The Sixth Meeting of the Framework Management Group

2nd Generation Framework Agreement

Wednesday, 15th June 2005, 3.00 pm

Meeting Room 1, Level 5, Sherfield Building, Imperial College

Minutes

Present: / Ted Cann / Imperial College (Chair)
Rob Clarke / Faithful and Gould
Roy Dickerson / Imperial College
Dan Evans / Curtins
Mike Hazelton / Henry Riley
Steve Howe / Imperial College
Simon Lewis / Lend Lease
Steve Lyon / Modus
Nigel Moynihan / T Clarke
Zoë Mulholland / Imperial College (Secretary)
Cathy Stewart / Pascall and Watson
John Walsh / Imperial College
In Attendance: / Malcolm Dowers / Office Scope
Apologies: / John Caine / Curtins
Mike Crowder / T Clarke
Jim McCarthy / Hurley Palmer Flatt
Derek Victor / 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. / Production of Operation and Maintenance Manuals
(a) Malcolm Dowers of Office Scope gave a presentation on the production process for O & M Manuals. In summary, the main points raised were:
(1) Requirements for the Manuals could be better disseminated to the Project Team by the College.
(2) Some of the requirements laid down by the College were over and above the industry standard.
(3) An issue has arisen with the design criteria which needs to be addressed
(4) Issue of receiving drawings in accordance with the College’s CAD strategy
(5) Late issue of draft and final manuals
(b) Malcolm Dowers gave a series of recommendations:
(1) List of requirements
(2) Encourage comments to be given early and quickly on manual
(3) Add the requirements to project preliminaries and procedures
(4) Reiterate the importance of complying with the College’s CAD strategy for layering, numbering etc.
5. / Imperial College Report – Projects
(a) Steve Howe ran through the Project News from the Imperial College Report.
(b) Simon Lewis asked how the tender process for College projects was decided. In response, John Walsh explained that the College hoped to move further towards negotiation, but due to current price submissions the College still felt obliged to go to tender.
(c) John Walsh expressed concern over the perceived lull in project work in the run up to SRIF 3. He assured the Group that the Framework was very much alive.
6. / Imperial College Report – Frameworks
(a) Ted Cann reported that the majority of contracts had been signed and that only a few project management companies remained.
(b) It was also reported that Planning Supervisors and Approved Inspectors tender documents were now available on the web and that individual project related contracts were also needed from these advisors on a schedule by schedule basis.
7. / Imperial College report – Communications
Zoë Mulholland went through her report on Framework communication activities.
(a) Newsletter. She said that the next Newsletter would be published the following week and was encouraged by the number of articles written by Framework Partners and hope this would continue to increase.
(b) Bulletins. Zoë Mulholland expressed concern that the Bulletins issued were not being cascaded throughout Framework Companies, it may be received by Senior Management but not reach those staff at the coal face. She asked for suggestions from the Group as to how these channels of communication could be improved.
(c) Knowledge Share. Zoë Mulholland told the Group that this section of website was now live and would be populated with Minutes from meetings and details of initiatives undertaken. / Zoë Mulholland
All
Zoë Mulholland
8. /

Architects and Approved Inspectors

(a) Cathy Stewart said that the architects’ forum would meet at the end of June and that she would be chairing the sub group from now on in order to maintain continuity in their meetings.
(b) The group discussed the policing of the design specifications for building fabric and mechanical and electrical components. The standards Exception and Clarification report had been issued but as yet no exceptions had been reported. It was agreed that the College should investigate this further. / Cathy Stewart
Zoë Mulholland
9. /

Cost Consultants

Mike Hazelton reported on the Consultants’ meeting that week. He explained that they had focused in on a number of initiatives:
(1) Standard Activity Schedule for the NEC ECC form of contract
(2) Standard Prelim, to be issued by the end of July 2005
(3) Establishing criteria for benchmarking all projects and publishing data
(4) Develop standardised risk registers
(5) Issue guidance notes for the NEC ECC form of contract and the short form of contract. / Mike Hazelton
10. /

Structural Engineers

Dan Evans reported that all comments received had been incorporated into the Design Responsibilities Matrix. The group agreed that it should be considered the default position for all projects unless it is stated otherwise in the contract documentation. Dan Evans to issue the final Matrix to Zoë Mulholland / Dan Evans
11. / M&E Engineers
(a) Roy Dickerson spoke on behalf of Jim McCarthy, to explain that the Energy Working Group would resume on 28 June. / Jim McCarthy
12. /

M&E Contractors

(a) Nigel Moynihan explained that the design responsibilities for M&E contractors had been split into D&B and Negotiated projects. The only unresolved issue was around the spatial co-ordination of services, which he concluded the College would have to decide on a project by project basis.
(b) The Group discussed the process of issuing tender documentation to M&E contractors. It was agreed that the M&E contractors should receive the tenders at the same time as the main contractors. Although the College will select those M&E contractors invited to tender they would not appoint or contract them directly; this responsibility would still reside with the main contractor.
(c) Nigel Moynihan said that the use of the NEC ECC form of contract needed to be reinforced to the main contractors.
13. /

Building Contractors

(a) Steve Lyon circulated a draft spreadsheet of building contractor comments on issues raised at the previous FMG (15 March). He agreed to email Zoë Mulholland with the final version. / Steve Lyon
(b) NEC ECC Contract Training. The Group discussed Project Team training in the NEC ECC form of contract. It was agreed that two training sessions should be conducted: one at the start of the project for the design team and the second once the contractor had been appointed and prior to start on site. / Steve Howe
14. /

Planning Supervisors

The Group agreed that the health and safety initiatives should be revised. Simon Lewis agreed to reinvigorate this issue. / Simon Lewis

Project Managers

Rob Clarke explained that the monthly Project Managers meeting, chaired by Steve Howe was an open forum to discuss a wide range of Project Management issues. Including the following initiatives:
(1) Production of a template for the Project Execution Plan, to be set as the minimum standard
(2) Production of the Accident Incident Reporting Form
(3) Implementation of the Gateway Review Process
(4) Established standard hoarding design for contractors
(5) Standardised monthly reports from Project Managers to Steve Howe
(6) Updated Project Procedures, soon to be published on the web

Date of the Next Meeting

The next Framework Management Group meeting is to be held on 14th September, 2005 at 3.00pm, venue to be confirmed. / Zoë Mulholland

Z.M.

Jun 05

1

FMG (15 June 05) - Minutes