Wasted work
In my last blog I mentioned that there had been a bit of a question 4 moment with regards to steam at LSHTM. This was based around the client asking me to explore other opportunities with regards to steam distribution.
In mid-March I took isometric drawings produced on Revit to the client for approval on the distribution strategy. Prior to conducting the work in Revit to produce these drawings I had discussed the proposed route with the Project Manager (PM) within the LSHTM estate’s team. The route I was proposing was based on taking steam from one side of the building where it was being generated at high level to where it was required on the other side of the building via an external route. This was because I had been briefed to minimise the amount of disruption to the building which would be fully operational during the works. I discussed this route with LSHTM’s PM and even took him to look at it with a possible contractor for comment on the buildability of my proposal. Having gained buy in of the client I proceeded to continue with the work and produce the required drawings in Revit, which took me approximately 1 week. What I failed to do was quickly mark-up a drawing by hand and send it to the client for them to approve formally. It was then at the meeting in March that a more senior member of the client team expressed disapproval with my proposal and asked me to look at another option. This is frustrating on a personal point of view as it is duplicating my work on the same experience and there is little competency experience to be gained from producing drawings in Revit (although being able to use Revit can go towards my A competency). It was also a missed opportunity from a BWL point of view. Because BWL are attempting to develop a relationship with LSHTM there was no resistance to LSHTM’s suggestion from my director. Probably in part because with me doing the work there is limited cost to BWL. If I had sent a mark-up which had been signed off by the client there is more chance that my time wouldn’t have been wasted in that the desire to explore other options could have been looked at prior to me doing the work in Revit, or if it had been approved I would have had an audit trail to fall back on. I could have more rigorously demonstrated that I had developed the design in good faith and that the proposal being made to consider another route was effectively a variation and required an additional fee. Whether my director would have wanted to do this is questionable, but it would have at least given BWL the option and has certainly taught me valuable lesson.
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
Rich
I once got caught out by an architect asking me if it was possible to have the gantry crane in the simulator hall we were building painted white. I said it was and said nothing more. Imagine my surprise when he came into the office a couple of months later and started haranguing me because the installed crane was yellow and not white. He had heard it was possible and I would make it so, I thought that as no instruction had been issued that it was another “good idea” that hadn’t made it any further in the contractual process. Moral of the story, confirm everything and get the confirmations in writing.
Jim
Rich, spot on with lesson learned.
The point about getting an instruction to do work outside/additional to scope is key. There is a bit of a commercial issue at the moment with a geotechnical scope which is clear that design of permanent buried structures will be carried out by the designer. However, for any of those permanent structures, temporary structures will be required to facilitate excavation works. One argument is you can’t design the permanent works without consideration of temporary works. The other argument is that you can (wished into place). The ‘who is right’ bit is interesting – scope/relations/who pays are all important. All to play out in my case, but the point that any works need to be instructed is so true.
Secondly, the point about design process – a concept for something is great, but then needs to ‘go round the houses for approval’. Otherwise you can progress within your own discipline and then something else key comes up. This does create a rather painful process, but there is no point progressing an option which does not work for one discipline. (A bit like Rich’s blog on his bridge!).
Rich,
A nice salutary tale. You have got plenty to add to your UKSpec competency here – commercial practice, contracts, communication and working with others all under one event! This is a fine example of how you might now do things differently as a result of your experiences in developing yourself as a professional engineer – a good discussion piece at any review! Interesting is that, even if you had obtained an agreed concept sketch, although it might well have made commercial sense to introduce a variation order it might then make good sustainable business sense to offer to waive the fee as key stakeholder management in the longer term plan i.e. you’d be where you are now but the client would regard themselves as having received a good service and extra work uncharged as a bonus. It’s often about how the story is told! Thanks for sharing.
Rich,
I’m having some disagreements with our lead designer about what is considered a RIBA 3 level electrical (LV) design. Unfortunately the design contract scope of deliverables gives a wolly ‘schematics and calculations inkeeping with RIBA 3’. What we’ve received is a layout of the containment routing, indications of where the system will be fed from and a written report detailing some standards that need to be met. I was expecting a bit more detail, at minimum at single line diagram of the distribution circuit for instance.
What’s your view from the design office? I need to know whats acceptable or not.
I have referred to the RIBA job book but even thats thin on specifics.
Any thoughts appreciated,
Stu
Stu,
That’s a very weak contractual statement! Poor spec will always lead to PM issues (guess who’s on the APM this week…).
I take it your reference to the RIBE book is this http://www.ribaplanofwork.com/PlanOfWork.aspx# I would expect concept to have indicated and estimated the nature of the design question/challenge, proposed and evaluated approaches/strategies for their resolution through design ending with a statement about what the final form and process for design will be and the standards it will meet e.g. “there is a significant heat load: all air cooling will be evaporative using gravity fed copper pipe from rainwater harvesting tanks at high level to courtyard fountains in the baggage hall. Design will be to BS Fictitious…” Pretty much a performance spec compliant concept that sets out the broadest nature of the issues and how they will be resolved, which sounds like what you have. At Stage 3 developed design I would expect heuristics to have been applied so that a single line showing ‘probable’ routing, estimated sizes of components but not down to specifics e.g. it might indicate position and size for ‘Large Fan capable of X l/s’ with servicing space but not state the make and model. Concept generally is free from calculated numbers, Stage 3 has fag packet numbers and look up chart values which show the concept can be made to work and which you could price and be comfortable that detailed design will better by a little but not embarrassingly too much i.e. this is a system we have proven by calculation but not designed in detail. Compare this to a detailed design that can be built as described and will work or you can claim on my PI.
At the end of the day it’s whatever you can get by negotiation first and court as a last resort because more will come from discussion than from arbitration i.e. ultimately the contract is what they must provide but there is scope before resorting to wigs and gowns for asking for all you want and settling for as much as you can get. This is an area for Roy and Gregg!
Stu,
I’ve not had much experience / any experience with electrical design. But as Richard states I would have expected a schematic, sizes and indicative routes. Sounds like you are being sold short. Not understanding the relationships of your project why is your lead designer not supporting you? Are they external or internal? Do you have an internal design manager you can refer this to?
Both Rich’s,
Thanks for your thoughts. Sounds in alignment with what I was thinking.
For info, the lead designer is external and have produced specifications to what I think they regarded as RIBA 3. I’m hoping to be able to tighten up the developed design requirements for the next batch of M&E designs that they are to produce to be clearer about what are expected.