Kalifomatos Consultants is a Quantity Surveying firm with a wide range of services provided for the potential Client. One of the fields KCQS specializes in is Project Management. Project Management aims to deliver any given Project ensuring the desired balance between Time, Cost and Quality.
Feasibility reports, according to Douglas (1999), test whether the requirements initially set out can be actually met or not. Boyle (2003) suggests that feasibility reports can take different forms. Functional feasibility amongst others refers to physical requirements as well as soil conditions. Technical feasibility refers to the statutory consents as well as the time constraints whereas financial feasibility deals with the costs of the development and in essence creates a budget for the Client to decide on whether he can follow it or not. In addition to the above, business feasibility deals with the strategic brief analysis indicating if the qualitative aspects of the development match the business model of the Client.
In this stage, the initial statement of requirements is developed into the design brief on behalf of the Client confirming the key requirements and constraints for the development, following the feasibility analysis taken earlier. The next step that follows is the identification of which procurement method is better for use which sufficiently meets the Clients requirements; the Project Manager could do this. The last step of the Design brief is to assemble the people that need to be involved in the development process which comprise of Architects, Quantity Surveyors etc. (Boyle 2003)
According to the information our firm has been provided with, the borehole records the Client is said to have in his possession are of a neighboring site to the proposed one. The fact that a neighboring site has previously undergone a site investigation does not guarantee that for example the soil conditions for the proposed one will be the same. The strata could vary as well as the depth of the water table; maybe a new site investigation for the proposed site reveals that the site has been bombed during the war, resulting to a distortion of soil conditions in the site. This could be seen as a possible constrain which would have been identified if a site investigation had been undertaken.
Another activity that has been undertaken was the acquiring of the site. Following the previous point, as well as the fact that our company has not been presented with an actual investigation for the proposed site, the site could be rendered as completely useless for the purposes its needed. Taking into consideration the fact that the Client's directors have previous development experience for some years, the acquiring of the site with no site investigation undergone could be seen as a very naïve move.
According to Hacket (2007), Management Contracting and Construction Management are very similar in many aspects, nevertheless, there is one essential distinguishing characteristic which is fundamental to the understanding of the two systems; the contractual arrangements between the parties involved. In Management Contracting, the subcontractors are in contact with the Management Contractor whereas in Construction Management they are in direct contact with the employer; none of the subcontracts are entered into by the Construction Manager. The difference is illustrated by comparing the two diagrams provided.
The most important requirement the Client has set out was that the quality level is to be prestige. The best quality is offered from traditional procurement method. Another requirement set out by the client is the flexibility of the design; also traditional procurement is the best suited for this but Design and Manage offers a high utility for this section as well. However, when it comes to high complexity of the design, Traditional procurement does not best suit the description whereas all the other methods do. The next requirement set out is asap completion; Traditional Procurement does not offer that whereas again, all the other methods do. Furthermore, Design and Manage offers the single point responsibility the Client is looking for as well as Design and Build. This feature would not be available with Traditional Procurement method nor with the Design and Build or the Management Contracting as illustrated in the previous schematics. Furthermore, two of HRD2010's directors have previous development experience, so the fact that in order to use Design and Manage one needs previous experience is seen as a disadvantage, is easily one to overcome here. The main reason Construction Management has been rejected even though it is very similar to Design and Manage, was the single point of responsibility required by the Client; thus total utility offered in the chart is 450. And last but not least, the Client welcomes the sharing of risks; Design and Manage can also satisfy that requirement.
Based on the RIBA task allocation, the Client has not performed properly the Preparation stage. Vital points have been left out which could have major impacts on the project's development. KCQS has provided the Client with some recommendations for the successful progression of the development. These would be the immediate conduction of a site investigation for the proposed development's site in order to be able to proceed accordingly. The Client has failed to provide a proper feasibility report (recommended) which is vital in assessing the quality of the proposed development, its costs as well as the need to meet statutory consents. Following the above, the Client should be able to address to possible constraints with regards to the development and overcome them in due time. It is also recommended that the people that are to be involved in the development process are to be identified.