My First Response Upon Receiving the Construction Plan

MY FIRST RESPONSE UPON RECEIVING THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN:

I’ve just had a conversation with Willie regarding the artificial wetland; thanks for the plan and the effort you put into this. Having said this I unfortunately have to raise a couple of concerns: Let me start by clarifying the my relationship with Limpopo Dairy and the project. I have a formal agreement with them to take responsibility for coordinating the development and implementation of this project and was therefore the person who initially started communicating with Lizl and later yourself, and advised them to make use of your services. Please involve me in all aspects of this project and cc me on all communications with Willie. I apologise if I did not communicate well with you initially to make sure that you understand my position in this regard.

Concerning the construction plans there are numerous issues that is not clear (a few listed below). From all my conversations with Lizl and later you and the ncc proposal, the terminology we used for the scope of work was “artificial wetland design” and “construction and operational plan” which put us under the impression that the “plan” referred to was used as a verb i.e. a set of decisions about how to do something. The plan that was provided by ncc lacks a lot of the how to implement the proposed solutions for example:

a)Concerning 5.1.2.1 Technical: refurbishment – all details are not clear, draining is simple enough but lining does not specify the type of material; checking the design of the internal baffles outlet heights does not provide specifications on how these should ideally be constructed; re-design of the internal workings and outlet port does not provide any specifications?

b)Concerning 5.2.2.1 Technical: inclined screen de-watering filter does not provide the specifications but the picture on page 12 indicates “an exact model and manufacturer will be selected once detail design of the system has been performed” which is very confusing as this is precisely what we were expecting from you in the construction plan?

c)Concerning 5.3.2.1 Technical: underground pipeline & suitable fall does not specify what a suitable fall would be?

d)Concerning 5.4.1.1 Technical: shall be constructed to an engineered design with engineered lining- again we assumed that the plan will include all designs?

e)Concerning 5.4.1.2 Environmental: population of anaerobic organisms- which species, provided by whom?

f)Concerning 5.5.1.1 Technical: self-priming type- specifics? 2 pumps- specifics?Pass this through a series of pipes and valves, which will be automated- no idea what you’re talking about!

g)Concerning 5.6.1.1 Technical: bottom of the wetland is sloped- how much?

Section 6.1 refers to the planning /pre-construction and indicates: as a minimum, the plans and specifications should outline the following: - surely the plans referred to here is exactly what we were expecting from you?

I can carry on with this but we first need to discuss the way forward; (please call me so that we can discuss as soon as you’ve read the email) as it is the plan does not provide enough detail that we can use it to construct the wetland. The scope in your proposal clearly indicates a construction and operational management plan. As it is the plan is a guideline document on what should happen when this wetland is constructed but does not contain adequate how it should be implemented. Can you kindly amend the plan and provide more details concerning the construction procedures.

Kind regards,

Jacobus

THEIR REPLY FROM THE PROJECT LEADER:

Thank you for your reply below and the comments you made.

May we start by saying that our intentions are always to provide exactly what is promised, and we are naturally concerned when a client feels this has not been done.

There is clearly a difference of opinion in what should have been delivered in that report.

If one refers to the proposal we sent to the client, we clearly stated the nature of the report and level of detail that would be provided.

As stated in the following sections of our proposal:1.2 Scope of Works; 2. Methodology; and subsections 2.3.1 Construction Management Plan as well as 2.3.2 Operational Management Plan, under Report Compilation (2.3), the Plan is referred to as a guidance document. The specifications to which you allude in your email are external to the scope of the accepted proposal. The “how” to which you refer would typically appear in engineering specifications and engineered designs. The report covers in broad terms, what is required to treat the waste water effectively.

Our rationale for providing guidance documentation in the construction and operation of the system was such that, a high level overview could be sought in the client being able to make informed decisions on whether or not to proceed with this project, and if so, understanding the overarching elements of the implementation and operation of this type of intervention.

It is critical to note that decisions should not be made with regard to specifications at this juncture. We did not include specifications at this stage, as it would have been a premature step in the process. The purpose of this document as stated in the scope of works and methodology, is that it is to be viewed as a guidance document. It is not a specifications document and therefore does not include engineered specifications or drawings as this is external to the scope of works and methodology agreed upon in the proposal.

It is important to understand that the necessary authorisations and requirements from your local authority should be assessed and sought prior to engineered designs and specifications being set. This is the more prudent and cost effective way to approach a project of this nature, as very often, the conditions of these authorisations will require certain unforeseen requirements that might not have been included in the engineered designs and specifications. As a result, the client might very well have to bear additional costs in the amendment of such designs or redesign of specifications, which could be easily avoided if these documents you have made reference to are not delivered prematurely.

Please understand that we are holding the client’s best interests at heart, and are intent on engaging in best practice principles to ensure maximum benefit for the client.

The construction and operational management plan provides guidance as to what components need to be built, whilst taking into cognisance the current infrastructure and ‘lay of the land’. The operational management component of the document provides guidance with regard to the management activities required to keep the proposed infrastructure operating efficiently. The specifications to which you are referring can only be ascertained further down the line, with engineered drawings, engineering specifications, bills of quantity etc.

One must realise that to produce a full construction package, as you have alluded to, takes many more hours and requires us to hire the services of numerous professionals to undertake this design in the detail required for construction.

None of that was allowed for in the proposal we sent to the client.

The intention was to find out IF such a wetland would work and in broad strokes what it would consist of and roughly how big it would be.

We have done much research on the topic and used the tremendous in-house expertise of NCC to put a system together that we are sure will work.

Now that we have a high-level solution, we need to take the next step.

Perhaps I should briefly describe the normal process we follow in the consulting industry:

1.Obtain client approval for high level assessment of requirements and find solutions for same.

2.Present findings.

3.Obtain client approval to move in to budget phase of project. (still no detail design…)

4.Application to and approval from local authorities

5.Perform basic sizing calculations and hire in certain professionals on an hourly basis to assist where required.

6.Present client with 3 (or more…) options, each with their own budget costing attached.

7.Client decides on an option and gives go-ahead to proceed.

8.Detail design and construction package is produced and put out to tender or priced by the client himself.

9.Construction begins.

As you can see from the above there are many steps to be followed before we get to the detailed design of the project.

It is in the client’s best interest to follow these steps, and we do not believe it is right to merely offer one design and cost, particularly before the necessary authorisation requirements have been assessed, applied for and granted.

There are many ways we can build this wetland and opportunities to save money, but also waste it.

Our intention is to enter the next phase with you and the client and push on with the next phase of the project, where much of the detail you require will be addressed. Please be assured of our best intentions at all times and we really look forward to working with you on this prestigious project.

We apologise for not understanding your specific role as being the responsible party for the co-ordination of the project. It was previously unclear, and we will be sure to include you with respect to all communications going forward.

Kind Regards

MY SECOND REPLY:

I would like to start by saying that we are committed to resolve this difference of opinion so that the project may be implemented successfully to the benefit of us all. When we read and discussed your proposal which stated that "the purpose of the construction management plan is to provide guidance to Limpopo Dairy on how to best to design and build an artificial wetland on their property etc..."it created the expectation with all of us here that we will receive a plan that will enableus to proceed with construction.Had webeen aware of the factthat this expensive exercise was onlythe first phase ofan apparent series ofrequired consultations before we could implement the project we would have asked for a more completequotation in advance.How many of these unpleasant surprises await us if we are to continue with this relationship? It’s clear that we have been caught unprepared by the hidden small print and the apparent freedom you haveto interpret technical terms in more than one way! How is it possible that we can be so convinced from all the discussions we had and from your proposal document that we would obtain a specific product which differs so much from what you envisaged? From the very first conversation I had with Lizl I repeatedly stated our expectations clearly!

This difference of opinion has serious implications for us and unfortunately I must say that we are extremely disappointed in the end product which you have provided. We feel that we have been misled and I am surprised when you make a statement like the one below where you state that "Our rationale for providing guidance documentation in the construction and operation of the system was such that, a high level overview could be sought in the client being able to make informed decisions on whether or not to proceed with this project," Never was there any mention of this in your site visit, both you and Lizlassured me more than once thatthe project will be viable and thatncc willprovide us with the information needed to construct such an ecological filter successfully.

This brings me to the next point. How do you propose we resolve this difference of opinion? We are committed to keep our financial obligation but feel strongly that we cannot pay for a service not rendered as agreed. If you are adamant that no further specifications can be provided I propose that we make use of a third party who could review your proposal and management plan with our concerns and providea professionalopinion that would hopefullychange one of the two parties' perception about the deliverables of the project?

kind regards,

Jacobus