Case Study - Background

Question 1

When were T&T appointed?

Answer 1

• Appointed toward the end of October
• There was no crossover between T&T and the previous consultant.
• 1 week after them leaving

Question 2

What caused a delay in the transition?

Answer 2

• Onboarding/vetting
• Bringing up to speed
• Reviews with designers/PM
• Stage 3 cost plan
• Validation
• Review of solutions
• Overall, about 2-3 weeks delay (including 1 week float)

Some float was added which saved a week.

Question 3

What was driving the £850k overspend?

Answer 3

Key against the budget which was set by the previous consultant.

• Additional scope added after S2(Mail Room/Corridor Works)
• Increase in Catering Units (MEP impact)
• Increase in Specialist Joinery

This included higher specifications in the Mail Room and Toilets.

Question 4

What was the focus of the Reconciliation against the previous?

Answer 4

• Side by side cost plan (focused on elemental packages)
• Checked rates/quantities allowances - Key differences
• Any differences checked with designers/checked measures.

Focused on packages where key differences were noted.

Question 5

What findings were highlighted following the Reconciliation?

Answer 5

• Higher costs on MEP, Specialist Joinery, Finishes.
• No clear methodology for OOH Allowances in their pricing.
• OOH to (Strip Out/MEP/Finishes/Partitions)
• Applied 30% for OOH works uplift to areas after benchmarking

Discussed with Design Team/PM packages likely to be done OOH.

Question 6

Tallk me through the benchmarking you did for the project?

Answer 6

Key to focus on benchmarking the high cost elements (£/m2)
* Services £/m2
* Finishes £/m2
* Joinery £/m2
* Toilets £/m2

Used 3 projects in the same location of similar works to benchmark against.

Highlighted any key observations:
* Elements done OOHs
* Scope differences (more tiles/higher spec)
* Toilets higher spec

Question 7

What findings were highlighted following the Benchmark?

Answer 7

• Toilets were high (Vanity Units Corian/Quartz Top)
• Services high but justified by the level Catering involved (this was within 10%)
• Finishes were high end
• Most variances were in 5%-10% range

This was reflective of the market and deemed valid.

Question 8

What was the Contingency and how was it calculated?

Answer 8

5% contingency as an overall risk pot

This was advised by the client due to the project forecasting as overbudget.

Question 9

You talk about high spec? What would you expect to see in a Low - Mid Spec?

Answer 9

Basic level of finishes:
* Carpet/Vinyl Flooring
* Plasterboard/Metal Ceilings
* Painted wall finishes - Timber panels for a mid range
* Basic tables/chairs - Not bespoke joinery.
* Laminate Vanity Units - Corian - Natural Stone (Quartz)

Question 10

What other Benchmarking could you have done outside of £/m2

Answer 10

Cost per Functional Area (toilets/tea room/games room)
Cost per floor