IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: DSSOs in metal stud walls commercial situations
Topic Summary: RCD protection
Created On: 08 May 2013 07:20 PM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 Previous Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 09 May 2013 05:43 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19837
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: Parsley

Better to flush these things out early - the longer the go on, the more painful they become to resolve

"Collaborative Team" - of course, our post Egan culture makes us all collaborative teams [IMG][/IMG]



regards



It will also be ok once we all use B I M 2016[IMG]/forums/forum/i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif" border="0[/IMG]

You reckon - we've got several on the go at the moment that use Revit and the client wants the BIM information incorporated.

As I said, is the best person to set out the switchroom or the boiler room the hairy ***** glaswegian foreman who's been there and done that and has several T shirts to prove it or is it the straight from university graduate working in the consultants office who wouldn't recognise a munsen ring or a length of 300mm2 4 c armoured if they leapt up and bit him - go figure !!


Don't worry I will formally ask the consultant for the regulation number

Good luck with that.

he has basically produced a performance specification generic cut and . Paste job,

Yup - as I said, why would you want to appoint the one guy who is supposed to be on your side using the worst practices of the bazaar. You get what you pay for - if you want to appoint me on 0.9% of the project cost, you get that value in effort - if that means "recycling" an older design then so be it.

I asked him if the existing 70KVA supply had enough capacity for the refurbishment? I think it will be close but it will be up to the D and B designer to assess was the response.

LoL - slopey shoulders and a teflon coating - all the risk and all the reward is up for grabs by the D&B contractor - the consutant has just bought the client's risk and pushed it straight back out the door to anyone who has the appetite for it. 25% spare capacity is going to be a real drama for the designers - particularly if he says that 70kVA supply is too small and the principal contractor is stumping up for an upgrade at his cost

Not a great way to work but there we go - just remember that D&B is fine for those clients that know exactly what they actually want and aren't so fussy about what they actually get



Regards


OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 10 May 2013 11:04 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Parsley.
Parsley

Posts: 1056
Joined: 04 November 2004

"Collaborative Team" - of course, our post Egan culture makes us all collaborative teams [IMG][/IMG

Yup - as I said, why would you want to appoint the one guy who is supposed to be on your side using the worst practices of the bazaar. You get what you pay for - if you want to appoint me on 0.9% of the project cost, you get that value in effort - if that means "recycling" an older design then so be it.


Point 60 of Egan's report below

Designers should work in close collaboration with the other participants in the project process. They must understand more clearly how components are manufactured and assembled, and how their creative and analytical skills can be used to best effect in the
process as a whole. There is no longer a place for a regime of design fees based on a percentage of the costs of a project, which offers little incentive to build efficiently;

Will the industry ever get it right OMS? I'm not singling out designers/consultants, I'm just interested in your thoughts.

Regards


Regards
 10 May 2013 12:26 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19837
Joined: 23 March 2004

Yes, I quite agree that the rhetoric of Egan and the reality perpetuated by clients and some of thier advisors is somewhat at odds - to say the least - as I said, the practices of the bazaar have no place in the appointment of construction professionals

Any design fee based on an outurn cost is fraught with problems to be honest - I've lost count of the £millions I've needlesly designed into jobs in order to recover the costs we've actually encountered and equally, I've spent far too many late nights and weekends churning out designs that simply put most of the risk onto a a contractor as a result of fixed fee bids and a clent who's out to screw everyone in the process - them and us.

You'll have seen plenty of specs that, for each WBS, start with the lines:

"The contractor shall appoint a specialist to complete the design in order to fully realise the design intent and shall allow for the supply, installation, testing, commissioning and setting to work of XYZ system. If there are any areas of doubt or any other ancillary items of equipment are required it shall be the responsibility of the contractor to allow for all such items and associated costs at the time of tender"

Can we do better - for sure - but we need a clear reward based system and removal of the comprehensive risk transfers that form the basis of most appointments for parties to the overall contract/project

Pesonally speaking, a combination of NEC forms of contract, early contractor and supplier appointment, risk and reward sharing on cost and quality with the client, coupled with defined performance targets resolved via dialogue driven KPI's would do it - essentially a form of partnering without the hidden agenda followed up with something akin to a less wishy washy version of the soft landings framework

So in practice that would mean properly defined building quality and performance objects and clear roles and responsibilities for each party to the agreement. For example, If I've a performance target of X kWh/m2 annual energy consumption then I'd expect to get paid for achieveing it - I'd expect to get paid more for bettering it and less for failing to achieve it. Now that would me I'd have to be talking to suppliers early on and I'd expect the principl or managenet contractor to be facilitating that. What I wouldn't then expect that if the project team are going with a particular luminaire from a particular manufacturer I don't then expect a later appointment of a second tier electrical contractor to be spec busting and wasting everybodies time with "can I use Dextra - they look the same". I'd expect hm to recognise the time and effort that had already gone on in that selection and the impact it may have on this shared pot of gold that we all gain from for targets being met (and robustly verified to be met) - including him

So yes, we could sort it out - but given that we spend 100 times more on litigation than we do on training I doubt that we will unless someone forces us to do so - it's now about time that we actually get the reality of the educated client - but are clients going to accept that they couldn't hack it and appoint a professional advisor on thier behalf. If you weant the parady, the most clients wouldn't dream of appearing in court and addressing thier own defense - they use a professional - but when it comes to construction, they tend to DIY - after all, how hard can it be - I've watched my neighbour get a garage built and I've decorated the lounge (twice) - it's easy - piece of cake - and as I've got all the money people will do as I say

In the meantime, the more educated client is looking overseas to get what he also wants - and is finding project teams who will deliver what he wants in (usually) a far less confrontational approach - becaue almost without exception, he isn't finding them in the UK construction sector

As I've said before - this job would be great if we didn't have to deal with clients

regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 10 May 2013 02:22 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Parsley.
Parsley

Posts: 1056
Joined: 04 November 2004

Originally posted by: OMS

Yes, I quite agree that the rhetoric of Egan and the reality perpetuated by clients and some of thier advisors is somewhat at odds - to say the least - as I said, the practices of the bazaar have no place in the appointment of construction professionals



Any design fee based on an outurn cost is fraught with problems to be honest - I've lost count of the £millions I've needlesly designed into jobs in order to recover the costs we've actually encountered and equally, I've spent far too many late nights and weekends churning out designs that simply put most of the risk onto a a contractor as a result of fixed fee bids and a clent who's out to screw everyone in the process - them and us.



You'll have seen plenty of specs that, for each WBS, start with the lines:



"The contractor shall appoint a specialist to complete the design in order to fully realise the design intent and shall allow for the supply, installation, testing, commissioning and setting to work of XYZ system. If there are any areas of doubt or any other ancillary items of equipment are required it shall be the responsibility of the contractor to allow for all such items and associated costs at the time of tender"

I've seen a lot and many parties don't realise their CDM duties under these contracts

Can we do better - for sure - but we need a clear reward based system and removal of the comprehensive risk transfers that form the basis of most appointments for parties to the overall contract/project



Pesonally speaking, a combination of NEC forms of contract, early contractor and supplier appointment, risk and reward sharing on cost and quality with the client, coupled with defined performance targets resolved via dialogue driven KPI's would do it - essentially a form of partnering without the hidden agenda followed up with something akin to a less wishy washy version of the soft landings framework



So in practice that would mean properly defined building quality and performance objects and clear roles and responsibilities for each party to the agreement. For example, If I've a performance target of X kWh/m2 annual energy consumption then I'd expect to get paid for achieveing it - I'd expect to get paid more for bettering it and less for failing to achieve it. Now that would me I'd have to be talking to suppliers early on and I'd expect the principl or managenet contractor to be facilitating that. What I wouldn't then expect that if the project team are going with a particular luminaire from a particular manufacturer I don't then expect a later appointment of a second tier electrical contractor to be spec busting and wasting everybodies time with "can I use Dextra - they look the same". I'd expect hm to recognise the time and effort that had already gone on in that selection and the impact it may have on this shared pot of gold that we all gain from for targets being met (and robustly verified to be met) - including him

This is sounds very familiar, it wasn't you at that youth centre in North London a few years ago?
In my experience it's normally lead by the project manager or client and sometimes the main contractors qs, what value engineering can you offer they ask? We could look at using Dextra or LG rather than the specified Whitecroft and Daikin. I don't bother anymore, I've wasted too much time trying to convince the consultant without any reward.


So yes, we could sort it out - but given that we spend 100 times more on litigation than we do on training I doubt that we will unless someone forces us to do so - it's now about time that we actually get the reality of the educated client - but are clients going to accept that they couldn't hack it and appoint a professional advisor on thier behalf. If you weant the parady, the most clients wouldn't dream of appearing in court and addressing thier own defense - they use a professional - but when it comes to construction, they tend to DIY - after all, how hard can it be - I've watched my neighbour get a garage built and I've decorated the lounge (twice) - it's easy - piece of cake - and as I've got all the money people will do as I say



In the meantime, the more educated client is looking overseas to get what he also wants - and is finding project teams who will deliver what he wants in (usually) a far less confrontational approach - becaue almost without exception, he isn't finding them in the UK construction sector



As I've said before - this job would be great if we didn't have to deal with clients

Absolutely

regards



OMS
 10 May 2013 04:30 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19837
Joined: 23 March 2004

I've seen a lot and many parties don't realise their CDM duties under these contracts


For sure - although my point was the consultant chucking out the detail design responsibility to the contractor because (in his view) the client isn't paying enough to do it.

This is sounds very familiar, it wasn't you at that youth centre in North London a few years ago?

In my experience it's normally lead by the project manager or client and sometimes the main contractors qs, what value engineering can you offer they ask? We could look at using Dextra or LG rather than the specified Whitecroft and Daikin. I don't bother anymore, I've wasted too much time trying to convince the consultant without any reward.


LoL - 5th Amendment old son -

I've no problem with value engineering but it has to offer both value and have some engineering judgement involved - just spec busting for the cheapest, nastiest replacement product on the market and and "can we wire it in T&E" just slung over the ceilings isn't value engineering.

Right - on to the next one

regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.