Ramifications of Past Decisions
This weekend saw the first of 15 consecutive weekend works, caused by a single decision early on in the project.
Early on in the project when the design for the precast elements was not complete, a decision was made to start piling. This was due to high standing costs for the piling barges and instructions from the client to start work. This meant that the first row of pre-cast was not able to be placed.
An aerial view of the deck showing the missing precast between the dock wall and the new deck
The solution was bringing in a 450t crane to lift everything into place. This is achieved during the weekly 24hr airport closure between 1200 on Saturday to 1200 on Sunday.
This 24hr possession enabled the installation of 8 beams…. I question whether the management are ruing their decision many months ago.
It will be interesting to see whether BAM can claim the full costs of this back from the client, stating that this is due to a PMI telling them to do so!
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
What was the plan for placing the elements if they had been available? Surely same weight and need to put into same position?
So the plan was to use a specially constructed barge mounted gantry crane, placing the forecast from the water side only. This meant that there would be no interference with airport operations.
Jon, are you having to mob and demob the crane for each possession? Or are you able to store it out of the way on site during the week?
Also was it the client or BAM that we’re worried about the barge standing costs? I would have thought the costs would fall to the contractor so it would be BAM pushing to minimise their costs. If so that could undermine their ‘we were instructed to do it’ claim. Did BAM initiate/request the client instruction?
Full mob and demob each time. On saturday, baring in mind it was the first time, that took half of the possession. There’s also issues with getting airside as full searches of the wagons have to be undertaken.
A bit of both. The client wanted to see progress. BAM wanted to get output. BAM didn’t initiate the instruction, therefore the costs should be able to be claimed back. BAM were given a start date, but with the collapse of Carillion the design wasn’t ready in time.
Sounds expensive all round! We spent 3 days mobilising a 400t crane due to site constraints. At least your crew can achieve it in a few hours.
I find this part of construction interesting. With BAM and the Client’s representative being highly experienced organisations, it was probably in both interests to move the project forward for a number of reasons, including reputation. This would have been done with some broad understanding of the commercial implications without maybe understanding the construction issues in detail. I hope when the decision was made, it then entered into the Project Risk Register.
When I read the post, I straight away thought of ANEMOI. In this instance, due to supplies not arriving, decisions were made to progress but now it is impacting on construction in quite a detrimental manner.
An interesting development on site this week.
Having submitted the first request for payment for this work the client is refusing to pay, saying that it was an operational decision to start the second row of piles not a PMI, therefore the costs for this additional work are BAMs.
BAM have therefore stopped all further works, until they can recover their costs. They are trying to hold the client to ransom…. Discussing it in the office it is unlikely to work as no formal instruction was given to carry on works despite the design not being ready, meaning there is no proof that the design wasn’t ready. This part of the works has firmly entered the murky shades of grey area of political semantics.