Dunedin Venues Management Ltd: THE PHOTO

Tweet today, this is they…

@ForBarrStadium Meet the DVML Team!! http://bit.ly/d8sAYw

DVML TeamDarren, Paula, Marie, Guy Hedderwick, Guy, David, Gary, Jo, Mai and Craig.

****

Complete Aside:

Oh lookie, this belated report turned up at DCC Finance and Strategy Committee webpage. Thanks for the alert, Anomaly.

Report – FSC – 15/03/2010 (PDF, 1.8 MB)
Stadium Stakeholders Group Report

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

12 Comments

Filed under DVML, People, Stadiums

12 responses to “Dunedin Venues Management Ltd: THE PHOTO

  1. Anomaly

    Stadium report from 15 March Finance and Strategy Committee is on the DCC website – a very interesting read, especially re steel and procurement matters.

    • Elizabeth

      Thanks, took a while to appear.

      Report – FSC – 15/03/2010 (PDF, 1.8 mb, new window)
      Stadium Stakeholders Group Report

      ****

      So why the hell do we read at Arrow’s page ‘Project Delivery – Stadium’, the following sub-heading:

      “PDT Report 22 – February 2010
      CONFIDENTIAL”

      Confidential ?????? For the now public report. If you want to join the secret society, join Arrow. Kidding folks, but their PR is verging on abysmal in the nth little details.

  2. Phil

    Interesting to see that there is already an Extension Of Time claim pending. I assume that’s a safeguard claim by Hawkins due to the delay in issuing the structural steel shop drawings. I assume. A bit of card shuffling going on with the removal of some items of work, and the adding in of previously excluded items of work. To avoid the Extension Of Time Claim. Naturally, any agreed variation, be it an addition or a deletion, will result in additional costs somewhere. Even a deletion of work will be offset somewhat by an administration costs and loss of profits claim.

    There’s clearly some completion date concerns, hence the proposal to move the Plaza works over to the University contract, scheduled for after the RWC. I don’t quite see the logic in removing the fitting of the seats from the main contract. Not sure how that saves any time or money, as it still needs to be completed prior to handover. But, there must be some benefit. Interesting read.

    • Elizabeth

      At first glance, to me it read like ‘we are project management professionals and yet we are not above panic when things are this horribly tight…we will take care with the wording accordingly, in case we don’t have to panic – still, best we rearrange some but not all deck chairs’.

      Good thing Carisbrook is our beloved backstop.

      Was looking forward to your higher order take on it Phil, thanks.

  3. Richard

    Simple explanation, Elizabeth. The report from Arrow went to the Stakeholder’s Group. They add anything needed and send it on to Finance and Strategy.

    It was in the public section of the agenda for the meeting on 15 March and considered in public as, indeed reported in the ODT a day or so later.

    • Elizabeth

      Richard – reports really should be available online with the agenda prior to council committee meetings. I see Malcolm Farry has issued a promissory note to be ‘synchronised’ in future. Yep.

      • Elizabeth

        Apologies All – your comments are being logged according to the former Daylight Saving clock. I’ve put a query to Paul (site owner). My Dashboard can’t fix it.

  4. Richard

    The problem is that council and its committees meet on a 6-weekly cycle. I have never liked it, much preferring the ‘old’ monthly cycle with what was called ‘Council Mondays’. Causes havoc with reports that are done on a monthly basis, e.g. financials.

    Having said that I understand the reason for the six weekly from a staff p-o-v and that DAP’s et al have removed a lot of the things that used to be attended to by council on a monthly meeting basis.

    If you look at the Stadium Report in question, you will see that the Stakeholder’s Group only met on the Friday prior to F&S. The needed adjustment is what MF is referring to so that the reports come earlier.

    Incidentally, Phil – and ‘Anomaly’ – there was nothing ‘new’ or even ‘interesting’ about the reference to the ‘Extension of Time’ reference and steel design. It just repeats what was covered in earlier reports to F&S.

    So nothing to get excited about at all, no-one else is!

    Cheers!

  5. Phil

    Ok, so has there been an Extension of Time claim lodged? I certainly would have lodged one if there were concerns over the delivery of a Critical Path item of work. Presumably the preparation of the shop drawings for the structural steelwork is outside of the main contractor’s scope of work. Just to safeguard myself against any potential liquidated damages claim by the client, later down the track. Not saying that the potential time overrun can’t be pulled back, there’s still time for that.

  6. Stu

    It’s a pretty safe bet at this stage to say that the stadium will not be complete for the 2011 RWC. That’s not to say that games will not be played there, but it won’t be complete. It would also be a fairly safe bet to say that in order to complete to the promised level of finish will involve tens of millions of additional spend – the stuff currently being taken out of the GMP umbrella will have to be covered from somewhere else or it won’t get done. (That’s also not being negative, just realistic.) It’s a tough one – the contractor has screwed every subby down on price so now there is no room to accelerate to cover time overruns – the entire site was closed for Easter – since that would incur significant additional labour expense.

  7. Phil

    I’m sure there was a real price war on this contract, with the maximum agreed price being so tight. Which is unfortunate. Safe profit marigins such as markups on materials and subcontractors would have been reduced. Most contractors won’t shift their labour prices, and rightly so. They’ve been stupid if they have. So the only way to make money out of their contract is by using less qualified (cheaper) staff, or by charging for each and every extra item of work no matter how trivial. At the end of it, they need to make the same profit to keep their business running. There are bound to be considerably more variation requests submitted than in a normally priced contract which would have enough fat to allow for “good will” work.

    That’s a reason why I’ve never believed that a priced Schedule Of Quantities should be a standard form of tendering. I know that DCC favours this method, but it doesn’t always result in the best price. If the SOQ says, “use 10 nails”, but in reality, 30 nails were needed, then the contractor will claim for the extra 20 nails. As he is entitled to. If the contract says “use a sufficient number of nails”, then there’s no extra cost, regardless of the number of nails used. The contractor carries that risk. If he only allowed for 5 nails, then he has to absorb that loss, without claiming for the extra nails. Maybe he allowed for 100 nails in his tender price, in which case he makes a lot of money out of his client. But may feel ok about banging a couple of extra nails in later on for free, just to keep the contract running smoothly.

  8. Russell Garbutt

    Stu and Phil – do either of you, or anyone else for that matter, have any idea of what the actual costs for this stadium will be? It seems to me that from what is being said by many contributors to threads on this site and elsewhere that more and more major items are being removed from the contract, or maybe were never part of the GMP in the first place.

    We hear of large screens, turf, lighting and seating not being supplied, and of course the promise of a high-tech, state-of-the-art 30,000 seat stadium is actually going to be a 17,242 seat stadium with concrete pads on the end that can take temporary seating that also seems not to be part of any GMP.

    We also know that a GMP contract doesn’t mean a thing if it can be shown that there are variations or information not supplied – look at the Wembley shambles when the contractor received an additional 30 million pounds over the GMP.

    So, is there an amount of money that we know and more or less agree about that includes all these known things, plus the items that some are desperately trying to shovel into other budgets such as land acquisition for the SH88, costs of the shift of the highway, purchase of Carisbrook etc?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s