Builders agreements

[Ian H]

Now that I think of it more, I suppose there also needs to be a supervisor to make sure that the builders are building what they have been asked to build (according to the plans) rather than what they want to build ? Someone that will make sure what materials have been used and how many, especially the expensive ones (eg steel beams) ?

If you don’t trust the builder, don’t use them.

 

[Notch7]

Now that I think of it more, I suppose there also needs to be a supervisor to make sure that the builders are building what they have been asked to build (according to the plans) rather than what they want to build ? Someone that will make sure what materials have been used and how many, especially the expensive ones (eg steel beams) ?

That is possible, architects/surveyors offer that service, it depends on whether you want to pay the 8% or so on top for doing so.

Decent building regs drawings and a detailed scope of works combined with a good builder, is a good way forwards.

Builders often dont have sufficient detail in their quotation / contract -which can end up with arguments. However building work is so involved and details, it would be very difficult to cover every eventuality.

One thing I find is that builders could do better in forewarning customers of unexpected additional costs -especially in foundations. Its all very well pricing for a metre dig but what happens if it is going to be 2 metres

Ive recently had a client become very put out because the builder put in an extra over cost of £4,500k for footings that increased from 1 metre to 2.5M. The thing is I warned the builder it was going to happen because there is a leydlandii hedge 2 metres away and its shrinkable clay soil. They could have pre warned the client about an expectation of additiional cost before hand to pre empt the issue.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Ive recently had a client become very put out because the builder put in an extra over cost of £4,500k for footings that increased from 1 metre to 2.5M. The thing is I warned the builder it was going to happen because there is a leydlandii hedge 2 metres away and its shrinkable clay soil. They could have pre warned the client about an expectation of additiional cost before hand to pre empt the issue.

Didn't Building Control have a view on the need for deeper footings because of the conditions?

 

[^woody^]

One thing I find is that builders could do better in forewarning customers of unexpected additional costs -especially in foundations

That's the plan-drawer's job not the builders.

The builder should just build to the design, and it's not his fault if the designer has not done his job - whether in arranging tests, designing properly or warning the client about the limitations of his design work.

 

[noseall]

Purely out of interest, during your quotation process to what extent are you interviewing and selecting the customer, and how often do you think "you're trouble, this ain't worth it" and price yourself out of the running for a job?

I will often get the feel if I am actually in the running for a job or rather, just contributing a quote for them to compare. You can tell by their enthusiasm, returning calls, emails etc promptly or not. I'm also rather critical of any drawings I receive, so I constantly ask questions and query the drawings.

Most of the customers that contact me do so by word of mouth, so I'm already part way there. As for troublesome customers - yes, I have has some pushy customer instances and some stuffy ones too, that I have avoided.

There are also jobs that need avoiding but they always seem to find me!

 

[noseall]

That's the plan-drawer's job not the builders.

The builder should just build to the design, and it's not his fault if the designer has not done his job - whether in arranging tests, designing properly or warning the client about the limitations of his design work.

Having worked with an architect who was as thorough as any in the business, I do get disheartened at some of the vague shoite that lands on my desk. They may as well just draw an empty box and write in the middle "Builder to consult with LABC or refer to BS blah blah...."
I feel like screaming gimme the lintel codes you lazy feck or design the bloody roof or why have you copy and pasted section drawings with one showing partial fill and the other showing full fill.

Boils my pi$$ lazy architect mutha fu….!

 

[Notch7]

Didn't Building Control have a view on the need for deeper footings because of the conditions?

Indeed, it was the inspectors requirement.

The problem was the fact the builders quoted for 1 metre depth footing, the building inpector said 2.5m and the client went nuts when they were asked for the additional cost.

 

[John D v2.0]

If you don’t trust the builder, don’t use them.

only an idiot would disagree with the surface of your comment, but it's an extremely bland statement to the point of being little help.

As an illustrative example of the lack of correlation, how am I/Jo bloggs supposed to know what a trustworthy builder looks like without the ability to do a technical interview or something? The builders best at cocking things up are probably well practised at smoothing things over/fobbing people off and seeming like they know what they're doing. Not to mention adjusting their online reviews suitably. The ones that don't cock it up probably don't have that level of practice.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Indeed, it was the inspectors requirement.

The problem was the fact the builders quoted for 1 metre depth footing, the building inpector said 2.5m and the client went nuts when they were asked for the additional cost.

So what was the original route? Building notice or full plans submission? Did the build start with a proper quote and a proper contract, or was it estimates?

Because it seems to me that if the builder was responsible for speccing the depth of the footings, then he is the only one responsible for getting them right, within the price that he quoted.

 

[Notch7]

So what was the original route? Building notice or full plans submission? Did the build start with a proper quote and a proper contract, or was it estimates?

Because it seems to me that if the builder was responsible for speccing the depth of the footings, then he is the only one responsible for getting them right, within the price that he quoted.

The project is an orangery 37 sq metres. Its being done under a private building control, plans were submitted.

How can either an architect / plan drawer or builder, specify or price for either footing depth or floor construction.

'Getting them right, within the price quoted' -that isnt possible. A builder would have to price for worse case scenario on every occasion.

Foundation design / depth cant be known until the trench is dug. I know that there are tables to specify depth based on distance to trees, but the nature of the ground cant be known.

I dont think Ive seen building regs drawings that specify depth. They tend to say 'minimum depth of 1 metre'.

The same for floor construction. Ive been involved in numerous jobs where top soil depth is too deep for concrete oversite and block and beam are needed, which may require further foundation work.

 

[^woody^]

How can either an architect / plan drawer ....., specify or price for either footing depth or floor construction.

It's very easy

First is local knowledge of the ground and perhaps some basic checks from geological information (if the person holds a subscription) or speaking with local building control.

Then there is a look at the nearby buildings. Then there is either a recomendation for ground core samples if necessary or a trial pit to see any existing foundations.

That puts the designer in a position to go with a particular foundation design.

Unless there is a definitive engineered solution, the designer should always add a note that foundation design may need to be altered once the ground is exposed. This is not a get-out clause, but rather a prompt to the client and builder to be aware of potential changes.

The better designers will then highlight this with the client to prepare them for potential variations, and may recommend that the client specifies to the builder to separate the foundation quotation from the other works, and give one quote for the foundations as detailed on the plans, and an alternate quote for say foundations 500mm deeper or a pro-rata rate for every extra 100mm of depth.

It's very similar for all the other works too, not just foundations. If I am aware that something may need to change and can't be fully designed, then I make the client aware and build something into the quote. Otherwise the builder should just build to the plans as they will contain enough information to quote accurately and build for the quoted price with no or very limited variations.

The most important thing, and one which is almost always forgotten when getting quotes, is to get rates to be used as a basis for pricing variations. Hourly rates, day rates, percentage uplifts etc. These are very important as it prevents the client being held to ransom by some exorbitant variation cost that the builder may try to add.

But as JD2 says, how is a typical householder to know all this? IMO, it is something that the designer/architect should be advising as he is often the first professional that is contacted. Their job is not just to prepare a set a plans with the basics to "get through building control", and certainly not to just change a few things from their last drawing and put a new name and address on it.Their job is to help the client get the thing they wanted at a cost they expected and can afford. And that is very easy to do.

 

[Ian H]

As an illustrative example of the lack of correlation, how am I/Jo bloggs supposed to know what a trustworthy builder looks like without the ability to do a technical interview or something? The builders best at cocking things up are probably well practised at smoothing things over/fobbing people off and seeming like they know what they're doing. Not to mention adjusting their online reviews suitably. The ones that don't cock it up probably don't have that level of practice.

Hoe would you know if he guy you employ to babysit the builder would do a good job? You would have to trust him while paying even more money out.

The architectural technician I employed would be a perfect example. I employed him because of his qualifications and experience.

Turns out he was clueless and the builder pulled his drawings to bits, luckily I found a great structural engineer who redesigned the major elements of it and spoke with the building regs people to explain the changes. That gave me an extra room and stopped me having an old hip running through my loft bedroom.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

How can either an architect / plan drawer or builder, specify or price for either footing depth or floor construction.

How did the inspector know?

'Getting them right, within the price quoted' -that isnt possible.

Really?

Skilled, qualified, experienced, professionals cannot possibly get things right?

A builder would have to price for worse case scenario on every occasion.

Foundation design / depth cant be known until the trench is dug. I know that there are tables to specify depth based on distance to trees, but the nature of the ground cant be known.

Test digs?

The same for floor construction. Ive been involved in numerous jobs where top soil depth is too deep for concrete oversite and block and beam are needed, which may require further foundation work.

Check the depth at an early stage?


Overall, I find it very hard to accept that after 30,000 years experience of putting up buildings it is still impossible for us to have any better ideas than "dunno".

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As an illustrative example of the lack of correlation, how am I/Jo bloggs supposed to know what a trustworthy builder looks like without the ability to do a technical interview or something? The builders best at cocking things up are probably well practised at smoothing things over/fobbing people off and seeming like they know what they're doing. Not to mention adjusting their online reviews suitably. The ones that don't cock it up probably don't have that level of practice.

 

[wessex101]

Hoe would you know if he guy you employ to babysit the builder would do a good job? You would have to trust him while paying even more money out.

The architectural technician I employed would be a perfect example. I employed him because of his qualifications and experience.

Turns out he was clueless and the builder pulled his drawings to bits, luckily I found a great structural engineer who redesigned the major elements of it and spoke with the building regs people to explain the changes. That gave me an extra room and stopped me having an old hip running through my loft bedroom.

But if I remember correctly (highly unlikely) your designer wasn't qualified. Wasn't he CIOB which is a building management qualification not architectural design. Hardly surprising he made such a mess of the plans. But how would a member of the public be expected to know that? and no doubt he came across very well in person as these chancers always do.

Trust is a very dangerous benchmark for employing professionals and tradesmen as it is so subjective and the biggest rogues and scammers are usually the best at invoking trust in their victims.