|
History
Kate Prater, daughter of Michael Prater the founder, is the Marketing
manager for Prater roofing. The company is one of the most reputable
single ply and inverted roofing installers in the UK. They have
successfully completed projects such as the main shopping malls
at Bluewater. They have also done the inverted roofs at the MI5
Building at Vauxhall, Stanstead Airport was another high profile
project and Architect.
We have known the company and the main staff for over six years.
Two of their product manufacturers are also our clients at The
Creative Department, Dow insulation and Radmat waterproofing.
With this in mind Kate called The Creative Department with a view
to discussing a new project they were tendering for.
Project
The Prater organisation was asked by the main contractor to tender
for the construction of the roof to the new Arsenal Stadium. They
were short listed to one of four. The normal process in such an
instance would be to produce a method statement, tender drawings
and costings in order to win the job. Often in such a scenario,
there will be a meeting to discuss specific issues in front of
a panel.
Prater Approach
The project was very complex. The programme was too short to employ
a traditional approach and working method. The budget would also
rule out a scaffold working platform. They needed an innovative
approach. In very simple terms their proposal centred around a
sliding safety platform that would literally be driven around
the primary steelwork. Thus the CDM regulations for safe working
could be addressed both economically and also the programme could
be managed.
The stadium plan is a typical elongated donut shape. This would
mean that the tighter curves would still require traditional scaffold
solutions.
Key Issues
The critical issue in such a competitive tender situation is always
to present a valid and coherent solution, whilst still keeping
the bespoke details and methodology top secret. In the event of
an unsuccessful bid, the critical information would still remain
private.
The Brief
The Creative Department were given the brief to create a mini
presentation for use in the review meeting. The objective was
to quickly establish credibility for Prater through a proven track
record, then to spend the key 70% of the time reviewing the solutions
to the Stadium roof.
The
Programme
We were informed ten days before commencing work in detail what
the project parameters were. We reviewed the available budget
and agreed to work to this budget by managing the time accordingly.
We drew up the programme of ;
-
One meeting to take a brief and create a template
- Make
the draft copies available on The Creative Department web site
for immediate review
- Gain
confirmation in principle
- Collect
project images and detail via e-mail from Prater personnel
- Meeting
two was scheduled to meet with the design team to review their
solutions and agree a final programme
- 36
hrs were given for Prater to draw and collate the images required
for us to complete the PowerPoint presentation
- This
allowed us one working day up to 4pm on the Friday to complete
the work for their meeting on Monday lunchtime
The
Reality
There were many images provided by the project architect that
were in a CAD format. We work in PC formats so there was an information
exchange issue to manage. We have a 'pet architect' that lives
locally that has the capacity to address such matters. We also
reviewed other file data to establish a story for the presentation.
Due to the very short time frame given for all tendering organisations,
solutions were still being formulated at the eleventh hour. To
this effect our deadline for info for the presentation of info
via e-mail by 9am on the last Friday was not adhered to. Some
of the data arrived at 2pm the balance arrived at 4.30pm+. This
had a knock on effect of giving us very little time to address
this matter during office hours. To further compound this matter,
this was the weekend of Interbuild commencing at the NEC. We were
representing RIBA at this event which started on site at 10 am
on Sunday.
The net result was a need to work out of hours in order to complete
the task to the deadline set. We needed to burn a CD Rom and get
it couriered to the client first thing on Monday morning. If amendments
were needed it would have been possible to have another The Creative
Department staff member to undertake these and then to upload
the data to our web site (under the supervision of Pete, who was
also in the NEC). Positively, a partner in Prater at the technical
meeting acknowledged the deadline for data. With this in mind
there was no argument when we made additional charges for weekend
working above the agreed fees.
Conclusion
This was a very interesting project for us. The time management
and programme agreement was critical. We made a good profit on
the job by means of the out of hours charges. This brought the
project fee back to the level we originally quoted and considered
appropriate for the job.
To enquire further about this case study please go to our enquiry
form.
|
