Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog

Example Spectrum Analyser Recording

Introduction

In this blog I will cover various commercial and contractual tasks I have undertaken whilst working alongside the Commercial Team. These tasks came about as a result of my continual DAP review to ensure that I have met as many of the UK-SPEC requirements, at the right level, as possible.

The reason I am conducting these types of task now, compared to the majority of my peers who have done so early-on in their attachments, comes down to timing and project availability. I always knew entering the project at the stage I did meant that the ship had already sailed with regard to the majority of specific contractual stuff. Therefore, through my DAP and in consultation with my line-management I sought out and conducted the following:

RF/EMF Testing Tender Process (B1, B2, C1 and C2)

Here I was responsible for the procurement and tender process for the RF/EMF Testing works package. This was to confirm that previously omitted shielding, via a value engineering exercise, was indeed not required for Electro-encephalo-gram (EEG) recording rooms. An early study conducted by JHG concluded that, based on their needs (not having to architecturally redesign rooms) and the views of various vendors (specialist medical equipment suppliers), the latest technological improvements in medical equipment reduced RF/EMF emissions enough to negate the requirement for shielding. A survey was also conducted of a number of hospital projects nation-wide to confirm what they had implemented in terms of mitigation for RF/EMF emissions.

Why Required?

The client had requested the testing as a ‘belt and braces’ insurance policy, which was absolutely their prerogative especially when you consider the potential implications of the effects that RF/EMF emissions interference can have on critical medical examination equipment. In particular it was the concerns of the client that the EEG recording equipment, conducted by a Neurologist, as the ‘victim’ would see interference from the Evoked Potential/Transcranial Magnetic Simulation (EP/TMS) equipment, the ‘source’, and other potential RF/EMF emitting ‘sources’ such as: the large power motors in the vertical transport lifts, and the standard electrical load running round the department.

The Process

The tender process involved me understanding the procurement options in terms of which type of contract agreement best suited the works to be carried out and the potential budget. Writing the scope of works meant understanding the risks associated with the possible outcome of the testing and therefore ensuring that potential issues were mitigated where practicable. A key risk identified meant that stakeholder engagement was vital to ensure co-ordination of important test conditions where concurrent activates were to take place, including: live EEG testing, minimum 50% electrical power load in the building, specific medical equipment (EP/TMS) being in location and operational and the nearest vertical transport lift in operation. It also included identification of resources required and costs to the project.

There was a fair amount of admin required to prepare the tender packs for seven tenderers (a minimum of three is compulsory as stated in JHG policy) which resulted in only four returning tender submissions.   Negotiations over specific scope of works details and costs were had and agreed, forming part of the tender selection process; I liken preparing the RFIs for the tenderers to being handed a planning pack for a Search task on the RESA course, having to ask the right questions in order to draw out answers and make deductions.

The final part of the selection involved a telephone interview with: myself, a Contracts Administrator (CA), the services manager (my boss), and obviously the tenderer. Normally this would have been face-to-face but this particular preferred tenderer was based on the East Coast. Once certain questions relevant to technical and commercial concerns were cleared-up we deliberated over the options before coming to a decision and me writing up the recommendations document which was sent internally for manager and director sign-off. I also completed the Consultants Services Agreement (CSA) form of contract before sending out and sealing the deal via formal notification; this also included non-successful letters being sent.

Implications of Test Failure

If the testing fails, and by fail I mean there is significant interference caused by an electrical source somewhere in the vicinity of the EEG rooms, then a further study will have to take place in trying to mitigate the source. Worst case, the affected rooms may require the shielding that was originally omitted which would not only cost heavily due to having to strip-out a completed room but would also incur a delay. Dependant on how many rooms required shielding, this could possibly affect practical competition but my guess would be partial occupancy at worst but could still attract liquidated damages; currently at $180,000 per day for the entire facility so would most likely be less.

This has all been finalised on my last day working on the project and it’s a shame I won’t get to see how the works package pans out; it being handed over to the services manager to implement in Jan 16.

IC Energy Pty Ltd Works Package Review (B1, B2, B3, C1 and C4)

This consisted of a review of 226 Variation Orders (VO) and associated costs to the Temporary Construction Power & Lighting works package, comparing the original contracted tender costs to that of the current/forecast practical completion costs. I won’t discuss too much of what was found from the review here as I am writing this up as a managerial themed TMR. Suffice to say the original budget increased by 60% (AUD$ 1,374,298) currently at AUD$3,655,109.02 but with the potential to climb to circa AUD$4 million by practical completion. A myriad of managerial and decision making errors attributed to this overspend which the review has brought to light with the intention to be used as an example of lessons learnt for future projects.

Variation Order Claims (C1 and C2)

I reviewed a Variation Order (VO) claim, using the process in figure 1, from Fire Safe Systems who were contracted to provide wet and dry fire suppression site-wide. Under the original contract a number of diagnostic and theatre rooms housing very expensive medical equipment such as: MRI machines, specialised surgical operative tables and the like, were all to be fitted out with pro-inert gas (IG55), using 50% Nitrogen and 50% Argon. The intent being that if in the event of fire it could be suppressed and extinguished using a gas system instead of using a traditional sprinkler system. Thus ensuring any medical equipment not damaged by the fire would also be free from other damage due to using the gas suppression system.

Figure 1. Variation Order Claim Process.

However, the VO came about as a result of the pro-inert gas system design being changed to a pre-action ‘double knock’ sprinkler system. This was due to the design not accounting for the space required to store the quantity and size of gas cylinders along with regular storage and maintenance concerns.

Pre-action systems are hybrids of wet, dry, and deluge systems, depending on the exact system requirement. In this case a double interlock, also known as ‘double knock’ system is used.

The operation of double interlock systems are similar to deluge systems except that automatic sprinklers are used. These systems require that both a ‘preceding’ fire detection event, typically the activation of a heat or smoke detector, and an automatic sprinkler operation take place prior to the ‘action’ of water introduction into the system’s piping. Activation of either the fire detectors or sprinklers alone, without the concurrent operation of the other, will not allow water to enter the piping.  With the presence of fire confirmed, water is forced through the piping via a compressor unit but no water enters until a sprinkler operates. Double interlock systems are therefore considered as dry systems in terms of water delivery times. Although not as equipment friendly as the pro-inert gas system, the premise is that the double interlock feature will prohibited false alarm activation and if a fire is present then water damage will most likely be less severe than that caused by fire.

Contractually Fire Safe had to return to JHG the cost associated to the original pro-inert gas system including any testing costs; totalling AUD$ 94,951. This was submitted in the same VO and required a number of RFIs to clarify as the actual figure was never broken out of the original contract sum.

I then reviewed all the costs associated with the new pre-action system, which again required a number of RFIs through emails, phone calls and requesting clarification through marked-up drawings to understand the detail; this amassed to circa AUD$176,000. There were some errors made by Fire Safe in annotating the drawings where they accidently changed the colour coding and nomenclature, which just delayed the review process and JHG trying to do our due diligence.

The lesson here is that all claims need to be justified and substantiated in order to satisfy the Contracts Administrator (CA), or in this case me, to approve payment.

Once the analysis was complete the CA inputted the payment amount into the Project Cost Reporting (PCR) database. I then completed a summary page with the aid of a checklist before submitting to internal JHG managers and directors for their sign-off.

This was then sent to Fire Safe for their agreement and signature of acceptance. This then allowed the CA to update the payment entry within PCR to ‘A’ for approved; it then gets added to the overall project costs.

If the amount is not agreed by the subcontractor then they can take it to dispute but this is seldom done due to the previous communications and negotiations in the initial review process.

One significant difference is when a VO claim submitted by a subcontractor is deemed by JHG to be recoverable from the client. In this case a manager or most likely the project director will hold the payment approval until the client have confirmed they are liable for the cost; a ‘pay when paid’ clause. This is done to prevent the risk of JHG being ‘out of pocket’ for a period of time and used as a delay mechanism, but will still result in the subcontractor being paid eventually; not to be mistaken and different to that of a ‘pay if paid’ clause.

Valuation Payment Claims (C1 and C2)

In order to confirm and approve a typical payment claim, I reviewed one from Fredon (mechanical subcontractor for plantrooms). This consisted of walking round one of the plantrooms with the CA for a visual check to judge the % complete and also as a QA/QC check. We used their payment schedule as the check list and made notes along the way. We then applied a weighting compared to their previous payment and what was outstanding and paid according to that. If there were any major defects identified then this wouldn’t get paid at all until rectified and would roll over to the next month’s payment claim. Similar to the VO process this was then entered into PCR and added to the project.

In Other News

On my return home last night my wife comes out to meet me (something she has never done) and standing clear of the doorway whilst starring round the corner she says “don’t worry but we have an issue”…instantly I’m thinking huge poisonous spider…snake…but no, what do I find cuddled in the corner of the laundry room – two bantam chickens!

Parting Shot

It just leaves me to say this is my final blog whilst working on the Perth Children’s Hospital project – and what a great opportunity and experience it has been. Bring on the move to Phase 3 at NDY!