How it should be done
To follow on from Daz’s excellent piece on tendering (if you haven’t read that, read it first), I thought I’d throw in my recent experience of procurement…
The architect, PDP, have design responsibility for the waterproofing, including the additional waterproofing measures required for the Grade 3 basement areas. PDP should provide a waterproofing intent that is then given to the geotechnical designers to analyse. Arup, the geotechnical designer, should furnish PDP with values that are used to define the performance requirement of the waterproofing measures. These figures should be applied by the architect to a catalogue of products and define a product. The supplier of that product are then responsible for the detailing of that product, the supply and installation.
None of that happened.
Instead PDP drew a waterproofing intent and went direct to the supplier approved by the client, Grace, to design the cavity drainage system. Grace (not Newton, sorry Henry) said they couldn’t do it. They could specify the product and do the detailing but they couldn’t do the pumps. Hoare Lea, the M+E designer, should have then been approached to do the pump design. Instead PDP went to a different supplier, one not approved by the client, Newton, and asked them to design it all. Which they did. At this point it is worth noting that PDP did not pay Newton for this design.
Sir Robert McAlpine (SRM) are now stuck with a design that is not approved by the client. The sub-contract for the supply and installation of the waterproofing does not include a cost for design. So that cost (and there must be one) must be included within the rates in the installation subcontract since no one does anything for free. In order to maintain the programme, the waterproofing has now been installed, so we’re far too far down the road to go back and do it properly so what can we do?
It looks like we’re going to have to either suck it up and accept that we’re effectively paying for the design twice (once to PDP and once to Newton), or we have to break down the sub-contractor’s quote and remove the element of design and contra-charge that to the architect.
This dilemma is currently sat with the package QS. Who has been saying for 3 weeks that he will do something about it, but hasn’t. This morning he handed in his notice so I somehow doubt this still sit’s in the Urgent and Important box on his list of things to do!
More to follow me thinks…
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
Guz,
Where you said ‘Newton couldn’t do it’, do you mean Grace? And how did PDP get away without paying Newton? If our PC hadn’t paid an SC properly then we, as the client, would hold back the equivalent from our next payment to them until we saw proof.
Incidentally I am just drafting that threat as I have found out that one of our SCs isn’t paying his personnel correctly.
Although Newton is not on the approved list, presumably the client will approve the design if it is shown to be workable?
I did mate, sorry. I will amend it to reduce confusion.
PDP asked Newton to design it and they obliged knowing that we (the main contractor) would have to built to that design and that they could recoup those design costs from us. They did PDP a “favour” knowing it would make them money in the long run.
The client are in a contract with us, we are then in a contract with PDP. As long as we pay PDP then the client pay us. We have to pay the architect for the waterproofing design, which they have provided. We do not pay the subcontractor for that design. But the subcontractor isn’t asking us to, they’ve hidden that cost in their quote for other works.
Interestingly Newton are on the Client’s approved list, they were used by the client on a separate development last year. But they’ve never been used by McAlpine before so it’s been a struggle to get their tender approved.
Guz, can you let me know of the final outcome of this, as the scenario you have described would make a spendid Mod 2 Contract Management exam question..! Regards Greg
Yes Greg, I’ll keep you informed