|
||
|
 |
          |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||
|
|
Newsletter Issue 53 - January 2007 Click here to view and download the newsletter in PDF format KPI
(1)
Appointment (Personnel, Responsibilities) KPI
(2)
Preparation (Desk Study, Walkover Survey, Reports) KPI
(3)
Design (SI Design, Laboratory Testing) KPI
(4)
Risk Management (Risk, Availability of Information) KPI
(5)
Procurement ( KPI
(6)
Management (Project Management, Quality Management, Environmental
Management) KPI
(7)
Supervision KPI
(8)
Reporting (Factual) KPI
(9)
Reporting (Interpretative Report, Ground Model) KPI
(10)
Outcome KPI
(11)
Client Satisfaction The results
are presented below in the form of a series of spider diagrams selected to
filter the data so that potential trends / anomalies
can be identified. The
accompanying comments are made as observations only. Highest
scores were recorded for KPI 1(Appointment),
KPI 4 (Risk Management),
KPI 8 (Factual Reporting) and KPI 9 (Interpretative Reporting). No
scores dropped below 5 and the lowest
score was recorded for KPI 2 (Preparation), see Consultant / Contractor split
below. The results are presented as the pink line in Figure
1.
Consultant
/ Contractor An approximately equal number
of responses were received from Consultants, Contractors and Contractor
Consultants. Figure 1
compares the results returned from Contractors and Consultants. KPI
2 (Preparation) shows greatest variation in responses and shows Contractors
recorded an average score of just over 2 for this KPI. The reason for this is
unclear but may have been influenced by the 'tick box' options which would
return a low score if a desk study had not been seen. For
KPI 5 (Procurement), KPI 6 (Management) and KPI 11 (Client Satisfaction)
Contractors scored projects more highly than Consultants. All other KPIs were
scored more highly by the Consultants.
Small
and Large Project Split (£20k) Approximately half the projects
in the survey had a value of more than £20k. The results for the £20k split
are presented in Figure 2 and
indicate that projects with a value of a more than
£20k attained a higher score for KPI (1) (Appointment), KPI 2 (Preparation),
KPI 9 (Reporting) and KPI10 (Outcome), but surprisingly scored lower for KPI 11
(Client Satisfaction).
Geotechnical
/ Geoenvironmental Split It can be seen from Figure
3 that for KPI 3 (Design) and KPI 10 (Outcome) investigations undertaken for
geoenvironmental purposes scored more highly than those undertaken for
geotechnical purposes, but attained a lower score for KPI 4 (Risk Management)
and KPI 5 (Procurement). This is interesting as a greater score would be
obtained for KPI4 if environmental protection measures were in place. The reason
for the variation in KPI 5 is unclear. The
Next Stage
Drilling into Coal
Authority's assets
The Coal Authority was established under the Coal
Industry Act 1994. All in situ coal, old mineworkings, current mineworkings and
all shaft and adits vested in British Coal are owned by the Coal Authority. As a
consequence formal permission is required from the Coal Authority if any of
these assets are to be disturbed. Such 'Permission to enter or disturb Coal
Authority mining interests' will therefore be required for all ground
investigations which will intercept any coal seams in the ground. The Coal Authority charge a fee for the permit
based on the size of the site - i.e. £100 per 0.1hectare up to maximum of £2500
for large sites. If such a permit is not obtained then the company undertaking
the work would be guilty of a trespass and liable to court action. In situations
where a permit is applied for retrospectively the fees are doubled so there
would be a potential cost of up to £5000. The requirement has been in place for
some time but fees were recently increased significantly. The application would normally be formally submitted by the client rather than the AGS but the AGS Member would be responsible for advising the client of the requirement for the permit.
======================================= Single Point Project (Financial
Loss) Insurance (SPPI)
The government is to trial a radical new form of project-wide insurance on about 10 public sector schemes. The move is part of the government's drive to improve public sector procurement efficiency following the Gershon review. It will be watched with interest by the Olympic Delivery Authority which is planning to introduce project-wide insurance on all Olympic 2012 sites. The major government spending departments will put forward one or more schemes, worth between £10m and £20m, for the trial, which is expected to begin by the end of the year. It will include schemes from the Building Schools for the Future initiative, the Department of Health's ProCure 21 scheme, as well as projects from the Highways Agency, Defence Estates and Cambridge University Estates. The
insurance scheme, known as Single Point Project (Financial Loss) Insurance
(SPPI) is being championed by the Office of Government Commerce with the
support of the Public Sector Construction Clients' Forum, chaired by Sir
Christopher Kelly. It is based on a scheme operating in Under SPPI the client and the insurer appoint independent experts for technical and cost assurance at the beginning of the project, who help appoint an integrated team and then monitor the project's progress from design development to completion. They also monitor risks affecting safety, performance and cost, allowing prompt remedial action and cost-effective latent defects insurance. The
integrated team's collective profits are geared to performance criteria,
their share of the profits is agreed upfront and the team members pledge
not to sue each other for anything but fraud. "In Five
leading insurers have agreed to provide cover for the pilot projects,
subject to suitable capping for maximum liability. These are expected to
include Norwich Union, Royal and SunAlliance and (c) Copyright 2006. Reed Business Information Limited. All rights reserved. ======================================= Supporting the contaminated land community
Dealing
with uncertainty and heterogeneity in the risk-based land management process
continues to present challenges for the contaminated land community.
The up front investment required to more accurately define risk is
sometimes difficult to communicate to all stakeholders involved in projects
which can, in some instances, lead to regretful compromises.
The
EA's MCerts Policy has increased confidence Application
of the Environment Agency's MCerts Policy, which standardised laboratory based
analytical procedures, has delivered increased confidence in the outputs of
samples analysed by laboratories, however the relative cost per sample continues
to offer opposition to increasing sampling density. This challenge is recognised
by many, including the Environment Agency, however, there is a growing body of
evidence to support the conclusion that greater emphasis needs to be placed upon
overcoming it if we are to continue to develop potentially contaminated sites
whilst eliminating risk and future liabilities Added
value... Portable
field analytical tools are, therefore, being increasingly considered to have an
important role in supporting the community overcome this challenge. Their
appropriate application can offer many added-value and commercial benefits.
These include:
Such
tools have been available for several decades and have been rigorously applied
in other environmental fields, such as the trade effluent and stack emission
monitoring. However, their
application in the contaminated land sector has been relatively low to date.
There are many rational reasons for this, including a lack of awareness and
confidence in their application, due, in part, to a lack of case history
providing technical and economic evidence; a lack of available skills within the
practitioner community; and a limited level of acceptance in their application
and interpretation throughout the community. FASA
workshop To
this end, FASA, the Field Analytical Suppliers Association, hosted x4, one-day
workshops this year, to provide attendees with a practical introduction to field
analytical tools. These
events included:
What
is FASA? FASA
is an independent body created to support the efforts of regulators, industry
and laboratories in the management of potentially contaminated environments. It
is funded and coordinated by suppliers and manufacturers of field tools in the The
workshops described form part of its commitment to assist the community gain an
informed understanding of the application of field analytical tools and their
appropriate use. FASA aims to further assist the community by working with key
stakeholders to develop guidelines, training material, best practice QC/QA
procedures as well as technique specific information, such as case studies and
evaluations. Following
analysis of the attendees' feedback from the workshops it is clear that such
information will assist the community, with 81% and 77% stating that the lack of
available guidance and performance information, respectively, were barriers to
their uptake. Their perceived costs, a lack of regulation and a lack of
information on how to use field tools were, individually, seen as barriers to
60% of attendees. New
guidance being developed The
Environment Agency is currently developing guidance on the use of field
analytical tools within the risk-based approach to land contamination. This
document will discuss, amongst other aspects, the application of field tools in
the context of sampling and analytical plans, fit for purpose decision making,
building lines of evidence and informing conceptual site models. The first draft
is likely to be circulated to the FASA committee by the end of this year, with
further release anticipated to occur in the Spring of 2007. For
further information contact: Mr
Tel:
01865 610504 E-mail:
perry.guess@earth.ox.ac.uk
FASA
representatives will give a presentation at the next Contaminated Land WG (20
February 2007) on the use of field analytical tools. Guidance on the use of HBM in working platforms. New
guidance has been launched by WRAP entitled 'Guidance on the use of HBM in
working platforms'. This covers
the key issues related to working platforms constructed using stabilised
materials, providing detailed guidance for the platform's design,
specification, installation, operation, maintenance and repair.
Within the guidance document
are case studies on three construction projects, which have made significant
gains from using on-site soils and granular materials in the construction of a
working platform. This can be downloaded, free of charge from www.wrap.org.uk/applications/publications
(search on HBM and click on the PDF icon). FPS sponsored guidance
entitled "Working platforms for tracked plant: good practice guide to the
design, installation, maintenance and repair of ground-supported working
platforms" can be obtained from www.brebookshop.com.
This will cost £49.35. Equitable contribution clauses
Scenario: a homeowner decides to have an extension built at his house and employs a consultant and a contractor to carry out work relating to the foundations. Two months after the work is completed, the roof of the extension collapses because a wall structure was badly constructed and was unstable. The homeowner wants compensation, claiming that both the contractor and the consultant are to blame; he claims that the contractor provided poor workmanship and the consultant failed adequately to assess the ground conditions. But who can the homeowner sue? Can he sue the contractor, the consultant, or both? 1.
Why
include an equitable contribution clause in a contract? An equitable contribution clause, sometimes known as a net contribution clause, contract seeks to ensure that where two or more parties (e.g. consultants and contractors in our scenario) are liable for the same damage, the liability of each party is restricted to the amount for which that party is responsible. Such clauses have been included in professionals' conditions of engagement and collateral warranties for some time. They are included in the standard terms of engagement published by various professional bodies such as the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Association of Consulting Engineers. 2.
How does
an equitable contribution clause operate? In our scenario, an equitable contribution clause in the homeowner's contract with the consultant would state that if the consultant is liable, that liability will be capped at whatever it is just and equitable for the consultant to pay having regard to his and any other person's fault. In the absence of the equitable contribution clause, the homeowner is free to sue the consultant for 100% of the damages he has suffered. The consultant can then rely on the Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978 to seek to recover a contribution from the contractor. 3. The law If parties have joint liability, then they are each liable up to the
full amount of the relevant obligation; the converse is several liability,
where the parties are liable for only their respective obligations.
Joint and several liability is a hybrid of both; with respect to
our scenario, the consultant and the contractor are jointly liable, but as
between themselves, their liabilities are several. The Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978, s. 1(1) provides that a person who is liable in respect of any damage is entitled to recover a contribution from any other person liable in respect of the same damage. This means that if the homeowner pursues the consultant for damages, and receives payment in full, the consultant can then pursue the contractor for a contribution to their share of the liability. 4.
Shifting
risk and responsibility Back to our scenario: in the absence of an equitable contribution clause, the homeowner decides to sue the consultant for the damage he has suffered. By paying all of the damages to the homeowner, the consultant takes the risk that the contractor is solvent and so will be able to meet any claim under the Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978. If the contractor is insolvent, then the consultant will not have a meaningful remedy. But if the consultant is a party to a contract which contains an equitable contribution clause, the risk of the contractor's insolvency shifts to the homeowner. If the consultant is 30% responsible and the contractor 70% responsible, then the consultant will be liable only for 30% of the homeowner's loss, even though under the joint and several principle he would be responsible for 100%, and even if the contractor is insolvent. The equitable contribution clause means that the contractor's 70% fault is funded by the homeowner rather than the consultant. Invariably, developers and investors are not keen on equitable contribution clauses as they can affect recovery of losses. Insurers, on the other hand, welcome such clauses. For consultants and contractors they have an important role to play in an effective risk management strategy. 5. Example of an equitable contribution clause This example is shown for illustrative purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Without
prejudice to any other exclusion or limitation of liability, damages, loss,
expense or costs the liability of [the Consultant] for any claim or claims under
this Agreement shall be further limited to such sum as it would be just and
equitable for [the Consultant] to pay having regard to the extent of his
responsibility for the loss or damage giving rise to such claim or claims ('the
loss and damage') and on the assumptions that:
i.
all
other consultants, contractors, sub-contractors, project managers or advisers
engaged in connection with [the Project] have provided contractual undertakings
on terms no less onerous than those set out in Clause [ ] to the [the Client] in
respect of the carrying out of their obligations; and
ii.
there
are no exclusions of or limitations of liability nor joint insurance or
co-insurance provisions between the [Client] and any other party referred to in
this clause and any such other party who is responsible to any extent for the
loss and damage is contractually liable to the [Client] for the loss and damage;
and iii.
all
such other consultants, contractors, sub-contractors, project managers or
advisers have paid to the [Client] such sum as it would be just and equitable
for them to pay having regard to the extent of their responsibility for the loss
and damage.
Dr
Alan McBride Steven
Francis Eversheds
LLP solicitors
BS
EN ISO 14688-2 is applicable to natural soil and similar man-made material in
situ and redeposited, but it is not a classification of soil by itself. Identification
and description of rock are covered by BS EN ISO 14689-1 BS
EN ISO 14688-2:2004 partially
supersedes BS 5930:1999, which remains current. ISBN
0 580 47508 5 Member
Price £34 ISBN 0 580 40481 1 Price £68* Contact BSI's Customer Services team
When ordering please quote marketing reference 14688G-N BS
EN 14475:2006 establishes general principles
for the construction of reinforced fill. It covers engineered fills which are
reinforced by the inclusion of horizontal or sub-horizontal reinforcement placed
between layers of fill during construction. The scope of reinforced fill applications considered in this European Standard include:
Principles for the
execution of other special geotechnical works using soil nails, bored piles,
displacement piles, micro piles, sheet pile walls, diaphragm walls, grouting or
jet grouting are established in other European Standards. Reinforcement of
road pavements is not covered by this Standard. Price £136, Member Price £68
Age Discrimination Regulations
======================================= |
