The Fourth Meeting of the Framework Management Group

2nd Generation Framework Agreement

Tuesday, 15th March 2005, 1.30 pm

Room 227, Skempton Building, Imperial College

Minutes

Present: / Ted Cann / Imperial College (Chair)
John Caine / Curtins
Rob Clarke / Faithful and Gould
Mike Crowder / T Clarke
Roy Dickerson / Imperial College
Mike Hazelton / Henry Riley
Steve Howe / Imperial College
Mark Johnson / Pascall and Watson
Steve Lyon / Modus
Jim McCarthy / Hurley Palmer Flatt
Zoë Mulholland / Imperial College (Secretary)
Derek Victor / Imperial College
Apologies: / Simon Lewis / Lend Lease
Phil Shortman / Wates
John Walsh / Imperial College

Agenda Item

/ Action
1. / Minutes of the Last Meeting
The Minutes of the last meeting were agreed as an accurate record.
2. / Matters Arising
It was agreed that all matters arising would be covered under the Agenda items to follow.
3. / Imperial College Report – Update and New Faces
(a) New Staff. Ted Cann introduced Steve Howe, the new Senior Project Manager for Imperial College, who took over from John Keating in January 2005. Steve Howe said that he would be looking after the project programme, including the allocation of SRIF III funding, and working with John Walsh on the four major new build projects.
(b) Update. Ted Cann gave an update to the Group on behalf of John Walsh.
John’s brief observations were that :
(1) The period of ‘Storming’ and ‘Forming’ in respect of the Framework arrangements had been largely concluded
(2) That we are all now in the crucial stages of ‘Norming’ around the arrangements and ‘Performing’ as was intended by the Framework
John was keen to maintain a commitment to the ideals of the Framework arrangements, particularly in ensuring that all parties pulled together, avoiding any tendency to complacency and/or cynicism.
(3) John reinforced the College’s commitment to the standardisation initiative and also to improving communications, and that we now needed a significant increase in input from the Framework Partners.
(c) Appointment of Non Framework Companies. On behalf of John Walsh Ted Cann confirmed that unless a very strong case was made, there would be no departure from the Framework. An outside company had been considered on one project where the expertise could not necessarily be found within the Framework companies.
(d) Procurement Strategy. Roy Dickerson recognised that the selection of Framework participants for involvement in individual projects needed to perhaps be better considered, but at least to be properly documented.
(e) Communications. Zoë Mulholland said that the March 2005 Newsletter was now available on the website. Secondly, a Bulletin system had been introduced with aim of keeping Framework Partners and College staff up to date on current policy changes and new initiatives. The College hoped that these Bulletins would be circulated widely and prove to be an important communication tool.
(f) Knowledge Share. The Group discussed strategies to improve the communication across the Framework and share information that was being developed at the numerous sub groups, e.g. Project Managers Meeting, Energy Working Group. It was agreed that the minutes and papers from these meetings should be posted under the ‘Knowledge Share’ section of the website. Zoë Mulholland agreed to develop this webpage and issue a Bulletin explaining the purpose of this area. / Zoë Mulholland
4. / Imperial College Report – Projects
(a) Steve Howe reported that a weekly meeting had been set up with Derek Victor and Kevin Cope, Property Services Managers, to discuss minor works projects. They were currently working on a simplified process map for minor works.
(b) Steve Howe gave a run down on the SRIF III allocation; he explained that it was likely to be in the region of £77 million once the College had added their 10% contribution.
5. / Imperial College Report – Frameworks
(a) Ted Cann reported that 95% of the Framework Agreements had been signed and that he was chasing the few remaining contracts.

(b) Company Profiles Ted Cann explained that since the selection and appointment of Framework Partners a lot of misconceptions had built up regarding each company’s strengths and weakness and the type of work they were willing to undertake. He proposed that each Framework Partner should complete a ‘Company Profile’ providing up to date information on their business focus to identify appropriate projects. Company Profiles would then be posted on the website and could be viewed by all Framework Partners. Ted Cann and Zoë Mulholland agreed to produce the pro forma and circulate it to all Framework Partners.

/ Zoë Mulholland
6. /

Architects and Approved Inspectors

(a) Mark Johnson circulated a spreadsheet of the current work undertaken by the Framework architects, on a consultant-by-consultant basis, with columns for feedback and suggestions for the Framework. He then highlighted a few of the issues raised by the Architects in the document:
(1) There was a need to establish more rigorously the difference between the Client’s essential and merely desirable criteria at the beginning of a project.
(2) It was questioned who should act as the Supervisor on a novated project. Steve Howe confirmed that it should be an architect from the same design practice.
(3) A query had been raised regarding the College initiative, led by Andy Hitchman, to standardise all the loose furniture. Mark Johnson suggested that the information should be circulated among the Framework architects for comment.
(b) It was agreed that the College should reply to the suggestions and add a column with comments on the issues raised. Zoë Mulholland agreed to format and circulate the spreadsheet, with Steve Howe to provide the College feedback. / Steve Howe/
Zoë Mulholland
7. /

Cost Consultants

(a) Mike Hazelton raised several issues which were to be discussed at the Cost Consultant’s meeting the following week.
(1) Electronic PM1, 2 and 3 forms, to speed-up sanction and communication.
(2) Develop Risk Management Register
(3) Develop a standard set of Preliminaries
(4) Develop benchmarking data for costs and model cost and space/function to assist with the SRIF III bids.
He agreed to circulate a report from the next Cost Manager’s meeting to all Framework Partners.
/ Mike Hazelton
(b) Mike Hazelton asked the College to define clearly the fees for pre- and post-novation, as well as the roles and responsibilities. / Steve Howe
8. /

Structural Engineers

John Caine said that the ‘Standard Scope of Duties’ matrix had been circulated to the Framework for comment. It was agreed that the matrix should be updated by Curtins, incorporating the various responses and that the Matrix be re-circulated by the College with all the comments incorporated, to be ratified at the next FMG. / John Caine/
Zoë Mulholland
9. /

M&E Engineers

(a) Energy Policy Working Group. Jim McCarthy reported that the Working Group had met twice since it was set up in 2005. The Group aimed to produce a check list of energy requirements that would need to be addressed by the design team at Design Stage C. They hoped that this would raise the profile of energy and oblige both architects and M&E Engineers to consider energy efficiency measures in the design.
(b) Jim McCarthy said that he intended to involve an energy consultant in a forum with the selected users to get their buy in and raise the profile of energy. / Jim McCarthy
(c) It was also suggested that an entry should be made into the process map at stage 2, where the Project Manager is asked to report upon the project’s BREAM rating.
10. /

M&E Contractors

(a) Ted Cann said that John Walsh was disappointed that the relationship between the main contractors and the M&E sub contractors within the Framework was not as it was intended, particularly in the use of the ECC Subcontract form.
(b) Picking up on a point raised by Ted Cann on behalf of John Walsh Mike Crowder noted that the tender periods currently being imposed on projects was inevitably compromising the bids submitted, as there was not sufficient time to prepare the documentation. For example, on E-Science project the M&E contractors were given 6-8 working days to price the works, which resulted in unrealistic bids being submitted. He asked the College to clarify whether this was a College or a contractor issue. / Steve Howe
(c) The Group discussed standardising the issuing of tender documentation and recommended that the Estates Projects Office should be more directly involved in the process.
(d) Mark Johnson said that a Projects Programme Plan should be issued to all Framework Partners announcing up and coming projects ahead of any tender periods. It was agreed that this kind of proactive communication would greatly enhance the Framework relationship.
(e) Schedule of rates. Mike Crowder asked the College why the schedule of rates was not being used to cost jobs at the College. He felt that it was an extremely valuable resource that had been under used. In response it was recognised that there was no reason why the trade contractors should not use their rates in their response to mini-tender or negotiations, provided that they were deemed to offer best value. However, Ted Cann stated that there was no plan for the College to let projects on a cost reimbursable, remeasurement basis. Mike Hazelton confirmed that Henry Riley had not been issued with a copy of the full documentation and doubted that any of the Cost Managers had been.
(f) M&E Contractor Initiatives. Mike Crowder reported that in addition to responding to the design/tender enquiry as developed by NDY, T Clarke were developing an alternative Modular Wiring and Lighting Control system for the New Space for Bioengineering (BESS0401) project. Mike Crowder further advised that all other M&E Contractors had been tasked with selecting and implementing an initiative of their own for one of their projects, but that the College would need to chase up the other companies for their input.
11. /

Main Contractors

(a) Steve Lyon identified a number of issues that he would chase up as with the other Framework main contractors, these included:
(1) The process for appointing sub contractors under the NEC
(2) Time frames given for the issuing of tender documents
(3) Contractual issue of novation of M&E Engineers / Steve Lyon
(b) It was felt that gathering monthly figures for the Health and Safety records was too onerous for the contractors and that perhaps this should be done quarterly. However, Steve Howe reiterated the requirement, confirming that the figures needed to be confirmed on a monthly basis as part of the College’s KPI’s.
12. /

Project Managers

(a) The Group agreed that in future Rob Clarke should report on behalf of the Project Managers at the next Framework Management Group Meeting.
(b) Rob Clarke raised the issue of the very low budget of the 12% utilised in the SRIF II budgets in respect of Preliminaries. Rob suggested that such an allowance made insufficient allowance for the environment and the circumstances under which such work took place and he asked the College to investigate this matter further. / Steve Howe
13. /

Standardisation

(a) Mark Johnson circulated a hand out giving an update on standardisation. He explained that it was the Project Team’s responsibility to highlight any exceptions to the standards. He recommended that an ‘Exceptions Report’ be written every time there is a deviation away from the College standard which hopefully would discourage designers from doing their own thing. Mark offered to draft such a document. / Mark Johnson

(b) Mark Johnson also said that the College standards were not very accessible on the College’s website and recommended that a link was circulated to all the Framework Partners. Ted Cann informed the meeting that the standards would be re-sited when the M&E standards were placed on the web and that a notice would be issued informing all of the new availability and location.

/ Zoë Mulholland

Any Other Business

14. / Ted Cann agreed that Property Services should have an Agenda item to provide an update for the FMG.
15. / FMG Attendees. It was agreed that the College should clarify whether Phil Shortman from Wates or Simon Lewis from Lend Lease would be attending FMG Meetings in future. / John Walsh
16. /

Derek Victor raised the issue of the HEFCE Sustainable Development Consultation. Zoë Mulholland agreed to speak to Phil Evans to ensure that he was aware of the document.

/ Zoë Mulholland
17. /

Signage. Derek Victor announced that WSi had been selected by Property Services as the preferred signage contractor and wished to inform the Framework participants that WSi would be keen to assist the project teams in all indoor and way finding signage.

18. /

O&M Manuals. Derek Victor reported that a Working Group had been set up to review the production of O&M Manuals in a more appropriate format. He welcomed any suggestions or templates for O&M Manuals.

/ All
19. /

Date of the Next Meeting

The next Framework Management Group meeting is to be held on 15th June, 2005, time and venue to be confirmed. / Zoë Mulholland

Z.M.

Mar 05