Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog

The UK construction industry experienced the biggest contractor collapse since Carillion, when ISG Ltd entered administration in September (LINK). ISG, the UKs 6th biggest building firm, were the Principal Contractor on Yondr’s data centre campus, working on 9-figure design-and-build contracts on 2 of the 3 buildings. ISG bosses blamed loss-making contracts adopted prior to COVID-19. Overnight, 2200 jobs were lost and a multitude of military, prison, school and more government projects were thrown into chaos. As well as the brutal impact to ISG staff, there is of course the crippling knock-on effect to the supply chain, in which their sub-contractors across the portfolio may be forced to foot the bill for as-yet unpaid works.

In the immediate aftermath on our site, all works ceased and site was closed. Any access to the site office was on strict permit, and access to the dormant construction area required a specific RAMS. Yondr, a data centre developer acting as the CDM client, decided to self-deliver the remainder of the project. Administrators had begun taking control of ISG’s sites and so Yondr had to act rapidly, establishing a separate legal entity to act as the principal contractor – enter Yondr PC.

Back to square one

The following actions were then taken to begin re-mobilisation.

F10: A new F10 had to be opened with HSE and the site ownership formally changed to Yondr PC.

Novation: The now-defunct D&B contract meant the sub-contractors could essentially be novated, in their current structure, across to Yondr PC. This was of course far more complex than it sounds, with different works packages at different levels of completion, therefore different appetites for which (and how much) of ISG’s bills should be picked up. Also key to this – instilling confidence in the supply chain to continue procurement/production so that delays aren’t compounded.

Retention: There was a lot of experience, knowledge and talent in the ISG project management team. Yondr moved quickly to hire critical staff (under Yondr PC) previously involved with the project to keep the ball rolling, rather than a lengthy recruitment and project-familiarisation process.

Inductions: Safe systems of work, H&S and all manner of Principal Contractor responsibilities became Yondr PCs remit. A lot of paperwork behind the scenes and notably, re-inducting every one of the 100’s of employees on site.

Licenses: Re-establishing software licenses may seem a minor point, though it was extremely impactful. Data exchange platforms (e.g. for drawing submittals), site access scanners, project tracking software and much more were all managed under an ISG license and could not be ‘novated’. Salvaging documents and details with mass-downloads ensued prior to the old licenses being revoked, though this is likely to cause version control issues down the line.

Managerial processes: Establishing managerial processes with the novated sub-contractors was important – this essentially provided a clean slate for how business is to be conducted. This included meeting beat-rates, submission procedures, RFI process flows and many more.

Re-baselining: The stand-down period caused a significant delay, and post-re-mobilisation required some getting back up to speed, such as re-assembling workforces that had been sent home and maintaining/re-calibrating kit that had been left dormant on site for weeks. Once site was back up and running, an all-hands workshop was held to re-baseline the programme and confirm a new timeline.

2 months later

There may well be unforeseen issues that arise, with site not long re-opened. However, the early mood music is positive. Re-mobilising had the potential to be complete chaos; Yondr acted decisively and with a clear plan to control that chaos. The project moves forward and any delays have been well-absorbed within individual packages. The key lesson from this experience: ‘war-gaming’ in construction is a necessity. The company had an idea of what could go wrong and ideas to mitigate ahead of time, despite no forewarning of the collapse. That ensured this project was pulled back from the brink of disaster.

With three data centres on one campus, and residential properties approximately 50m away, the acoustic limits on site are very tight. With over 70x 2.4MW generators and 1.6MW chillers (amongst far more plant), the noise output is significant. We’re pretty much one shout away from our planning permission limits.

Load banks (LB) are required within data centres to test the generators on-load twice annually. Typically, the LB will be fixed in place and have busbar run to each generator, testing via the flick of a switch. Value engineering, in all it’s glory, led to the removal of a fixed LB for a far cheaper mobile unit, sat on a trailer and driven to each of the generators. The CAPEX savings are in the millions (though the OPEX is questionable). The issue with mobile LBs on this site is that the units can’t be routinely attenuated for noise, due to the centre of weight on the trailer and ventilation requirements.

The pertinent info for the mobile LB (not yet procured) is:

• 88dbA noise emissions, likely upwards.
• At least 2m space required to the sides to allow air intake.
• No cover above to allow exhaust of air (fire risk).
• Broadly 3.5x2x2.5m dimensions (HxWxL, on trailer).

From multiple vendors and data sheets, we will significantly breach noise limits. Some work with the acoustics team has shown that we need to reduce the dBA to 82@1m and 56@10m to the side. Modelling shows for the closest test location to the nearest noise receptor (residential), an acoustic screen would need to be over 7m tall, 2m away to the side, to screen the upwards trajectory of the noise emissions. This would then have to be wheeled around with the generator, stored, windproofed, etc… Highly unpractical.

I have also looked at:

• Procuring a compliant load bank. Tests show the load bank would need to emit 72dBA – a huge acoustical gap on a logarithmic scale.
• Buying the nearest receptor. Unsavoury and questions remain about breaching noise limits at other receptors.
• Screening the large fence line in front of the receptor – deemed ineffective, due to soundwave trajectory.

My preference and recommendation is to retrofit the fixed load bank and attenuate in place. A business case is being made elsewhere, but there may be no way back. So, keen to hear if anyone has any mobile acoustic solutions/suggestions to this kind of problem?

Three weeks into working for a Data Centre (DC) developer, it is clear that the experience won’t follow the typical ‘blueprint’ of a PET course secondment. The developer can identify opportunities for clients, initiate a project and create concept designs, before a Release for Proposal (RFP) for detailed design and then construction contractors. They are then responsible for overall project planning and management, scheduling, budgeting, risk management and quality. In the world of DCs, they are the specialist link between Contractor and Client.

The typical secondment of 7 months with the contractor followed by 7 months in the design office is tried and tested, providing the site experience necessary to lead engineering works and the technical knowledge to oversee technical designs. The developer space, on the other hand, appears considerably more fluid. Depending on the relationship with the employer, there are links to the contractor, the designer, the commercial team, legal, H&S, QA and more throughout the project. Earlier exposure to the ‘bigger picture’ and the wider stakeholders can present an opportunity to pick and choose challenges to tailor the experience. 
 

My experience will primarily be within the DC developer design team, with a focus on a construction in Slough. There are 3 different buildings on site at different RIBA stages (commissioning, construction and technical design). Placement within a developer team appears to present significant opportunities and challenges for gaining the required experience against UKSPEC standards, discussed below.

Opportunities:
 

• The developer has significant commercial involvement throughout, from routine client and contractor management to OFCI (Owner furnished, Contractor installed) equipment procurement.
• The developers are the specialists; the contractor may not be. This forces an intimate understanding of the design to facilitate construction, in order to meet the unique client requirements. Design, development and engineering problem solving (Comp B) opportunities are everywhere you look.
• RFI and change management – the developer will manage principle designers and contractors through the RFI and change process. This presents considerable opportunity to develop technical knowledge (Comp A) across the project life cycle.
• This ensures a unique, holistic project experience throughout, with design input through to quality assurance and commissioning responsibilities.
   

Challenges:

• There isn’t the same concentrated site experience that would be achieved with a contractor. Developer project management is done at a high level (particularly the oversight of principle contractor), meaning the opportunities to lead and manage works are fewer (Comp C).
• Working for a multi-disciplinary specialist = a steep learning curve! Understanding the interfaces between M&E, Civil & Structural, Utilities and OFCI vendors in an unknown-to-you industry is a tall task.
• It isn’t the ‘proven route’. The experience isn’t on rails; you have to work hard to understand where opportunities exist and where you can add value.

The result is a fluid role that could mould to the required experience for the student. Provided that opportunities are exploited to lead on site, whether verifying ongoing works or carrying out H&S reviews, the work in the developer space should marry up with the UKSPEC competencies. For the PET course, this could provide an alternative path towards chartership in expanding, innovational industries.