It was at the mid-tender interview with the construction managers, designers and cost consultants that we were told to incorporate new ideas, products and methods of work into the project. We were to become engaged in the 'moving forward initiative'. Among the solutions proposed were:
Products
Process
The project
The enthusiasm on these matters gave the project a good start, and the co-ordination between services went very well, albeit to extremely tight parameters. However, in some circumstances, although the communication between contractors was good, it is my belief that the construction manager should have issued records of the meetings and discussions so that if any changes/variations occurred they would be on record.
The cable installations for lighting, small power, fire and voice alarms around the core areas were well on programme until we discovered that we had been working with out-of-date data. Fortunately we had a good relationship with the contractor responsible for the dry lining, who made time for us to alter our works without causing delay.
The fit-out works were catching up with the shell and core. This presented us with a few problems, as the fit-out design was still changing, mainly because of client requests. However, by using products such as shot-fired cable retention clips we were able to maintain progress two floors in front of our programme requirements for first fixing.
Our delivery schedules for the general office area luminaires were on target. We had organised for these to arrive on pallets (we had an off-loading gantry available) marked for the relevant floors and complete with lamps, louvres etc, ready for installation and plug-in.
Although we were told to deliver our fittings in accordance with our schedules and the agreed programme, the ceiling trade contractor was not ready for the luminaires. In fact, as it was part of its scope to install the fittings, it would not accept them as a package and only wanted the bodies, contrary to a discussion held earlier.
Once on site, we firstly decided to slow down the deliveries, as the 600 luminaires delivered were beginning to block-up a floor area and cause disruption. We removed the lamps and louvres, causing our supplier an increase in cost.
The luminaires themselves were getting damaged, moved and in some cases thrown away, as the boxes containing them were so damaged they looked like rubbish. Because of this problem we had to replace just over 260 louvres, approximately 400 lamps and around 80 complete luminaires.
When the fittings were installed, the benefits of using a flexible lighting installation were noted, as we were simply laying the lengths of connecting cables across the ceiling grid, which is the designed way of carrying out the installation.
The project was progressing swiftly, with plenty of areas beginning to look finished, but not one floor was actually complete, either due to a few tiles missing, a wall not decorated, or areas not carpeted, stopping us from second fixing the floor power outlets and sockets.
This now meant that areas throughout the building had to be revisited and in most cases more than once. This is extremely unproductive, however to show willing and act positively we reacted and ended up doing all of the building fixing one item at a time – a totally illogical regime to use and extremely costly.
As the project manager, I submitted lists of items outstanding and our requirements before the second fix could take place. Meetings were called every morning, to discuss the day's progress. This in itself became unproductive, but in some cases it was necessary.
While this was taking place, we were receiving large changes to the design, owing to the client's requests and establishing its final furniture layouts. These changes and additional works also had to be completed prior to handover so that the end user had the building and its floor plans in the way they wanted them.
At this point I, along with my supervisors, agreed that it would be of benefit if we created a restack gang who solely worked on these changes and would not become involved with the finishes yet to be completed.
Improvements next time
Profile
Performance Costs: At £96/sq ft, the costs were only £1/sq ft up on Broadgate, built by Stanhope/Bovis ten years earlier. Productivity: Up 12%. Monitoring: Observers shadowed contractors and fed back performance analysis. Waste: Racking equipment and designated storage areas reduced waste from breakages. Site equipment: All workers had to wear toolbelts and were not allowed to use hacksaws. Increased use of powerlifting equipment.CV:Paul Brown
Brown’s career began in September 1986, when he joined a relatively small switchgear, controls and package sub-station manufacturers in Kent. After spending nine months on block release at college then working in different sectors of the factory he joined T Clarke. He began 1988 as an apprentice, a year or two older than the other apprentices, and completed his apprenticeship early in 1990, continuing on to BTEC ONC and then HNC, in Building Services – Electrical. He also won ‘Apprentice of the Year’. As a graded electrician, he has been the electrical project manager on a number of projects including churches and shopping centres.Source
Electrical and Mechanical Contractor
Credits
Developer Stanhope Main Contractor Bovis Shell and Core Architect SOM Structural Engineer Watermans M&E Engineer JB&B M&E Cost Consultant DL&E Electrical Contractor T Clarke Mechanical Contractor Shepherd Engineering Services
