Surrey education case study

CASE STUDY

(INC: PROJECT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS)

School Nursery Refurbishment & Extension

Author: GRAHAME LANDERS BSc(Hons)

Building Surveyor Project Manager

Issued: 26th August 2006

Case Study

Contents Author: Grahame Landers Building Surveyor Project Manager

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Property Description 1

1.2 Clients Brief 1

1.3 Contract Particulars 2

2.0 PRE CONSTRUCTION PHASE 3

2.1 Statutory Requirements and Application 3

2.2 Specification Preparation 4

2.3 Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 1994 4

3.0 CONSTRUCTION PHASE 5

3.1 Site Monitoring and Progress Meetings 5

3.2 Interim Payments and Compensation Events 5

3.3 Practical Completion 5

4.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPRAISALS & SOLUTIONS THROUGHOUT 7

4.1 Planning Issues and Programme 7

4.2 Working in the School Term / Health & Safety Considerations 8

4.3 Existing Roof 9

4.4 Contract Administration / Contractual Issues 10

5.0 APPRAISAL AND ANALYSIS AT COMPLETION 12

5.1 Planning Issues 12

5.2 Building Control Issues 12

5.3 Form of Contract 13

5.4 Administering the NEC 13

5.5 Contractual Issues 14

5.6 Health & Safety / CDM 15

5.7 Overarching Analysis – Project Manager 15

6.0 CONCLUSION 16

APPENDIX A: Drawings

APPENDIX B: Before & After Photographs

Case Study

Issue Date: August 2006 Page 1 Grahame John Landers

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Property Description

The detached single storey nursery is located in a residential area of Surrey, and was

constructed circa 1975. The nursery consists of WC, food preparation area, conservatory,

store room and large and small teaching rooms.

The building is of load bearing masonry construction with inner blockwork and external

facing brickwork cavity wall. The floor is a reinforced cast in-situ concrete. The roof is flat.

1.2 Client’s Brief

The Client was required to improve and update nursery facilities by complying with DfES

Guidelines; DDA legislation and food preparation hygiene standards.

Our brief was to assess and make recommendations on the Client’s requirement and to

provide a cost appraisal of the proposed works. A Feasibility Report produced by another in-

house Department recommended the following works:

• New extension, to provide a ‘quiet room’.

• Internal structural alterations to create an open plan main classroom.

• Levelling of the internal floor for disabled usage and insert a new disabled WC.

• External hard landscape remodelling for disabled access.

• Separate food preparation area away from the children’s WC, for hygienic purposes.

• General refurbishment and modernisation.

Case Study


1.3 Contract Particulars

• Contract Value: £200,000.00

• Contract: New Engineering Contract 2005, with: -

• Core Clauses.

• Strategy Option A: (Contractor prices for

undefined work)

• Secondary Options: -

o X12 (Partnering).

o X16 (Retention)

• Actual Construction Period: 14 weeks

• Actual Lead-in (2weeks): 22nd August 2005 – 3

rd September 2005

• Actual Start On-site Date: 5th September 2005

• Actual Finish Date: 9th December 2005

Case Study


2.0 PRE CONSTRUCTION PHASE

2.1 Statutory Requirements and Applications

2.1.1 Planning Requirements

I prepared a Full Planning Application including existing and proposed AutoCAD drawings,

for the new extension and remodelling of the external hard and soft landscaping. Following

submission, I displayed site notices, for Public information. An objection to the development

was raised by the adjacent neighbour. Consequently I was advised by Planning: -

1. Remodelling of the new extension footprint was required, to ensure the four meter

buffer zone, which was imposed in the original Planning Approval Conditions, when the

existing nursery was built in 1975, was respected. This 1975 condition was not known at

prior to submitting the application.

2. The application would be determined at a public Committee meeting.

Waiting a lengthy time period for the next Committee meeting, delayed the start on-site date.

2.1.2 Building Regulations Application

I prepared, Full Building Regulation Plans Application, including existing and proposed

CAD drawings. Key considerations were: -

• DDA and internal disabled provisions.

• Internal structural demolitions and alterations.

• Thermal performance.

• New extension including new rainwater drainage.

• Fire Strategy (new fire/smoke alarm system, emergency lighting, escape routes).

Case Study


3.2 Specification Preparation

As the Client appointed a Partnering Contractor, without formal Tender procedures,

production of Tender Documents was not necessary. Instead, I produced a specification that

included Materials and Workmanship clauses and a Schedule of Works.

2.3 Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 1994

As lead designer, I advised the Client that the project came under the remit of the CDM

Regulations 1994, as: -

• The project would exceed 30 working days.

• More than five people would be on site at any one time.

• The works entailed demolition.

The Client appointed a competent person to undertake Planning Supervision duties. To aid

the PS in the production of the Plan I forwarded all project information.

The PS requirements were included in the Plan Prelims - the works would only be

‘Practically Complete’ once all H&S File information had been received.

Case Study


3.0 CONSTRUCTION PHASE

3.1 Site Meetings and Monitoring Progress

I chaired monthly site meetings throughout the course of the programme. During these

meetings, I dealt with all technical queries, contractual issues, compensation events, etc.

I used the Contractor’s programme, when monitoring progress, by comparing the actual

completed site works against the programmes, activity time durations. Also during the

monitoring meetings I assessed and advised on the quality of workmanship.

3.2 Interim Payments and Compensation Events

The Contractor submitted monthly valuations for works undertaken to date of submission,

which I checked and produced certificates.

Due to the time taken to confirm my site instructions, through Compensation Events, which

under the NEC can take up to 13 weeks (if a revised quote was not asked for), proved

impractical for the original 12 week programme. Through trust and partnering (NEC X12),

the Contractor immediately undertook my site instructions.

3.3 Practical Completion

3.3.1 Health & Safety File, Handover and Practical Completion Certification

Prior to programme completion date, I contacted the PS to discuss the information that the

Contractor would need to supply, for the H&S File. The PS’s request included: -

• List of all sub-Contractors and their specialist applications.

• List of all specialist materials supplied.

• Certificates, warranties and guarantees.

During the formal handover meeting, with the Client in attendance, I undertook a final snag

inspection and on being satisfied with the quality of workmanship and there being zero

defects, I advised the Client and PS that all works were complete.

Case Study


After reviewing the H&S File contents with the PS and being satisfied with the contents, I

prepared the Practical Completion Certificate, which included the 12-months defects liability

period expiry date.

3.3.2 Final Account

On agreement of the Final Account, the Contractor issued an invoice for payment to the

Client. Half of the 5% retention which was kept during the course of the contract was

released, and added to the Final Account. The other 2.5% of the total cost of the works was

withheld for the defects liability period.

Case Study


4.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPRAISALS & SOLUTIONS THROUGHOUT

The following section identifies particular key issues which I was involved. In each case I

have looked at the reasons for the course of action selected and why I dismissed alternatives.

4.1 Planning Issues and Programme

As the adjacent neighbour objected to the development, the Planning decision had to be held

in public, by Committee. As next Committee meeting was 4 weeks into the programme

along with the Contractors lead-in time meant that works would not start at the beginning of

the summer holidays and house the nursery in the hall for four weeks as originally planned

but at the commencement of the new term. Consequently the nursery services would not

have accommodation, throughout the works duration. To have all the project duration in

term time was too long for the Nursery to be without adequate facilities.

Options available and choice made

1. Postpone the Project until 2006 Summer Holidays. This option meant the works

would not be undertaken during the teaching year and they could continue using the

existing nersury facilities. However, it would pose problems to the Client’s funding

arrangements and the costs would incur interest.

2. Look for Alternative Accommodation within the Vicinity of the School (i.e. Church

Hall). To avoid financial issues associated with option 1 and to prevent postponement,

moving the nursery services into a suitable alternative accommodation would allow the

nursery to function to DfES guidelines. The nursery would be detached from the school

and costs would be incurred from renting a suitable building for the works duration.

3. Provide a Temporary Modular Unit, with Associated Services, Located on the

Nursery Site. This option meant the nursery would remain on its existing site, function

to DfES guidelines and not be detached from the school. However, costs would be

incurred costs from the hire and fit out to DfES criteria and Planning approval.

I recommended option 3, to which the Client agreed.

Case Study


4.2 Working in School Term Time / Health & Safety Considerations

In addition to the disruption to school and nursery teaching, caused by noisy works and site

operations, I also identified the following major H&S issues: -

• An access path and the playground abutted the nursery building.

• The Contractor would be in partial occupation of the nursery site, with the nursery

(housed within the modular unit) occupying the other side.

• A designated Contractor’s storage area was to the other side to the only school /

nursery entrance.


1. Postpone the Project until 2006 Summer Holidays: This avoided H&S risk to the

children and disruption to teaching, but costs would gain interest and cause problems to

the Client’s annual funding.

2. Out of Hours Working. To avoid problems associated with option 1, the Contractor

working weekends, before and after school hours would mean no disruptions to

teaching, the children could use the tarmac playground during winter and transporting

materials across the only school / nursery entrance would not prevent access, especially

during the children’s drop off and pick up times. However, working out of hours would

gain additional costs, possible neighbour disputes and gaining tradesmen.

3. Provide a Perimeter Barriers and Ensure Deliveries and Noisy Works are

Undertaken Out of Hours: In providing a high metal gate across the access path with a

lock, hoardings between the modular unit and the nursery building, having a zoned

hoarded perimeter area in the playground and enforcing out of school hours of

deliveries, noisy works and transportation of materials would prevent teaching

disruptions. However, this option needed careful programming by the Contractor.

I recommended option 3, to which the Client agreed. I requested method statements and risk

assessments from the Contractor.

Case Study


4.3 Existing Roof

Works to the existing roof was not originally included in the feasibility works. In reviewing

the requirement of thermal performance and ventilation it became known by Client that

replacement of the existing roof covering was planned to be undertaken in the near future. I

therefore put a number of option appraisals, to the Client.


1. Cold Roof Construction: Provide a 25mm diameter ventilation gaps to the soffits and

200mm thick insulation quilt to the void. However, the advantages of saving money

from using the elevation scaffold access to the roof during these works would be lost

and further disruption to the nursery would occur in the near future.

2. Warm Roof Construction: Remove the covering and provide new tapered insulation

above the deck with a new covering. This option, took advantage of the scaffolding, the

replacement covering would have the same life span and 20 year warranty as the new

extension covering. The tapered insulation would provide good falls to gutters through

its service life, thus preventing ponding and no future planned works. However, the

existing roof and the new extension cold roof would be of a different construction and

the existing upstands would need to be built-up to accommodate the tapered insulation.

3. Cold Roof Construction and New Roof Covering: In consideration of the limited

Client’s additional funds, keeping the new and existing roof constructions the same

(cold) and the near future planned covering replacement, this third option, was a

comprise between options 1 and 2, by providing 25mm diameter ventilation gap,

200mm thick insulation quilt and covering replacement.

Discussions with the Contractor to establish timelines of undertaking the each of the above

options on-site, along with Building Control decision time was added to my calculated

design time. Each option timeline was determined and also put forward to the Client.

I recommended option 3, to which the Client agreed to the timeline and provided additional

monies for the works along. My additional specification and design was approved by

Building Control.

Case Study


4.4 Contract Administration / Contractual Issues

Over the course of the project a 6 week delay occurred to the programme. I needed to

evaluate the amount of extension of time, I could grant to the Contractor.


Risks to the original programme included -

1. Neighbours’ Objection to the Development: This caused my Planning Application to

be decided by the Planning Committee, held in public. As the next Committee meeting

was four weeks into the programme, the start on-site date was delayed. Total delay of 4

weeks.

2. Breach of Structural Engineers Foundation Design. The Contractor in undertaking

the new extension foundation excavations did not adhere to the Structural Engineer’s

design, as more of the existing in-situ reinforced foundation, was removed. The design

allowed for the new foundations to be supported and joined to the existing. The

Structural Engineer need to check / revise his design and for Building Control

acceptance, caused a total delay of 2 weeks for the new quiet room extension works.

3. Additional Works: The works to upgrade the existing roof to include new insulation,

new cross internal ventilation, new roof covering, caused an on-site total delay of 2

weeks.

Impact from Delays upon the Programme and Resulting Extension of Time

• The critical path was affected by adjacent neighbour objecting to my Planning

application. It meant the application needed to be decided upon by the Planning

Committee, whose next meeting was four weeks in to the original programme. This

delayed the original date for the Contractor’s lead-in time by 4 weeks. I advised the

Contractor early enough to prevent any programme delays and delay costs from being

occurred. The Contractor did not raise an ‘early warning’ notice.

Case Study


• The Contractor’s error in removing more existing foundation did not affect the critical

path. The critical path at that stage was undertaking the internal strip out and not the

building extension works. The Contractor did not raise an ‘early warning’ notice.

• The additional works to upgrade the roof did affect the critical path. The site works

added an extra 2 weeks on to the construction phase programme. The Contractor did

raise an ‘early warning’ notice.

I therefore decided that the 2 week delay resulting from the additional on-site roofing works

was not the Contractor’s fault and an extension of time, could be granted. The Client agreed.

I issued a ‘Compensation Event’.

The original programme was delayed by a total 6 weeks, due to the Planning Application

objection by the neighbour and from the additional roofing works.

Case Study


5.0 APPRAISAL AND ANALYSIS AT COMPLETION

The following section is a critical analysis of my project involvement. Where appropriate I

have identified lessons learnt, reflective learning and professional development.

5.1 Planning Issues

I gained additional Planning experience when the neighbour objected to the development.

The original extension layout was unknowingly in breach of the original 1975 planning

consent condition as it did not maintain a four meter buffer zone. This experience was in the

way objections were dealt with at Committee level.

Although, remodelling of the new extension to be 4 meters away from the neighbour’s

boundary was an easy AutoCAD exercise, the objection caused a four delay to the start date

and caused disruption to nursery and school. Forward and flexible thinking was important to

minimise major problems, especially advising the Client that a temporary modular unit was a

solution.

5.2 Building Control Issues

I had to ensure that all proposed works met the requirements of the Building Regulations and

in addition the unforeseen works. This exposure to in achieving compliance increased my

knowledge of the Building Regulations, but also how Building Control Officers operate and

how they administer the Building Regulations. I also learnt that by establishing a close

relationship with Building Control Officers limits delays.

In providing option appraisals for undertaking replacement of the existing roof covering, I

demonstrated to the Client the advantages of bringing forward the replacement works and

incorporating them within the project. In formulating recommendations, I learnt how to

communicate effectively in writing.

Case Study


5.3 Form of Contract

In using the NEC, I realised that there were many advantages to this Contract as oppose to

the traditional contracts, as ‘Early Warning’ highlighted problems to time, quality and

finances at an early stage, ‘Compensation Events’ provide final account figure during the

works and the X12 (Partnering) drives parties to mutually achieve the project aim and goals.

Although I was not involved in the recommendation for the NEC, which is a contract suited

for most major Engineering and Building works, I have since reflected reflect upon the

importance of advising the Client on a Contract that is best suited to a project’s scope,

budget, complexity and programme. A suitable contract for this project, is the JCT,

Intermediate Form of Contract 1998, as guidance given in the Practice Note 5, (Series 2),

states the IFC is usable where: -

• Value of the works up to £375,000.00 (2003 prices).

• Contract period does not exceed 12 months.

• Works are not complex or requiring complex trades.

Normal NEC practices require the need of multiple staff. Whilst acting as Project Manager

(under delegated powers); Designer, Building Surveyor, AutoCAD Technician,

Administrator of the Contract, co-ordinator of the Structural Engineer and M&E

Consultations, it became very onerous. I soon learnt that managing staff and information is

essential, to ensure smooth running of an NEC project.

5.4 Administering the NEC

I identified a major problem during the course of the works that it can take up to 13 week to

confirm my site instruction through a Compensation Event. As the actual works on-site

lasted for 14 weeks it would result in the majority of variations being dealt with at the end of

the project. I discussed this issue with the Contractor, who agreed to undertake my site

instructions once I had given them in writing.

Case Study


Chairing meetings not only gave me the experience of co-ordinating all parties involved with

the project but also further developed my interpersonal skills. I recognised the importance of

preparing meeting minutes to keep interested parties and client informed of events taking

placing on site and to clearly communicate any action points to the relevant parties.

Monitoring costs throughout the course of the project enabled me to decide if additional

costs were accommodated within the project costs. It also allowed me to regularly advise the

client on remaining contingency funds, additional costs and the project final account.

Through monitoring the progress of the works, I gained experience of assessing a contractor

programme and acquired practical knowledge of the length of time certain construction tasks

may take. This has assisted me when advising the client as estimated construction time the

project.

5.5 Contractual Issues

With the refurbishment and the new extension not being completed to programme, I

acquired an understanding of the importance of closely monitoring a contractor’s progress

and performance. From this, I recognise the importance of gaining a detailed explanation of

the reason(s) why a contractor is not meeting the programme and analysing the events in the

Critical path would necessitate the need to hold a review meeting.

5.6 Health & Safety / CDM

Due to the revised start date, being at the start of the teaching calendar, the H&S of the staff

and children became paramount. Through undertaking a Risk Assessment, I was able to

identify the hazards and what best options to nullify or reduce the risk. This exercise has

increased my awareness of H&S issues.

In complying with Regulation 14 of CDM, and providing Risk Assessments has enabled

further understanding of how my design could be built with health and safety problems.

Through, analysing potential risk has further improved my design abilities,

Case Study


5.7 Overarching Analysis - Project Manager

The assistance of M&E designer; Structural Engineer; in-house Quantity Surveyor and

Planning Supervisor has been invaluable in ensuring the project during the pre and post

contract phases, meet the project objectives and aims. My proactive management approach

of the project team (including the Contractor and Building Control) and co-ordination of all

their information was therefore successful.

Working within the education sector has enabled me to gain a fundamental understanding

and experience of DfES guidelines and criteria in providing nursery facilities, suitable for

children’s usage and educational development.

Case Study


6.0 CONCLUSION

This case study (including appraisal and analysis) has focused upon my involvement during

the three construction phases to refurbish and improve the existing nursery facilities.

Experience gained throughout this project has enabled me to further develop my

understanding and knowledge of statutory, technical and construction matters. For example

the planning issues and unexpected poor thermal performance of the existing building

construction that both involved extra costs and posed risks to the project programme.

When situations arose I would research the options from various sources of information (e.g.

legislation, textbooks, line management, etc.) to determine the best course of action. My

proactive approach in resolving site issues quickly prevented undue delay and cost to the

programme where possible.

The refurbishment and improvement met with the Client’s expectations and aim by meeting

current guidelines; standards; legislation and appearance.

The project is currently in the Post Construction Phase which includes the 12 months defects

liability period.

Case Study

Issue Date: August 2006 Appendix A Grahame John Landers

APPENDIX A

DRAWINGS

Case Study

Issue Date: August 2006 Appendix B Grahame John Landers

APPENDIX B

BEFORE & AFTER PHOTOGRAPHS

Case Study


PHOTO 2: Front elevation and step access at Feasibility

PHOTO 3: Front elevation and ramp access at Practical Completion

Case Study


PHOTO 4: Toilets at Feasibility

PHOTO 5: Refurbished toilets at Practical Completion

Case Study


PHOTO 6: Food preparation located in toilet area at Feasibility

PHOTO 7: Ambulant disabled toilet located in former food preparation area at Practical Completion

Case Study


PHOTO 8: Store room at Feasibility

PHOTO 9: New kitchen located in former store room area at Practical Completion

Case Study


PHOTO 10: Conservatory / classroom partition and step at Feasibility

PHOTO 11: Removed conservatory / classroom partition and step at Practical Completion

Case Study


PHOTO 12: Existing roof covering at Feasibility

PHOTO 13: New roof coverings at Practical Completion

Case Study


PHOTO 14: Existing hard & soft landscaping at Feasibility

PHOTO 15: Remodelled hard & soft landscaping at Practical Completion

Surrey education case study

Education

planning application

planning issues

case study issue date

grahame john landers

new engineering contract

planning requirements

new disabled wc

new extension footprint