Why was Design & Build the most appropriate procurement route for this project?
- Fixed CIF funding allocation
- Defined programme
- Single-point responsibility for design and construction
- Coordination, buildability, and risk transfer were important
- Client could not pay for design fees upfront
The Design & Build approach allowed the employer to set out required outcomes while the contractor developed the detailed design.
What were your key responsibilities as Employer’s Agent under JCT D&B 2016?
- Reviewing post-funding design
- Coordinating alternative layout proposals
- Assessing cost impact of revisions
- Submitting DfE scope change request
- Coordinating planning application
- Reviewing Contractor’s Proposals
- Chairing pre-start and progress meetings
- Administering the contract
- Monitoring progress and quality
- Chairing handover
- Reviewing H&S file and O&M information
- Managing defects period
My role started at RIBA Stage 3 and continued through Stages 3 to 6.
How did your role differ from that of a Contract Administrator?
- Broader role than traditional Contract Administrator
- Managed communications and contract administration
- Oversaw delivery while contractor retained design responsibility
- Coordinated employer’s requirements and reviewed compliance
Unlike a traditional contract, my role involved managing the contract rather than administering a fully employer-designed scheme.
What were the key risks associated with delivering works in a live school environment?
- Safeguarding
- Safe segregation of pupils, staff, contractors, and visitors
- Maintaining secure access arrangements
- Avoiding disruption to school operations
- Compliance with programme, budget, and statutory requirements
Safeguarding was paramount throughout the project.
Why was the original CIF-approved design considered unsuitable?
- Did not optimize safeguarding and site access
- Client’s operational requirements evolved
- Did not support visitor segregation, reception visibility, and efficient internal circulation
A post-funding feasibility review highlighted these issues.
What were the risks of changing the design after CIF approval?
- Funding governance and cost control
- Risk of exceeding available funding or reducing contingency
- Programme risk if approvals were delayed
- Reputational risk if changes sought without justification
Formal scope change request to the DfE was required for any changes.
How did you manage the DfE approval process for the scope change?
- Coordinated revised design with architectural team
- Obtained contractor cost confirmation
- Reviewed pricing with internal QS
- Prepared and submitted formal scope change request
The scope change was approved after ensuring it remained deliverable within existing CIF allocation.
Why did you not proceed with a full redesign and re-tender?
- Introduced significant programme risk
- Could jeopardize CIF delivery deadlines
- Increased professional fees
- Created uncertainty in contractor pricing and project timeline
A controlled redesign within the existing procurement route was considered more appropriate.
How did you ensure the revised design remained within budget?
- Asked contractor to review and re-price amended layout
- Obtained detailed cost breakdown
- Reviewed pricing with internal Quantity Surveyor
Ensured the revised scheme could be delivered within the approved CIF allocation by using contingency.
What would you have done if the revised design exceeded the CIF funding?
- Advise client on budget gap and implications
- Explore value engineering or scope refinement
- Recommend reverting to original compliant funded scheme or separate funding strategy
Proceeding without funding certainty on a CIF-funded project would not be advised.
How did you validate the contractor’s pricing for the revised design?
- Requested detailed cost breakdown
- Reviewed with internal Quantity Surveyor
- Ensured pricing was proportionate and justified
This validation was crucial to maintain financial control.
What cost control mechanisms did you implement during the project?
- Early contractor cost confirmation
- Detailed review of revised pricing
- Close monitoring of contingency
- Formal control of changes through DfE scope change process
Protected the client from unnecessary costs by rejecting a variation that fell within contractor’s design responsibility.
On what contractual basis did you reject the contractor’s variation claim?
- Employer’s Requirements stated compliant access was necessary
- Contractor responsible for developing compliant design solution
The ramp and retaining wall were considered part of the contractor’s design responsibility.
How did you determine that the contractor held the risk for the level issue?
- Reviewed Employer’s Requirements and contractor’s tender qualifications
- No exclusions for topographical surveys or compliant level access
Concluded contractor should have accounted for site levels in their proposals.
What evidence did you rely on to support your position?
- Employer’s Requirements
- Contractor’s tender submission and qualifications
- Statutory requirement for compliant access
These documents demonstrated that compliant access was part of the contractor’s obligations.
What would you have done if the contractor disputed your decision?
- Maintain clear written record of reasoning
- Refer contractor back to contract documents
- Attempt resolution through discussion and contract administration
If disagreement continued, I would advise the client on dispute resolution options under the contract.
How is risk allocated under a JCT Design & Build contract?
- Employer defines required outcomes
- Contractor responsible for completing design and construction
- Design development and coordination risk generally with contractor
Important for assessing whether issues are variations or contractor responsibilities.
Can you give examples of Employer’s Risks vs Contractor’s Risks on this project?
- Employer’s Risk: Changing approved CIF scheme after funding approval
- Contractor’s Risk: Developing compliant technical solution to meet Employer’s Requirements
Under D&B, contractors are responsible for their design development unless excluded.
How did you ensure the project was delivered within the 7-month programme?
- Secured cost confirmation and DfE approval before contract commencement
- Chaired pre-start and progress meetings
- Monitored progress and quality
Addressed issues promptly to avoid unnecessary delays.
What would you have done if the project started to fall behind programme?
- Establish cause of delay
- Require recovery plan from contractor
- Advise client on contractual position and consequences
Consideration of CIF deadlines, school operations, and costs would be essential.
