Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog

I start my Phase 3 attachment on 5/12/16 at Expedition Engineering (http://expedition.uk.com/). This is conveniently close to my current site, which will allow me to come back and investigate anything interesting, hopefully mitigating the few months I was waiting around for works to start on site. Whilst Expedition are content that they can easily provide the right experience in most of my attribute fields, they have asked me to focus on achieving experience in commercial and quality areas before I leave site, as this will be harder for them to deliver for me in Phase 3.

To achieve this before Phase 3, on the commercial side I will be working with one of the QSs to review subcontractor notified compensation events (SNCEs). On the quality side I will be managing the Inspection and Test Plan (ITP) for the tie rod installation within the cofferdam, and I have set up the temporary works inspection register for the PC and sub-contractors across all Tideway East sites. This blog will provide an update on the commercial side.

Volker Stevin (VSL), the marine subcontractor, have been sitting on a backlog of around 60 CEs (values between 1,500 and 190,000), and having boosted their QS numbers recently they are now looking to progress as many of these as possible. VSL have reportedly confessed to under quoting their works (although not deliberately), but had I not known this already it would be obvious from their CE quotations, where they have attempted to double (even triple or quadruple) bill their own labour, and S/C labour and plant across multiple CEs and their original tender.

The majority of the CEs have arisen from an Instruction to Subcontractor (ITS) or Instruction to Submit Quotation (ISQ) issued by the CVB to VSL. To speed up the process of reviewing and implementing the CEs we agreed the following process with VSL:

1. CE Quotation submitted by VSL to CVB. Quotation to include:
   1. Excel copy of the quotation so I can add the CVB assessment
   2. Any relevant sub-sub-contractor quotations
   3. Any time/ sheets or record sheets- signed.
   4. Any relevant delivery tickets/ transfer notes

You may have noted that some of these are records – as VSL have allowed a backlog to accumulate then CVB are in the fortunate position of having these records available as some of the work has already happened. However, this is not usually the case with a CE quotation which is normally made in advance as a forecast.  This could arguably be an unfair advantage to CVB, but CVB have allowed additional time for the quotations to be submitted, and not submitted their own assessment after the 21 day period allowed.

1. One round of questioning. My comments are fed to the S/C through the QS.
2. Following response to the questions hold a CE meeting to agree the terms for implementation of the CE. The quotation for the CE is then added to the project target cost, with a 50/50 pain gain.

The CE assessments are slightly complicated by the need to constantly cross reference against a CE for delayed access to site. This stems from the delayed handover due to the overrun of the enabling works PC.

The key points so far are:

1. Designers can get carried away with creating the best “X” the world has ever seen, without thinking about who is paying for it. I have had to go back to designers to clarify where requests for changes came from to establish if it is additional instructed works that we are then eligible to submit a quotation for. So what – a PMI from the Client we can go back to back on the CE quotations, if it’s something that we missed in brief to the S/C then CVB foot the bill.
2. VSL are more than happy to waste my time by double/treble/quadruple billing in the hope that one will make it through to implementation. So what – I have asked the QS to keep a log of the staff allocation to the CEs we are implementing so we can reduce double billing, and to compare all CEs to the back to back CE for delayed access to site.
3. There is an agreed schedule of rates for staff billing, but not agreed productivity rates – so what – I can ignore the hourly rates and focus on the seniority of staff and the tasks they say they will be conducting (such as Site Agent supposedly setting out formwork and supervising the works, and the forecast of 20 hours of welding for welding tie rods to two metal plates). [Update 11/11/16 – Following my enquiry about productivity rates for staff and tasks the Senior QS has now instructed that we capture the precedents in the CEs that we are implementing to ensure that we apply them consistently. This will also help with policing the SNCEs we review and improve the consistency of VSLs QSs, as one is currently much more realistic than the other.]
4. VSL want to implement the highest CE quotation possible so they have a chance at a large gain share. You might think that CVB would welcome this as we get a share too, but there is the risk that the Client will implement a lower sum and CVB could have to foot the difference.
5. We need to come up with a policy for accounting for overheads for items not required on site, but for which the sub sub contractor will still be paying for as a result of the CE. For example – the fencing gang is on site longer as a result of a CE, they have a van which is not allowed on site due to the Works Information, but they are still paying hire charges on the van and would be using it if they were not still on site as a result of the CE. We’re still working on this one and are keen to get it right as it will set a precedent for some significant amounts in some of the CEs. Any suggestions?

The next blog will cover the quality and temporary works elements.

(Update