Δ Log book 00: Feb/March 2020

03 April 2020, 22:27

I haven't told anyone about this but I already/finally paid (please pity on my empty wallet in this economic storm) and registered as a PPE candidate. One of the criteria was that we had to log 24 months of work experience. As I've just applied this month, I assume that I don't need to fill it in for this month but why not? (Just in case, you know, COVID-19... Stop work... and it turns out that I'm just under by a month or so... ) So here it goes! (P.S. I realised it ended up as a giant ranting session oops)

02.2020 

PROJ 094
- Progress site
- Certificates
- TOP/CSC

- Client was rushing to get TOP but the progress on site was slow. The weather worsened the situation: it was raining and the external tiles and painting works were severely delayed. Hence, in addition to weekly site meetings, we kept close contact with site manager to ensure that the progress was timely.

PROJ 098
- Site Meetings
- Authorities requirement
- DC Submission
- Tender drawings
- Client/consultant meeting
- Specialist sub-contracts
- Cost plan

- Before I was fully on board for the project, it had already gone through two rounds of designs and tenders. The clients had a tight (and strict) budget that were wayyyyyyy below the contract sums from the tender, though thankfully, the second round was much closer to our budget already. Hence, in the third round of design revision, boss analysed the contract sum breakdown from the past tenders and analysed where the major costs were. He spoke to some contractors to understand what could be cut to effectively reduced the price. The answer was structure, detailing and PC sum. The structure we originally designed had a very special profile that would cost a lot to fabricate. The detailing of the concrete meant a lot more work, hence labour costs. We overestimated the price of many PC items such that the PC sum ended up being sky high. Through discussions with the client, we managed to lower the cost and award the tender! (YES, FINALLY) We also started authorities submissions. The works were particularly tricky with Nparks as there were many trees on site and it was inevitable that we would hit some tree protection zone, so we worked with an arborist (admit it, it's the first time you've heard of this occupation. I only guessed its function because the french translation of tree is ''arbre') to figure out which tree was impacted (it's called an impact assessment report yo). 

PROJ 099
- Tender drawings
- DC submissions

- Boring stuff, just draw. (Client's too nice and kind, she even brought us buns and bread!) The only issue was clash between structure and M&E services because there was not enough space in the false ceiling. Engineers were reluctant to emply flat slab (which could have achieved a desired slab depth because flat slab always caused a problem in the long run). Solution? Lower false ceiling la.

PROJ 104
- Site measurements
- Schematic design (model, drawings..)
- Client meetings
- Cost plan

- 1950s house with plans still in inches. I could hardly even make out what was drawn... so of course, we had to guess the structural system... Design lead was also on MC so no choice, newbie had to do the schematic design. Modelling the original structure, authority consultation (no HS yay this house too small), drawings, area calculation... Trapped inside our own design fantasies, we designed some beautiful space but clients just want to squeeze the most square areas possible out, so well, there was this huge negotiation of what could be kept in the design and what had to go. Of course, the internal layout had to be adjusted. Perhaps it's interesting that we were very area conscious to keep to the budget but turns out that client were more area conscious than price conscious. Value for money, that's what they called it. (Also, does not help that clients weren't always attentive to their choice of words ): )


PROJ 105
- Site measurement
- DC Submissions

- Oh la la, no plans! We couldn't wait for surveyors to do it because of timeline constraint. #doityourself

03.2020

PROJ 098
- Authorities requirement
- DC Submission
- Tender
- Client/consultant meeting
- Specialist sub-contracts
- Cost plan

- More authorities and cost issues. Because of the many rounds of value engineering, all parties have basically lost track of what was retained and what was taken away. Turns out clients wanted to make some alterations which were not included in the contract... which translated into more cost if they were to add it in, so given their strict contingency sum, they were quite undecided whether to proceed. At first, they decided to proceed but through various rounds of WDs, they realised that there were more requirements (ie more cost) from the authorities if they were to proceed with the change. Of course, the structural engineers had to come in with a large bill because of additional strengtheners that the authorities required. Clients were, of course, enraged, but they were also fearful so they decided they didn't want to do it anymore, so... resubmission. Clients were also furious at this new V.O. because, " I told you what I wanted when I engaged you, I didn't change my mind about the design so why should I pay more. You should go figure a way out". (Sigh. ) Furthermore, we apparently ended up underestimating the PC sums because the numbers added up and started exceeding the original budget, so we had to revise things like landscaping choices as well as light choices (which the clients were again unhappy about...) It was also very important to scrutinise the quotes because we realised that some the specifications from the suppliers varied from what we provided and the cost became higher than expected. In dealing with clients, presentation (diagrams and renders) were super important (because clients can't read drawings for nuts, or they just don't try). It's important to manage expectations too, because clients may rely overly on the renders which aren't always fully representative of the built reality... The onset of the COVID virus also saw the first EOT application from the contractor...

PROJ 099
- Tender drawings
- Tender award
- Consultant meeting
- BQ

- More tender drawings... Reading BQ was hard... As our projects included both architecture and interior, we had to be very clear on what fell under the architecture contract and what fell under interiors. Furthermore, many of the finishes were still undecided.. and this might affect the costing greatly, so we had to rush to finalise and at the same time, come to a tacit agreement about the flexibility of the choices.. haha. Hilly topography also meant that consultations with authorities had to take place regarding the sanitary/sewerage/boundary wall designs. More issues to come in April.


PROJ 104
- Client meetings
- DC Submissions

- After a second round of revision, clients were finally happy with the design and we could proceed with submissions and preparation of tender.