Level 3 questions Flashcards
Ethics: On the F1MP project, I received an informal verbal complaint from a client about the performance of a member of the design team. I recognised that the complaint may escalate. I followed Ridge’s complaints procedure by firstly informing the Managing Partner. I then assessed the complaint and gathered evidential details which I recorded on our DMS.
The colleague in question had missed some of the client’s requirements in his design. I spoke directly to the colleague who admitted the issue had been caused by resource constraint issues.
I spoke to the Managing Partner about possible steps that could be taken to resolve the immediate issue and to prevent the issue reoccurring. I agreed to work with the design team in question to develop a detailed checklist at each RIBA Stage. I subsequently arranged a meeting with the client to review the proposed actions. The client agreed not to pursue the matter any further. Once the checklist was developed, I set up a further session with the design team, the client and the client’s consultants to agree its implementation for future phases.
1) What is Ridge’s client complaints procedure?
2) What are RICS complaints procedures/requirements?
3) Was PI notified? Why not?
1) Ridge client complaint procedure:
- Project Lead creates a record
- Depends if formal/informal
- Informal dealt with by Project Lead and Office Managing Partner
- Formal referred to Senior Partner who decides whether to inform PI
- Acknowledge complaint within 7 days
- Response to complainant within 14 days giving version of events (‘without prejudice’)
- Within 28 days a full response, invite complainant to accept or comment further
- Mediation
- Arbitration
2) RICS complaint’s handling
- Acknowledgement within 7 days
- consideration of the complaint by a senior member of the firm
- Response within 28 days
- If the complaint cannot be resolved, referral to an independent third party with the authority to award redress
3) Referred to Senior Partner. PI was not notified as it was an informal complaint.
Dev/Proj Briefs: An international retail client was struggling to standardise project delivery on their portfolio of 30+ live projects at their flagship site. Mobilisation and delivery timescales for projects were impacting their business. To mitigate this issue, I developed a portfolio-level Project Execution Plan (PEP) which was to drive consistency across the portfolio. The PEP covered the key project control processes from detailed design to construction; • Responsibilities matrix • Communications strategy • Procurement strategy • Document management processes • Design control • Change control • Financial management and control • Health & Safety
This standardised approach contributed to a reduction in mobilisation and delivery timescales, and a reduction in variations. I implemented a gateway process to control changes to the approved project brief. Design reviews were completed at gateway checkpoints to review the design against the requirements set out in the brief. A final gateway review was conducted prior to construction.
1) How did you identify whether the documents used for the PEP were fit for purpose?
2) What was your remit in terms of development of the PEP?
3) How did the PEP contribute to a reduction in mobilisation and delivery timescales?
4) Can you describe the change control process to manage changes to the brief?
1) Docs fit for purpose:
- Peer review of all parts of the document
- Held client stakeholder reviews at different levels of the client organisation
- Presented the document to key senior client stakeholders for acceptance
- Published the document and pack on a shared site for project team to use
2) Remit in developing PEP:
- Developed the contents of the PEP and reviewed with the client
- Drafted a document structure
- Assigned ownership to parts of the document
- Took ownership of areas within my capability
- Set deadlines for completion
- Worked collaboratively with the team to develop and review
3) Reduction in timescales:
- Standard list of documents / templates
- Guidance in one central place
- Same control processes in place across all portfolio projects
- Client stakeholders knew what to expect and when
- Project team became better educated in the required process and standard required on projects
- Change control processes ensured that more thought was put into the design (presumption against change)
4) Change control:
_ Changes before RIBA 2 Concept Design complete are incorporated into the Project Brief with client approval
- From RIBA 3 Spatial Co-ordination, any changes to the project brief were managed by change control
- At the end of each design stage a gateway process assesses the design against the project brief
- Any changes are assessed against time, cost and quality impacts
- All changes referred to the client for approval to proceed
Dev/Proj Briefs: On a public sector scheme, the project brief specified a requirement for BREEAM ‘Excellent’. During RIBA 2 I consulted with the Sustainability Consultant and QS on the project and advised the client that this requirement was unlikely to be achieved within the budget of the project and advised what rating they could achieve within budget. I recommended that the client either lower their requirement, sacrifice design to maintain or increase the project budget to achieve their requirement.
1) What process did you go through to assess that the requirement for BREEAM Excellent couldn’t be met?
2) What was your role in advising the client that BREEAM Excellent couldn’t be met?
3) Give me some examples of the BREEAM credits that you were targeting / needed to be omitted?
1) Assessing BREEAM couldn’t be met:
- I instructed the QS to develop a schedule of cost items directly attributable to attaining BREEAM credits
- I held a review with the Design Team to identify the impact on the design of omitting any specific BREEAM item, categorised H/M/L
- I then held a series of meetings with senior client stakeholders to reach a decision
- Outcome was a decision to downgrade requirement to Good but maintain the project budget
2) Role in advising client:
- I advised the client on the impact to the design/costs of omitting requirements
- I advised the client of the cost of alternative ratings, i.e. Very Good (55%) and Good (45%); including the risk that some of the credits might not be achieved in the construction stage
- I enabled the client to make a decision in order to maintain their project objectives
3) Examples of BREEAM credits omitted:
- challenge of being in a third world country
- Health & Wellbeing - Acoustic Performance, no acoustician available locally
- Ecology credits - would involve a qualified ecologist to visit site, skills not available locally
- NOx emissions - mains power deemed to be unreliable therefore use of diesel generators required
- Impact of refridgerants - deemed too limiting to target this due to climate
Contract: On F1MP Phase 2 (£1m value), the client wanted to instruct a fit-out specialist to complete the work. The client’s preferred contract type was D&B to minimise their design risk on a refurbishment project. The preferred contractor would not accept a D&B contract. I developed a report which outlined the following recommendations to the client; Firstly, the client should instruct an extensive survey of the works area to understand buildability and legacy building issues. Secondly, CDP’s should be employed for specialist elements of the fit-out such as M&E. Thirdly, the client should expect that any client design development will result in a variation to the contract. Finally, that the client should allow additional time for Stage 4 design to reduce the likelihood of future design changes and reduce risk of contractor delay caused by the client. I provided reasoned advice that, given the size and complexity of the project, a JCT Intermediate with CDP was appropriate.
1) How was the procurement undertaken?
2) Why did the specialist not accept a D&B contract?
3) Why did you advise the client use CDPs and what contract provision was made?
4) What impact did this decision have to the programme?
5) Why did you recommend a JCT Intermediate contract, and did you consider other contract forms?
1) Procurement process:
- Managed a pre-qualification process on behalf of the client
- Short-list of 3 contractors was agreed with the client, and these were all specialist contractors
- Once Stage 4 design was completed, a full tender process was initiated
- Tender period shorter than D&B, but slower to start on site
2) Contractor won’t accept D&B:
- Fit-out specialist with limited capability to undertake structural design, lack of PI
3) Advising CDP:
- Client submits ERs
- Ability to base design on performance parameters
- Transfers responsibility to the contractor to coordinate the M&E design with existing system
- Sub-contractor’s design agreement
4) Programme impact:
- Instead of tendering at Stage 3, the full design was developed prior to tender
- M&E design (CDP) followed post-tender
- Programme was sequential therefore longer than D&B
5) Why recommend Intermediate:
- Considered SBC
- Project not high complexity or value
- Work did not require full detailed provisions of SBC
- Lump sum required
- BoQ used and named specialists
- All sub-contractors are domestic
- CDP possible
Leading: I provided reasoned advice to the NT on the structure of the team, and the timing of consultant appointments on a conservation project. As the main house is Grade 1 listed, I advised the client that the design team should have conservation accreditation in order that they understand the required design, appreciate the building’s condition, and recognise its historical significance. Furthermore, as the client had decided to undertake a masterplanning exercise, I advised the client not to appoint their consultant design team until key strategic decisions were made confirming the scope of the project.
1) What is the Conservation strategy in RIBA Plan of Work 2020?
2) What did you advise the client in terms of the consultant appointments they should make?
3) What advice did you give the client in terms of making the appointments?
1) RIBA 2020 Conservation Strategy:
- Stage 1: Identify conservation knowledge, skills and experience required in the design team and appoint specialist contractors
- Stage 2: Measured / condition surveys to inform Architectural Concept; review the concept against conservation management plan, statement of significance
- Stage 3: Integrate building conservation principles into a Spatially Coordinated design; develop Procurement Strategy
Stage 4: Embed Conservation Strategy into the Final Specifications; discharge any pre-commencement listed building consent
Stage 5: Protect historic building fabric, inform operatives of building’s significance
Stage 6: Compile surveys and records of discoveries into the Building Manual, hand over the updated conservation management plan to the client
2) Advise to the client on consultant appointments:
- I developed a Responsibilities Matrix outlining the knowledge, skills and experience required in the design team
- I recommended that a conservation architect is appointed at RIBA 1 and takes the role of lead designer to develop the architectural concept and advise on conservation requirements
- Consult with the architect to appoint other specialist roles during RIBA 2
- Advised that the consultant team should be appointed only after the project scope and timing had been clarified
3) Advice in making appointments:
- RACI developed to ensure coverage and no overlap
- Scopes of service need to be carefully reviewed
- The Architect should play the role of design lead with the responsibility for coordinating the design
- PM should take overall responsibility to coordinate the other consultants
- A client representative to interface with the team on day-to-day matters
Leading: On F1MP Phase 2 I managed contractor performance through measurement against KPIs that I defined at the outset of the project. I made sure that the indicators were measurable and relevant by reviewing the lessons learnt from Phase 1. Some metrics I used; progress against key pre-defined milestones, response times to change requests and instructions, H&S incidents, client complaints and number of defects. I compiled these metrics and reviewed with the client monthly.
1) How did you decide what KPIs?
2) What was the outcome of the KPI reviews with the client? Be specific
3) Why did you give that advice to the client?
4) What were some key milestones? Why did you select those?
5) Did you take any action based on KPI data?
1) KPIs defined:
- Consulted the PM on the previous phase and used lessons learnt
- Consulted with the client to understand where concerns lay - quality and time
- KPIs as a way of early warning against key risks
- KPIs were SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound)
- Link to client’s overarching success factors: time and quality
2) Outcome of the reviews:
- Data to assess underlying performance/effectiveness of contractor
- Explain issues / challenges
- Discuss support for contractor
- Continuous improvement
- Lessons learned
- Anticipate commercial issues/actions
- Achieving overall project objectives
3) Why advice to client:
- Milestones to track movements of key dates through the programme
- Response to change requests as this was cited as a key capability at tender stage
- H&S / complaints due to the sensitivity of construction in an operational site
4) Key milestones:
- Substructure complete
- Mains power on
- Superstructure complete / building weather tight
- MEP first fix complete
- Milestones selected to denote completion of ‘enabling’ activities on the critical path - slippage indicates major risk to the project
5) Action based on data:
- I set a defect threshold to monitor quality throughout construction
- Weekly consultant inspections to identify defects
- When defects exceed threshold I would set up a management meeting to discuss actions
Leading: I was required to adapt my natural consultative management style on Phase 2 when I was required to ‘step in’ to support the completion of some critical M&E work. The Ridge M&E engineers were overcommitted, and I accepted that they would only be able to provide minimal input. I gathered client requirements for specialist equipment and led the client-side commissioning planning process.
1) Can you describe what you did to ‘step in’?
2) How did you manage these activities without the required expertise?
3) How did you manage client requirements for specialist equipment and the commissioning planning process?
1) What did to ‘step in’:
- Took overall responsibility for tasks being managed by another part of the team
- Held a meeting with the M&E engineers to review the tools, templates and activities required
- Explained to the client that I would be the point of contact for these activities
- Managed s/holder expectations and developed regular communication ‘play back’ meetings to ensure requirements were being met
2) How managed without expertise:
- Sought expertise within Ridge and wider team
- Protected the programme and the client, by providing timely information to the contractor
- Was careful not to advise outside of my capability
3) Managing tasks:
Client requirements:
- Conducted reviews with the client end users and documented requirements
- Gathered technical specifications for the equipment
- Organised site visits for the contractors to review the existing locations
- Provided a communication channel to manage clarifications
Commissioning planning:
- Worked with the contractor to develop a commissioning programme
- Reviewed against the commissioning strategy in the PEP
- Validated against the Ridge commissioning checklist
Leading: Furthermore, I was aware that the client had decided against employing a fire officer at design stage. I advised the client that the employer has responsibilities to comply with building regulations and therefore it would reduce project risk to make this appointment at RIBA 3 design.
1) Isn’t it design team responsibility to meet building regulations?
2) What are the key responsibilities of a fire officer?
3) What benefits to the client did you advise that this appointment would have?
1) Responsibility:
- Client retains overall responsibility for building control and fire safety under Fire Safety Order 2005 (responsible person)
- Client can appoint ‘competent persons’ to assist
2) Fire officer responsibilities:
- Advise on fire issues relating to building structure, fabric, services, etc.
- Co-ordinate and monitor fire risk assessments
- Advice/guidance relating to compliance with legislation
- Liaising with authorities
- Advise on the correct installation of fire safety measures
3) Advice to client:
- Reduction in design rework
- Best practice
- Support the ‘golden thread’ of fire safety information
- Value for money
- Optimal specification for fire safety
- Value engineering / innovative design
- Compliance with legislation
- Client taking reasonable steps to maintain fire safety
Managing: On AVIC I worked closely with the Ridge QS to develop a cost estimate at RIBA 2 to support a feasibility study. I completed a gap-analysis on the contractor’s initial quotation and concluded there were significant gaps in information; therefore, I recommended that we build in risk allowances into the cost estimate accordingly. The cost estimate demonstrated that some of the client’s objectives weren’t feasible. The client challenged the costs and requested that we remove the contingency in our report. I gave reasoned advice to the client that this was not realistic, given the complex nature of the project and the prototype nature of the equipment the 15% contingency was a reasonable allowance at RIBA 2.
1) How did you substantiate your advice to the client?
2) Why did the contractor provide an initial quotation?
3) What were some key risks?
1) Substantiating advice:
- Advised that it is always appropriate to hold a contingency for unforeseen issues and identified risks
- Developed a costed risk register to demonstrate potential cost impacts to the project
- The technology being installed was a prototype, therefore this placed greater risks on the project
- Advised that the % will be refined and likely reduce as risks are mitigated, design is developed and information is received
- Advised that it would not be realistic to assume that all objectives could be achieved with no contingency
- Advised that the contingency doesn’t have to be shared with the contractor
2) Initial quotation:
- Specialist equipment supplier was providing prototype equipment, and installation building works on a negotiated tender basis
3) Key risks:
- Prototype nature of the technology (design development)
- Complex logistics for access / egress (construction)
- Client is a tenant in a hospital trust building
- Uncertainty on commercial and contractual arrangements
Managing: I provided reasoned advice to a Council client on a feasibility study they had previously commissioned. I co-ordinated a review with a structural and civil engineer and a QS and provided a report advising the client that the scheme could not be delivered within budget and furthermore a significant structural risk existed due to the building’s proximity to a former quarry. I recommended that the size of the building be reviewed, and that further ground investigation be undertaken before the project is progressed.
1) How did you set about reviewing the feasibility?
2) What advice did you give the client in relation to the feasibility study and why?
3) How did you communicate this to the client?
1) Approach:
- Critically appraised the feasibility and identified areas for challenge
- Engaged a structural and civil engineer to undertake a risk based review of the proposals
- Engaged a QS to undertake an independent assessment of the costs and reviewed the outcomes with the client
- Facilitated a VE workshop to understand where costs could be brought back in line with the budget
- Developed a report which provided recommendations on:
- Appraisal of feasibility study
- Recommendations on structural proposal
- Considerations for cost reduction
- Next steps
- Procurement
- Programme
2) Advice to client:
- Cost plan made some notable omissions, such as sufficient allowance for consultant fees and contingency
- Considerable structural risks inherent in the design which should be investigated further using an extensive Ground Investigation survey
- SUDS proposal was ineffective and likely to impact AONB
- VE outcomes, limited ability to reduce cost without making building smaller
- Procurement - D&B to transfer structural risks to contractor
3) Communicating to client:
- Developed a professional report which was issued to the client and advisor
- Met the client to present the report and recommendations
- Held a workshop with the client to agree subsequent actions and develop an outline programme for the works
Managing: I provided reasoned advice and consultation to the NT PMO (£100m portfolio value) PMO on project control processes, governance procedures and reporting structures. I advised that earned value analysis could help them measure the underlying health of their portfolio of projects.
1) What project control processes, governance procedures and reporting structures did you advise?
2) What is earned value analysis and what did you advise the client with respect to this?
1) Project control processes:
- Status reporting / dashboard
- Programme
- Risks / Issues
- Assumption / Dependency
- Cost
- Earned Value analysis
2) What is EVA?
- Assesses project progress by comparing the amount and cost of work that was planned to have been done by a particular stage with the amount that has actually been done and what it has actually cost.
- CPI = BCWP / ACWP (negative means overbudget)
- SPI = BCWP / BCWS (negative means behind schedule)
- Advised the client that they should structure the programme and cost reporting to enable this level of analysis
Programming: The NT conservation scheme was subject to a masterplanning process which would define the scope of the project. The project sponsor wanted to deliver the project in the shortest possible timeframe. I developed a master programme including the masterplanning elements of the project and provided two sequence options to the client, each showing different levels of risk. I recommended that the spatial design work be allowed to progress to an advanced position before concept design is undertaken for the project. I presented this recommendation, and it was approved at Project Board even though it meant that the project governance milestones were placed onto the critical path of the overall VIP programme.
1) Can you explain how the spatial design activity fitted with the project? What was your role?
2) Why did the different options show different levels of risk?
3) What were the governance milestones?
1) Spatial design:
- Masterplan for the entire site
- Would be phased implementation
- Spatial design would define the site-wide requirements and drive out priority scope for first phase
- Extensive piece of work (3 mons), project could influence but not in control
- Good idea of what project scope would be, but until spatial design completed there is a risk that this could change
- Would result in inaccurate cost estimate, and potentially abortive work/extensive redesign
- My role was PM of first phase project, spatial design was managed by an internal expert
2) Option risk:
- Presented different options to the client; different levels of risk for decision
- I recommended the lower risk option to allow the spatial design to define the phase 1 project work - this would not necessarily be the completion/approval of spatial design
- Higher risk option would improve the programme but could end up with increased cost and longer programme - I advised the client to balance this possibility
3) Governance milestones:
- Spatial design agreed / scope confirmed
- OBC approved
- Project Brief approved
- Concept Design, etc.
- All key checkpoints to be ratified by the project board meeting
Programming: On an international scheme I was able to use the programme to demonstrate to the client the time critical nature of some of the survey activity required to inform the design. As the data collection was dependent on seasonal weather conditions, I advised the client that failure to meet procurement and mobilisation activities would cause the project to be delayed by up to 12 months.
1) Can you provide some detail as to why the programme was at risk of being delayed by up to 12 months?
2) Who would have been liable for the delay in the event the risk was realised?
1) Potential delay:
- Design of development dependent on specialist ground investigation survey
- Survey needed to be undertaken in the rainy season
- Ultimately this informed the completion of the Full Business Case which was on the critical path of the project
2) Liability for delay:
- Delay was caused by procurement delays for which Ridge was responsible, and travel restrictions in Sierra Leone
- EWN issued relating to both delays
- No LDs in PSC
- Client would retain liability for the delay
