The Great Tower Block Fire Tragedy of London

[villa4europe]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

On the first point here, I feel like you think I'm attacking you personally or something. I'm not. I appreciate this line is literally parodic, but two of three of my best friends are quantity surveyors of different kinds. I don't know much about their work - I don't pretend to - but they are smart guys who work hard and I don't begrudge them what they earn, or what you earn, or what anyone else earns.

What I would say though, is that there are - or should be - alternative ways of making a project pay, rather than misquoting savings to clients.

There's thousands of ways to make and to lose money, often out of your control and all expected to beforecasted using witchcraft 

Its a crazy hard sometimes great sometimes awful job that's very hard to explain the intricacies of

And as I've found since moving to Germany no one here does it and they're utterly clueless towards it all, the idea of using the contract wording to make money is lost on people 

I try not to misquote, it's as easy as saying that the VE is poorly designed so I am going to add a 20% contingency to the cheaper quote on top of my 10% margin, you're fully entitled to do that because the quote is fixed

[HanoiVillan]

4 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

There's thousands of ways to make and to lose money, often out of your control and all expected to beforecasted using witchcraft 

Its a crazy hard sometimes great sometimes awful job that's very hard to explain the intricacies of

And as I've found since moving to Germany no one here does it and they're utterly clueless towards it all, the idea of using the contract wording to make money is lost on people 

I try not to misquote, it's as easy as saying that the VE is poorly designed so I am going to add a 20% contingency to the cheaper quote on top of my 10% margin, you're fully entitled to do that because the quote is fixed

I'm curious about this bolded part. How does the industry work differently in the two countries?

[blandy]

41 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

It’s not ‘post contract’ though, that’s the old ‘traditional’ route.

It’s now design and build. The design is done after the contract is let, it’s built in to the system that design and specification will happen post contract award. You don’t get time in advance, you basically get sufficient time to have an educated guess, you win the contract, and then you have to make sure you didn’t cock up and win a contract you can’t fulfill at the price you gave.

That’s the point where you start designing.

Now, imagine that being the contract system if you were building an aeroplane or a car, and every plane and car was different. 

But not to worry, every component is tested. Well, I say every component. If someone is making a component that’s quite like another component, they’re allowed to piggy back their testing certification. Well, I say testing, they haven’t actually tested them, it was more a generic group test in lab conditions.

But its got the official certificate. So its the same. Yeah?

OK, sorry,  I missed the distinction between the traditional route and D&B in my post.

It doesn't alter the point at all though does it? The incentive to pick cheaper items than those @villa4europesaid the SE had originally identified, to make/save some quids - with the inherent risk of either error in re-doing the sums around suitability and safety, or that the replacement selected items of lower price are not quite as safe/not safe?

Of course I get that cheaper parts might just be less over-priced with no compromise on quality or safety as has been explained. But we got to the point we're at where people got burned alive because of crappy unsafe cladding. And you've highlighted the flaws in analogy to previous test results and so on. I'm not trying to argue, just to understand and learn.

[villa4europe]

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm curious about this bolded part. How does the industry work differently in the two countries?

How long have you got... 

We're EPC turn key so basically everything is us, full design, procurement construction, everything is our risk

The projects are either lump sum fixed price or reimbursable

The biggest challenge is getting the design team to design the bare minimum that the contract requires (not sure if you can tell but design teams are the bain of my existence...) 

The next challenge is we have say 400+ internal changes but then only manage to charge the client for around 20 of them, no one in my office sits with the contract all day and fully understands what we can do

After that the challenge is we place subcontracts without any standard method of measurement so when we start building they charge us for loads of little things that weren't in their order

Its absolutely crazy, I've done assessments of both shit and great jobs for my company and they don't have a clue how they make or lose money, it's seemingly blind luck

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I think it entirely depends on the context.

Of course things depend upon context as to how much responsiblity might fall in one place or another.

2 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

If you offer up a cheaper alternative knowing it's a lower quality and knowing it's unsafe then yes I 100% agree that part of the responsibility and guilt should be shouldered.

But if it's a case of finding a better value alternative and somebody else doing the tests and evaluations and deciding it's fine then I'm not sure you should be implicated.

As you say above, context. And as such there's a massive range between 'knowing it's a lower quality and knowing it's unsafe' and washing hands of any responsibility and saying it's on someone else's shoulders.

If someone is going to be happy to themselves benefit in the reducing of a particular cost (in this instance asking subcontractors to keep it quiet) then they need to take on board a part of the risk involved in the consequences of that.

Edited July 21, 2020 by snowychap

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

I’ll come back another day when it’s a bit less about picking a fight.

That's piss poor considering the wording of your last post.

But fine. I'll chuck you back on ignore so I don't have to see any more of the 'moral high ground'/'real life' nonsense.

[villa4europe]

6 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Of course things depend upon context as to how much responsiblity might fall in one place or another.

As you say above, context. And as such there's a massive range between 'knowing it's a lower quality and knowing it's unsafe' and washing hands of any responsibility and saying it's on someone else's shoulders.

If someone is going to be happy to themselves benefit in the reducing of a particular cost (in this instance asking subcontractors to keep it quiet) then they need to take on board a part of the risk involved in the consequences of that.

Disagree

The technical knowledge isn't there because that's not my job 

I have basic construction technology knowledge from university which I've added to with years of experience working on site

But I don't know cladding specifications, I don't know how to do load calculations, the people that do know how to do those things don't know how to price construction works

Its 2 different professions 

Edit - I don't think anyone would genuinely offer an alternative that wasn't safe, inferior quality yep I'm guilty of that (and openly told the client as much) 

Edited July 21, 2020 by villa4europe

[snowychap]

Just now, villa4europe said:

Disagree

I know you disagree and, as explained in previous posts, my position is if that's the attitude throughout the construction industry then that's a huge part of the problem.

Part of the problem is the way you go on to justify that disagreement by saying that you don't know cladding specifications. No, you may not but if you are getting cheaper cladding (and pocketing part of the savings and asking your cladding subcontractor to keep quite about those savings when talking to the architect) then it is incumbent upon you to properly check with your cladding subcontractor about the implications ('risks') involved with the new materials.

If someone is going to cut costs (or cut corners even) then it's certainly their responsibility as the one taking the decision on that cost-cutting to do their level best to make sure the potential issues that may arise from that cost-cutting are kept to a minimum.

If they're also going to be asking the subcontractor to keep it quiet from other people in the process then perhaps it can reasonably be inferred that they may well be keeping other things quiet or may themselves not be totally truthful on other things (as admitted to in this circumstance with the stuff about a fire expert not being employed when they said one would be) or may not be one to ask too many questions themselves because they see it as part of the whole process that people do things whilst trying not to be fully open and honest with anyone else in the whole shebang.

[chrisp65]

35 minutes ago, blandy said:

OK, sorry,  I missed the distinction between the traditional route and D&B in my post.

It doesn't alter the point at all though does it? The incentive to pick cheaper items than those @villa4europesaid the SE had originally identified, to make/save some quids - with the inherent risk of either error in re-doing the sums around suitability and safety, or that the replacement selected items of lower price are not quite as safe/not safe?

Of course I get that cheaper parts might just be less over-priced with no compromise on quality or safety as has been explained. But we got to the point we're at where people got burned alive because of crappy unsafe cladding. And you've highlighted the flaws in analogy to previous test results and so on. I'm not trying to argue, just to understand and learn.

There are a couple of points in there, and I don’t want to try and explain what a QS is trying to say, they’re an odd bunch.

On the point about finding savings and ‘pocketing’ them, I guess that might just be a turn of phrase that didn’t go down very well. There is a reward for reducing costs, it’ll be written in to the contract that the money saved is split between all parties. If 100 is saved, then a portion of that will quite legitimately be distributed around the team and the Client will only see 80 of it. Otherwise, why would anyone bother looking for a saving, when the contract might be calculated as a percentage. you would literally be putting in extra work to earn less money.

But the saving shouldn’t be presumed to be in quality. If the whole team including the Client are doing their job properly then they will identify the key performance they need. Say for instance, they need roofing felt to last 25 years. Well, if the first roofing felt cost a tenner and lasts 30 years, that fits the performance. If then during the design someone suggests a different roofing felt that costs a fiver and lasts 25 years, that also fits the spec.. So all other things being equal, it makes sense to go with the other product.

This £5 felt, it hasn’t been delivered by Delboy. It’ll be a legitimate product, it will have certification. Pages of it. Documents of the stuff. it says roofing felt on the packaging. There’s a picture of a roof on the sales brochure. it has certification.

I’d offer no objection to them using that.

Especially, because they’ve said the usual felt, well they can’t get hold of that for a month because someone else just bought it all up. So, Mr Client, you can stick with your favourite felt, but you’ll need to pay for an extra month of scaffolding. So what’s it to be, this alternative, or delay and expense? I need to know by 10:00am tomorrow...

Turns out, if only I’d been a chemist, and known they had a certificate for something slightly different that had been tested and the BBA thought it was close enough. But nobody had ever actually tested this specific product under these real life conditions.

Turns out, if I’d read through to page 37 on the download from the technical website, it mentions they’ve made it out of petrol so it shouldn’t be put behind glass or exposed to a naked flame.

How many products are used in a building refurb? A few thousand? Have I read all the technical paperwork on every product? No. And anyone that says they have is a liar.

[villa4europe]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

I know you disagree and, as explained in previous posts, my position is if that's the attitude throughout the construction industry then that's a huge part of the problem.

Part of the problem is the way you go on to justify that disagreement by saying that you don't know cladding specifications. No, you may not but if you are getting cheaper cladding (and pocketing part of the savings and asking your cladding subcontractor to keep quite about those savings when talking to the architect) then it is incumbent upon you to properly check with your cladding subcontractor about the implications ('risks') involved with the new materials.

If someone is going to cut costs (or cut corners even) then it's certainly their responsibility as the one taking the decision on that cost-cutting to do their level best to make sure the potential issues that may arise from that cost-cutting are kept to a minimum.

If they're also going to be asking the subcontractor to keep it quiet from other people in the process then perhaps it can reasonably be inferred that they may well be keeping other things quiet or may themselves not be totally truthful on other things (as admitted to in this circumstance with the stuff about a fire expert not being employed when they said one would be) or may not be one to ask too many questions themselves because they see it as part of the whole process that people do things whilst trying not to be fully open and honest with anyone else in the whole shebang.

It quite literally contractually is not my risk 

I think you have an unrealistic expectation as to the knowledge base of a contractor let alone the person responsible for pricing works at that contractor 

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I work in procurement for an aerospace company. If I found a cost saving by buying a part from another company and then a plane fell out of the sky because that part failed, would I be responsible?

If you were the one running the project and you were asked by a client to make savings and you did but you(r company) kept some of those savings, didn't tell the client about the savings, asked yoour supplier not to discuss with the aircraft designers the financial aspect of the new part and acknowledged that there were risks in the decision to cut those costs and the new part was something that contributed to the aeroplane's failure that then yes, you would partly be responsible.

[villa4europe]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

If you were the one running the project and you were asked by a client to make savings and you did but you(r company) kept some of those savings, didn't tell the client about the savings, asked yoour supplier not to discuss with the aircraft designers the financial aspect of the new part and acknowledged that there were risks in the decision to cut those costs and the new part was something that contributed to the aeroplane's failure that then yes, you would partly be responsible.

That's where your argument is falling down

The expectation that the person offering the saving knows those risks, more often than not they don't because they're not qualified to know them, that is someone else's role, usually in the construction industry it is someone on the clients side of the fence so it is the clients risk not the contractors 

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, villa4europe said:

As for the fire safety advisor, on the high rise refurbs I've done that always sat as clients risk so we never appointed anyone to do it, even if it was a d&b project the risk for it would reside with the novated design team not the contractor, I've never seen a fire safety advisor appointed by companies I've worked for, that's not a construction risk it's a design risk

Except:

Quote

Lawrence admitted Rydon did not tell the client or the architect it was not hiring a fire expert despite having said it would do so in meetings in April, June, July, September and October 2014 as works were getting under way.

So the point here is whether or not you think it's a construction risk or a design risk, Rydon apparently said on five separate occasions that this is something they would do. And they didn't do it.

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

On the first point here, I feel like you think I'm attacking you personally or something. I'm not. I appreciate this line is literally parodic, but two of three of my best friends are quantity surveyors of different kinds. I don't know much about their work - I don't pretend to - but they are smart guys who work hard and I don't begrudge them what they earn, or what you earn, or what anyone else earns.

What I would say though, is that there are - or should be - alternative ways of making a project pay, rather than misquoting savings to clients.

On the second point, I have no reason to doubt you, but that's not the implication of the article vis a vis this project.

Agree with both points.

[snowychap]

8 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

It quite literally contractually is not my risk

This really is the crux of the matter.

[Chindie]

As someone who has on occasion underwritten D&B and surveyors, this topic scares me.

[villa4europe]

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

This really is the crux of the matter.

What you need to understand is that it's not my risk for a reason... 

[snowychap]

15 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

That's where your argument is falling down

It's only falling down in your eyes because each individual is walking around the entire construction process without so much of a clue as to what might go on in a slightly different area. That's not to say that they need detailed knowledge of each individual part but that they should have the basic nous to understand that it's very possible that there may be some risks associated with using different materials/inputs especially if they cost less (not always the case but it should definintely be something that one is asking).

15 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

The expectation that the person offering the saving knows those risks

It's not the expectation that they know the risks but that they know that there may well be risks and should therefore make some bloody effort (seeing as though they are also directly gaining from this change) to ensure that someone else has a handle on the risks and that alll should be as good as possible.

Edited July 21, 2020 by snowychap

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

What you need to understand is that it's not my risk for a reason... 

There is a huge difference between what might be someone's contractual risk and what might be someone's moral responsibility.

[blandy]

57 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

If the whole team including the Client are doing their job properly then they will identify the key performance they need. Say for instance, they need roofing felt to last 25 years. Well, if the first roofing felt cost a tenner and lasts 30 years, that fits the performance. If then during the design someone suggests a different roofing felt that costs a fiver and lasts 25 years, that also fits the spec

I get that. It contrasts with what has been said about not getting business because a bidder has been undercut. I mean if there's stuff out there that is "good" but costs half as much, why are people bidding based on costs for stuff that is twice as much? If every pound saved increases your [ a business's] chance of getting the job, why factor in more expensive stuff in the bid?