Presentation Flashcards
Why was the scheme not re-negotiated with the selected contractor following the delays?
This option was presented to the Contractor prior to the revised retail standards being issued. During this discussion, The Contractor advised that they would stand by their tendered sum for the purpose of benefitting the relationship with the Client and future work.
What were the key changes identified within the retail standards?
The retail standards impacted both the main contract and directs and so both were reviewed:
Internal reconfiguration which included amendments to the layout of the internal walls such as private consultation booths
Removal of the ceiling above the showroom
Furniture specification
M&E installations/ specification i.e. BMS supplier and lighting amendments following removal of ceiling
Changes to M&E following reconfiguration
Additional works required such as EV canopy
Improved equipment to workshop (Direct)
Removal of canopy to showroom which required steel alterations
Can you advise on the items which were priced incorrectly and why?
Design development associated with changes not included at correct level
Changes to BMS Supplier shown on specification but not priced correctly by C - had not considered associated electrical works and approx £40k additional costs.
Elements at the original tender stage such as drainage
How did you review the initial impact of the retail standards
Reviewed the document with the design team to highlight the key changes.
Identified the changes such as ceiling omission, changes to M&E, reconfiguration works, changes to specifications etc. and took advice from the consultants regarding any items which would be significant;
M&E noted as high
Priced changes to internal layout based on rates and previous cost plan
Reviewed directs changes too which highlighted changes to workshop equipment and additional requirements - no cost certainty as require quotes but large change from original inclusions.
List provided of all changes identified to note potential severity of cost impact.
How did you manage sectional completion?
During the works to the MOT Bays, I organised frequent visits to monitor progress. The works completed on programme and I undertook a review to certify sectional completion and identified any outstanding works to be complete within 14 days.
Upon issue of the sectional completion cert, I released 50% of the retention associated with that portion of the works. 12 months later, I undertook the defects process and released the remaining retention. I will carry out the same processes for Section 2 once the defects are complete.
Why were the contract documents not executed prior to commencing section 1?
Due to the requirement to incorporate the retail standards, the contract contents could not be agreed prior to commencement. Therefore, the LOI was updated to allow the execution of Section 1 only with a maximum amount. The contract contents were then agreed and executed prior to commencement of the second section, but the LOI was updated to allow orders to be placed so as to not impact programme.
Why on a D&B contract was design coordination pre-contract necessary?
Due to the time constraints following the issue of the retail standards, I reviewed this information with Lookers and it was agreed that it would be preferable to coordinate the design information as much as possible prior to entering the contract as the ER’s needed to accurately reflect the Retail Standards and ensure the quality required would be achieved. Quality was a large key driver for the End-User and so it was critical that this was not lost as a result of using D&B.
How were the contract documents agreed?
The contract contents were issued to both the Employer and Contractor for their review during this period to ensure that all drawings/ specs included could be confirmed as included for along with ensuring they were in line with the requirements.
Can you discuss the process of agreeing the final account and why this issue affected this?
The final account was difficult to agree as the Contractor had not accurately priced or considered the design development required following the issue of the retail standards, which under the contract, the C was not entitled to. In addition, the
How did you manage the direct contractors package?
The requirements and process was agreed with the Client prior to commencement of the works.
The packages included furniture, IT, signage etc.
Many of the direct contractors work closely with the end-user and so produced proposals for the requirements along with quotations.
These were issued to the Employer for a review with the End-user to confirm correct. I also reviewed the costs were applicable.
Once agreed, I instructed the directs contractors and agreed payment terms and costs for the works.
These costs were then added to the cost report and cashflow and updated every month with any changes/ invoices. Segregated from main contract.
For example, scope of works for the parts racking changed following a review of the proposals from a make good to full replacement - managed and agreed with Employer.
any further lessons learned on the selected option?
The pricing document should have been reflected to suit the revised documents rather than including an addendum.
When carrying out valuations, it made it difficult to value against the CSA as many items no longer reflected the scope i.e. wall types
What were the advantages of using D&B on this scheme?
DB Contract reduced the Employer risk which was beneficial as reduced the number of variation claims the Employer was responsible for.
Using this method of procurement also enabled the start date to be met as did not require the pricing document to be updated in its entirety or for the design work to be wholly complete prior to commencement.
What were the disadvantages of using D&B on this scheme?
although not a negative to the Employer, the risk allocation meant that the Contractor suffered significant losses as a result of their own mistakes. for example, the incorrect pricing and time allocation for design development together with initial mistakes made during the tender process meant the lump sum did not accurately consider the scope of works.
How did you review the tender documents?
I compared all the tender returns to identify any anomalies along with comparing to the PTE i carried out. I then queried any items I highlighted as anomalies to confirm the tender submissions were correct.
On this basis, a report was issued to the Employer on the lowest sum, as agreed.
How did you ascertain the costs provided for the changes were correct?
The Contractor was requested to provide a drawing review tracker which highlighted the changes on each drawing. I then reviewed this, along with the associated costs to confirm they were fair and reasonable. using rates in the tendered CSA along with cost plans and in-house data, I was able to review and negotiate the costs included by the Contractor. I also organised a design review meeting with the contractor and design team to review the changes on site so all could be picked up during this exercise.
