Fire Compartmentation Case Study Flashcards
Why did you omit works from the contract and award them to another contractor?
It was discussed openly between the parties and as scope had increased the contractor was struggling to meet their programme demands. They could then focus more attention on progressing their other sites. The other contractor was already had a relationship with the client on other sites and had tendered for the works previously so it would benefit the project bringing a competent contractor onboard.
is the QS listed under a SBC?
Yes, in the articles of agreement.
Was there a separate fire engineer employed to sign off that the Works were completed appropriately to the required standard? do you have the relevant experience and qualifications to sign this off?
Yes there was a fire safety officer inspecting the standard of work who would report back. No, it was my role to value the works in accordance with the contract, not inspect the quality of workmanship and materials. In one instance no access panel was installed to a rigid fire barrier that was required for plant maintenance.
Standard building contract - who dictated this? would a minor works have suited or maybe an intermediate?
The client did not have the contract amendments for the intermediate and the minor works may not be appropriate – only 3 months rectification and no named subcontractors or list of EoT.
Awarding contracts separately to 3 tenderers, was this set out as part of the ITT?
No because each contract was tendered independently from eachother, a conversation was then had regarding programme to confirm their capacity to deliver more than one concurrently if awarded.
Were there any cost issues in separately awarding the contracts?
Yes, the second most competitive tenderer was the same for each project so they were awarded based on ones where the margin was the smallest but there was an uplift in cost from this approach, in favour of time and the clients risk exposure.
If the clients key driver was time, was a traditionally procured project the best to achieve this? Would a negotiation either single or 2 stage have been quicker?
It was a specialist contract so the design stage didn’t delay the start on site date and the contract incorporated a contractors design portion, whilst retaining quality. A two stage approach would have meant agreeing a fixed price prior to starting on site which would’ve delayed the start on site date. Tenderers were unwilling to give a fixed price based on a third parties survey due to the risk of inaccuracies.
Additional scope, surely there would be some attributable delay to extra work?
Yes, with the delay on site deducted from this, although the contractor failed to request an extension of time. A revised completion date was agreed in Jan-21.
If the trust proposed key issue 1 option 1 then how did I ?
The trust made the suggestion but I formally presented this as an option to the client after considering the contractual impact and they had the authority to make decisions.
If time is so critical, I dont see how an option accepting ‘time at large’ should be the preferred solution?
I agreed a revised completion date.
Did the client seek redress against the original party who did the survey so wrong?
No they did not but it could’ve been an option, the problem was areas were identified as inaccessible at the time of the survey so a provisional sum was allocated to it. Other more tangible items like fire doors that were missed are less excusable and could be due to the surveyors negligence.
Disadvantage of key issue 2 option 1 to acquire more funding and complete the works in full – no further market testing, but surely you had costs you could compare against from the original tender?
Yes but with the scope of works now considerably more, economies of scale may drive down the rates assuming the new scope. There were also some items of alternative specifications that were less comparable to tendered rates.
Could you not just procure the m&e works on a minor works contract, if the client is going to contract directly with a subcontractor I’m not sure a subcontract would be appropriate?
The client was keen to procure the works in the one contract with the benefit of transferring risk and the contractor agreed to the subcontract to secure the project. A minor works would mean they would directly responsible for them.
Was a PQQ (or supplier assessment questionnaire) undertaken to assess contractor suitability originally?
No because the tenderers were selected from the clients list of suppliers having worked with hem previously. I suggested undertaking a PQQ would have been appropriate to understand their suitability. Based on resources, location, solvency, health and safety record and experience. ASFP
How was the tender list prepared? If it was client suggested contractors then that’s easier because you can blame non performance on their list, or public procurement/ a framework?
The tender list was prepared using the clients suggestions.
Why did you agree to have the works remeasurable?
To start works on site sooner as time was the clients priority. It was then possible to overlap the survey work and construction.
Why didn’t I agree a contract sum after the contractors survey?
The client wanted to agree a contract sum before the contractors survey, relying on the accuracy of the third party survey and tendered rates. If the contractors survey was carried out outside of the construction period it would have prolonged the process and caused more disruption instead of overlapping the survey work with construction. The contractor having to alter the building when surveying was also a factor but the works were expected to be non-intrusive.
Why were the revised costs so much more?
The third party survey failed to pick up all the fire stopping and fire door upgrades required on the compartment lines. Some areas were inaccessible at the time of surveying due to storage, missing walkways, locked doors and hatches. So some measurements were inaccurate or missing.
What was wrong with the third party survey?
It failed to identify the full scope of the works due to a lack of detail and inaccessible areas that a provisional sum was allocated to.
What are the contract amendments?
a. 5% retention instead of 3%
b. 30 days final date for payment from 14 days
c. No entitlement to loss and expense if it isn’t notified within 8 weeks
d. Arbitration is excluded from dispute resolution section 9
Why was there a wide range in tender returns? Was the ITT not clear?
The lowest tender was not priced in accordance with the tender requirements so I recommended not to consider it in the analysis. The highest contractor priced in more risk into the fire compartments as the actual height was not measured.
How were the KPI’s measured?
These were shown on the monthly progress report issued to the client including programme and cost indicators. Programme measured by hitting key milestones like the fire stopping element and cost measured by monthly expenditure as forecasted.
How was the contingency calculated?
It was quantified using the initial scope measurements to allocate a cost based on the probability and impact.
How did I advise the client of the procurement approach?
I discussed the key drivers and time and quality were most important to the client so i advised of a traditional approach to retain quality whilst utilising an approx quants contract to satisfy time demands by overlapping design and construction. Providing a fixed price contract would’ve provided more cost certainty so advised there was a risk that cost would vary. Could provide a procurement report.
