS and Contingency? (Insufficient contingency in the tender).

Answer 20

???

Question 21

What was the difference between programme Options 1 and 2 (Client variation?).

Answer 21

Option 1 Programme 6 weeks
Option 2 Programme 8 weeks
2 weeks were included to allow for the clients variation.

Question 22

How was the PW issue addressed?

Answer 22

Via communication with the adjacent property owner, and discussed about the works. we established that a section two notice would be required (party structure notice).

Question 23

What were the issues regarding lines of communications?

Answer 23

???

Question 24

Asbestos issues and Landlord?

Answer 24

???

Question 25

What were the floor defects?

Answer 25

on inspecting the floor void, it was established that the reason for the deflection was due to over notching of existing timber joists, and then being historically overloaded.

I was expecting to find the existing timbers being built into the wall, however, then were built on a supporting honeycomb wall.

There was no signs of decay or attacking insects or any signs or rodents.

Question 26

What was the cause of the rodent infestation?

Answer 26

It was thought that the existing floor void was being used as a rat run/den. however, on opening the floor void, there was no supporting evidence to prove that this was the case.

Question 27

Window timber decay – wet or dry? Explain repairs undertaken.

Answer 27

It was wet rot, as the decaying timber was isolated to external areas only and localised to unprotected timber only.

cut back and removed areas of rotting timber, until reach sound timber and cut and spliced in new treated timber to match same profile. all timber were then treated, prior to decorations.

Question 28

What fire protection required to the new studs?

Answer 28

Our internal partitioning are tested for a fire rating of 30 minuets. the partitioning are taken up to ceiling, or if there is a suspended ceiling, we form a stud bulkhead above the ceiling to ensure the partition has continuous protection.

It also helps with acoustics, as we can achieve 49dB (Rw).

Question 29

Please explain the Client variation.

Answer 29

The client asked for some additional alterations to the ground floor, as they were looking to take on additional staff in the near future. however, this would result in structural supporting walls being removed to form the open plan office feel.