Grandstand - main contractor appointed

[Kentishgreen]

And there’s no need for the usual suspects to provide us with a constant stream of negativity. We all know the deal. We’re supporters of PAFC so we know some people will get it right and others will get it wrong. Why do we need to be constantly reminded of that? Why do some people need to slag off people who are at least trying?

 

[Stuart House]

Because that’s their disposition, and it’s consistent. Similar to those who they accuse of having blind faith.

If you don’t want discussion why be on a discussion board.

Not everyone agrees. That’s life. Deal with it.

 

[IJN]

The difference being, the vast majority of us Argyle fans just want it done and we pray it will be complete. 'They' on the other hand, desperately want it to fail. Let's face it, they've tried their hardest to make it fail.

I was speaking to a planner this week and he told me that I would be amazed that a few claiming to be Argyle fans have been enquiring about the 'obligations' that a certain person (fed by a certain other person). One actually said during the conversation how he would 'love it' if this meant it didn't go ahead!!

Sad, sad people.

 

[esmer]

If a main contract for the actual Grandstand refurb is all signed - excellent. Every close season day that passes without the actual main development build happening is a huge waste.

Very very odd that such a milestone is not noted at all on the official site, or any of the local papers.

Have I missed something, who said the main contract has been signed.

It mentions an 'enabling contract' has been signed. isn't this normal in such circumstances?

Get the thing started, all the preliminary stuff, and then whilst that's being done, the 'main contract' is signed, after the details have been sorted out. What goes where and how many and stuff like that.

This way all the detailed stuff can be agreed upon whilst all the easy stuff, demolition of the far post, taking the roof off seats out etc continues without delaying anything.

I'll ask Esmer, a QS, he'll know.

It's certainly the methodology I've used in the past, and I never ever had any problems with it.

Happy to oblige Ian

By far and away the main cause of time and cost overruns on building contracts is lack of design information at the time the contract is signed, Architects and Engineers can be very tardy in this respect. If the the contract sum and contract period is agreed and the contract signed before the design drawings , specifications, etc are finalised then additional costs and programme overruns are pretty much a given. So it is eminently sensible to ensure all the design information is complete before a contract is agreed and we can assume that is what is happening here. To save time there are obviously enabling and other works which can be carried out under a separate contract which is again the sensible way to proceed.

Regarding completion I will explain that the contract will include a contract period and a provision for the application of Liquidated And Ascertained Damages (LAD’s) in the event of any overruns. In layman’s terms means that when the contract is signed the contract period will determine the completion date and if the contract runs over that date the contractor will be liable for damages ,which will be a pre-determined weekly amount calculated on the cost to the Client of the overrun (loss of income etc). Being the construction industry it isn’t that simple because any overruns which are not the fault of the contractor would be the basis of a claim for an extension of time which would, obviously, extend the completion date. The main basis of a claim would be additional works to that included in the original contract and would not only delay the completion date but incur costs not only for the additional works but the contractor’s site and office overheads. This obviously highlights the need to base the original contract on the fullest information possible.

I would also make a point about the discharge of planning conditions. Although the planning permission will ask for many conditions to be fulfilled before commencement in practical terms this rarely happens. I don’t know what the conditions are (I don’t have the time to look, my partner is dragging me off to a wedding street party shortly) but it is normally acceptable that they are fulfilled in conjunction with build progress on site. For example various materials would need to be approved but the planners are normally happy if this happens prior to incorporation into the works. If there is any brickwork in the project the planners would approve the manufacturer, colour etc of the proposed brick before any brickwork is carried out on site, they would be unlikely to insist on approval before project commencement although that may be the stated requirement in the planning consent.

 

[IJN]

Thanks Richard, common sense and experience based FACT from a person in the industry.

:clap:

 

[davie nine]

If a main contract for the actual Grandstand refurb is all signed - excellent. Every close season day that passes without the actual main development build happening is a huge waste.

Very very odd that such a milestone is not noted at all on the official site, or any of the local papers.

Have I missed something, who said the main contract has been signed.

It mentions an 'enabling contract' has been signed. isn't this normal in such circumstances?

Get the thing started, all the preliminary stuff, and then whilst that's being done, the 'main contract' is signed, after the details have been sorted out. What goes where and how many and stuff like that.

This way all the detailed stuff can be agreed upon whilst all the easy stuff, demolition of the far post, taking the roof off seats out etc continues without delaying anything.

I'll ask Esmer, a QS, he'll know.

It's certainly the methodology I've used in the past, and I never ever had any problems with it.

Happy to oblige Ian

By far and away the main cause of time and cost overruns on building contracts is lack of design information at the time the contract is signed, Architects and Engineers can be very tardy in this respect. If the the contract sum and contract period is agreed and the contract signed before the design drawings , specifications, etc are finalised then additional costs and programme overruns are pretty much a given. So it is eminently sensible to ensure all the design information is complete before a contract is agreed and we can assume that is what is happening here. To save time there are obviously enabling and other works which can be carried out under a separate contract which is again the sensible way to proceed.

Regarding completion I will explain that the contract will include a contract period and a provision for the application of Liquidated And Ascertained Damages (LAD’s) in the event of any overruns. In layman’s terms means that when the contract is signed the contract period will determine the completion date and if the contract runs over that date the contractor will be liable for damages ,which will be a pre-determined weekly amount calculated on the cost to the Client of the overrun (loss of income etc). Being the construction industry it isn’t that simple because any overruns which are not the fault of the contractor would be the basis of a claim for an extension of time which would, obviously, extend the completion date. The main basis of a claim would be additional works to that included in the original contract and would not only delay the completion date but incur costs not only for the additional works but the contractor’s site and office overheads. This obviously highlights the need to base the original contract on the fullest information possible.

I would also make a point about the discharge of planning conditions. Although the planning permission will ask for many conditions to be fulfilled before commencement in practical terms this rarely happens. I don’t know what the conditions are (I don’t have the time to look, my partner is dragging me off to a wedding street party shortly) but it is normally acceptable that they are fulfilled in conjunction with build progress on site. For example various materials would need to be approved but the planners are normally happy if this happens prior to incorporation into the works. If there is any brickwork in the project the planners would approve the manufacturer, colour etc of the proposed brick before any brickwork is carried out on site, they would be unlikely to insist on approval before project commencement although that may be the stated requirement in the planning consent.

Thanks for that detailed and clear explanation, Esmer. Much appreciated.

 

[andyr1963]

If a main contract for the actual Grandstand refurb is all signed - excellent. Every close season day that passes without the actual main development build happening is a huge waste.

Very very odd that such a milestone is not noted at all on the official site, or any of the local papers.

Have I missed something, who said the main contract has been signed.

It mentions an 'enabling contract' has been signed. isn't this normal in such circumstances?

Get the thing started, all the preliminary stuff, and then whilst that's being done, the 'main contract' is signed, after the details have been sorted out. What goes where and how many and stuff like that.

This way all the detailed stuff can be agreed upon whilst all the easy stuff, demolition of the far post, taking the roof off seats out etc continues without delaying anything.

I'll ask Esmer, a QS, he'll know.

It's certainly the methodology I've used in the past, and I never ever had any problems with it.

Happy to oblige Ian

By far and away the main cause of time and cost overruns on building contracts is lack of design information at the time the contract is signed, Architects and Engineers can be very tardy in this respect. If the the contract sum and contract period is agreed and the contract signed before the design drawings , specifications, etc are finalised then additional costs and programme overruns are pretty much a given. So it is eminently sensible to ensure all the design information is complete before a contract is agreed and we can assume that is what is happening here. To save time there are obviously enabling and other works which can be carried out under a separate contract which is again the sensible way to proceed.

Regarding completion I will explain that the contract will include a contract period and a provision for the application of Liquidated And Ascertained Damages (LAD’s) in the event of any overruns. In layman’s terms means that when the contract is signed the contract period will determine the completion date and if the contract runs over that date the contractor will be liable for damages ,which will be a pre-determined weekly amount calculated on the cost to the Client of the overrun (loss of income etc). Being the construction industry it isn’t that simple because any overruns which are not the fault of the contractor would be the basis of a claim for an extension of time which would, obviously, extend the completion date. The main basis of a claim would be additional works to that included in the original contract and would not only delay the completion date but incur costs not only for the additional works but the contractor’s site and office overheads. This obviously highlights the need to base the original contract on the fullest information possible.

I would also make a point about the discharge of planning conditions. Although the planning permission will ask for many conditions to be fulfilled before commencement in practical terms this rarely happens. I don’t know what the conditions are (I don’t have the time to look, my partner is dragging me off to a wedding street party shortly) but it is normally acceptable that they are fulfilled in conjunction with build progress on site. For example various materials would need to be approved but the planners are normally happy if this happens prior to incorporation into the works. If there is any brickwork in the project the planners would approve the manufacturer, colour etc of the proposed brick before any brickwork is carried out on site, they would be unlikely to insist on approval before project commencement although that may be the stated requirement in the planning consent.

OK. No problem with any of that. I's dotted t's crossed. Do all the prep behind the stand. Keep the grandstand itself open and then do the main job itself the following season. :thumbs:

The money is not there to complete is my guess. :roll:

 

[IJN]

The money is not there to complete is my guess. :roll:

So what you are saying is Andy, it's all knocked down and then won't be refurbished?

 

[tonsk]

The money is not there to complete is my guess. :roll:

So what you are saying is Andy, it's all knocked down and then won't be refurbished?

Not sure if it's just me, but I find it quite frustrating reading some posts on here as it appears the poster(s) are replying to things that they have clearly not read properly or, maybe chosen to ignore certain parts of? Not just this thread or Andy btw.

I usually try to ignore it and bite my tongue but sometimes I am caught at a weaker moment and I get sucked in.

How can you state that the Grandstand will be kept open when everyone has been relocated and work to rip the heart of it out has started?

I am already regretting starting to reply to this but as I have started I might as well post it.


tonsk

 

[Bermudian Green]

OK. No problem with any of that. I's dotted t's crossed. Do all the prep behind the stand. Keep the grandstand itself open and then do the main job itself the following season. :thumbs:

The money is not there to complete is my guess. :roll:

Please let this be sarcasm.

 

[Biggs]

I’m struggling to see the logic, too. Why exactly has Andy made the assumption that the money isn’t there?

Looks like we’ve gone past the point of no return, there will very quickly be NO infrastructure at all at HP. Which means that the redevelopment 100% has to happen

 

[Pogleswoody]

I don't know JB personally but he strikes me as the sort of man who would only start a project if/when the funding was in place. Tho' of course, I may be wrong.

 

[Army green]

Seems people are clutching at straws and hoping it won’t get completed, as nothing would give them more pleasure than saying “I told you so”. w@nkers.

 

[Andy S]

Seems people are clutching at straws and hoping it won’t get completed, as nothing would give them more pleasure than saying “I told you so”. w@nkers.

Seconded!

 

[Quintrell Green]

I don't know JB personally but he strikes me as the sort of man who would only start a project if/when the funding was in place. Tho' of course, I may be wrong.

I agree with your judgement of JB, but more to the point, the signed up main contractor, if he has any business sense at all, will have sought credit references on PAFC Ltd for the value of the contract, perhaps required evidence of the funds availability and arranged stage payments, before any on-site work commences. I have no doubt that the funding stream is good.