The 14Th Meeting of the Framework Management Group

The 17th Meeting of the Framework Management Group 2nd Generation Framework Agreement

Wednesday 2nd April 2008, 10.30 am Estates Meeting Room 1, Level 5, Sherfield, Imperial College

Minutes

Attendees: Zoe Mulholland (Chair) Imperial College Initials Duncan Baxter NDY NDY Dan Cossins Arup Project Management A John Caine Curtins C Chris Cook Imperial College CC Roy Dickerson Imperial College RD Steve Howe Imperial College SPH Paul Yazdabadi PCM PCM Kieran McDaid Imperial College KMD Paul Fitzpatrick Parkeray P Roger Stretton BGS BGS Apologies: Chris Boyce Davis Langdon (Cost Consultants) DL Mike Joshua Arup Project Management A Nigel Moynihan TClarke TC Mark Vincent Future Design F Dan Curtis Imperial College DC

Agenda Item Action

1. Minutes of the Last Meeting

It was agreed that all actions from the minutes of the last meeting would be covered under the agenda items for the meeting.

2. 3rd Generation Framework

a) Chris Cook outlined confirmation of renewals by mid April and explained the SRIF 4 allocation would be £90 million over three years. New additions to the framework would be in the areas of M&E consultants, contractors and main contractor. A decision was made that new additions would not have to go through OJEU and the College was currently compiling a long list of those who would be invited to apply.

b) CC went through feedback the College had received. He had compiled a list of framework based on everybody’s views. The key issues to come out of this included commissioning process; payment systems and a launch day for 3rd Generation Framework.

3. Framework Initiatives

Zoe Mulholland circulated a copy of the Framework initiatives tracker and went through College led framework initiatives

a) Post Project Reviews: A Format produced by Turner and Townsend Project Management would be trialled on four recently Imperial College projects. The results of these would be available for the next FMG in June. ZM b) H&S Assessment: Internal Project Managers have all been trained up to conduct monthly H&S site assessments. The initial round of assessments was underway with the results to be tabulated into a quarterly RAG report. This would be issued in conjunction with the performance metrics.

c) Duty holder review. Separate workshops had been held with Duty Holders and Project Managers and combined session to propose ways to streamline the process. As a result two working groups had been set up to first identify what the College wishes to gain from Duty Holder involvement and therefore their levels/timing of input. Secondly, defining who should be a Duty Holder. The results will be brought to a meeting held 9th June 2008.

d) Sustainability. Steve Howe reported that Davis Langdon had conducted a sustainability review of Southside and Eastside projects to compile lessons learned. Secondly, the College is about to appoint a consultant to review the College’s Technical Policy Statements (TPS); standard prelims; toolkit to monitor performance against TPS.

4. Architects Report

Roger Stretton circulated a report on the Architects Forum on 4 April. The key issues arising from the meeting included:

a) Stage E Deliverables. Draft schedules of RIBA Stage E deliverables were produced SHC by Swanke Hayden Connell (SHC) and Sheppard Robson for discussion. It was agreed that SHC will tabulate the draft schedules to correspond with M & E version.

b) Standards. It was agreed that the following would be reviewed by Imperial standards:

Blinds SR Flooring TS Doors SHCA Laboratory Furniture SR Sanitary ware BMJ Suspended Ceilings TS Toilet Cubicles BMJ Wall Finishes. BGS

In addition, it was agreed that the M & E consultants and architects should agree standard light fittings.

It was decided structural engineers would need to review the revised standard and put in their comments. Contractors and Quantity Surveyors would also need to comment once they had been agreed. The Imperial lead for Architects initiative will be Dan Curtis.

c) Roger Stretton agreed to email nominees for the other framework initiatives. BGS

5. Project Managers a) It was noted that there was poor attendance at the project managers meeting and a A/ZM note was to be issued to the PM framework group.

b) PO3 - Project Handover. PID had been issued and (ARUP) were about to start first A meeting process. c) PO1 - Client Brief. It was agreed that Nick Roalfe should be replaced with Steve ZM Howe for the Client Brief initiative Champion.

d) PM feedback. There were concerns from the group regarding the level of resource at the College for the BMS process. Arup announced they were testing a RAG report on commissioning process at Burlington Danes Fit Out (BDFO).

6. Structural Engineers John Caine said that he had not been able to hold a Structural Engineer’s meeting. C After some discussion it was decided the structural engineers would join the Architects Forum. John Cain agreed to forward a name for the Energy Group.

7. M&E Engineers

a) Duncan Baxter delivered the main points from the M & E engineers meeting. He explained that a number of issues did need to be addressed quickly. One of which was the issue of information from Main Contractors to M&E Consultants and M&E Contractors. NDY stated that a more transparent process was needed and suggested consultants and contractors to be cc’ed in information from the contractor. Imperial RD/KMD agreed to explore this issue.

b) Another significant issue was major equipment suppliers taking weeks to provide information and he wished to explore the possibility of Imperial specifying outright which supplier they intend to use. However, this could take away the competitive edge and contractor’s right to control these items under the D&B contract. The group agreed that it should look into it further with a contractor, M&E consultant and the P/NDY/RD College.

c) Future Designs attended the M&E Forum and requested the quarterly performance monitoring RAG report should be extended to include the Lighting suppliers. A lighting framework meeting was to be held 11th April to discuss further. RD

d) BMS. Clarification was needed, although it is understood the requirements are not additional the flow chart should be part of the prelim documents and tender package. The College needs to use BMS suppliers who can provide point schedules and graphic NDY – this should be added to the M&E deliverables schedule.

e) O&M Manuals. It was felt that one draft issue was not enough to capture all comments, particularly as the draft would not be complete, with many certificates issued afterwards. Chris Cook and Denis Murphy to review the terms with the CC/DM technical authors.

f) Maintenance contracts. It was proposed that on the bigger projects a 12 month maintenance should be included as part of the contract. Imperial College to review ICL and confirm. Paul Fitzpatrick agreed to supply example guidelines for a maintenance P contract.

8. Cost Consultants

a) CO1 - Financial Accuracy. Chris Cook explained he and Davis Langdon have been compiling costs of historic projects to assemble a benchmark list which can be used for guidance on future projects.

b) CO2 - Whole Life Cycle Costing. There will be a start up meeting commencing the first week of April. CC will visit EC Harris offices to review life cycle costing models. CC CO3 - Revision of College Standards. Architects will be leading most of the standards initiatives. Andy Hitchman, who looks after central procurement, has requested a list of all suppliers for laboratory furniture.

CO4-Standard prelim document. Chris Boyce (DL) will review it himself and then with DL the contractors.

9. CDM Coordinators a) It was agreed that a section should be created on Stage C/D/E reports for the CDM- Coordinators report.

b) The issue of principal contractors assessing the competence of subcontractors was discussed. The group decided each main contractor has its own method and they should be responsible for monitoring on a company by company basis.

c) Paul Yazdabadi asked college to define how the competence of site managers was going to be measured. It was decided a five day CITB training course may not be appropriate for everyone. ICL to confirm their requirements.

d) It was noted that certain members of the group had difficulty finding documents on the Website. It was agreed that Kim Winter could provide an induction to the site to those who had experienced problems.

10. Building Contractors

Paul Fitzpatrick gave a report from the Building Contractors meeting. The following points were raised:  The schedule of upcoming work was discussed and they agreed they are happy with level of visibility.  It was noted that payments had been slow.  The BMS had significant implications for their programme, if design was not done properly at outset it was difficult to receive at end. The group discussed whether the BMS supplier should be employed by main contractor direct. PF P said he would take that back to the contractors forum.  SO2-Contractors H&S Assessment. PF said the contractors approved the H&S site assessment audits.  PO3-Project Handover. P is to nominate a contractor to engage in this. P

11. AOB

The College was undergoing an internal audit by Deloitte. Steve Howe noted that it was going well.

Zoë Mulholland reminded the Group that the deadline for the next newsletter was 10 th April.

12. Date of the next meeting

25th June 2008 at 10.30 am in Estates Meeting Room 1, Level 5, Sherfield Building