Capital project structure

[Kevin Cook]

Good morning fellow directors, thanks for your support at yesterday's Board meeting. It was good to receive honest and balanced feedback from Alex when he agreed that as the roof replacement would probably fall to one contractor with responsibility for all elements, it was hard to justify the need for a project manager, from 3Sixty or otherwise.

In light of this and our pre-meeting discussion, wrt control of our relationship with 3Sixty and such projects, may I propose the following structure for Capital projects going forward;

1. Project identified and relative priority established
2. A project scope and approx budget costs estimated or established by 3Sixty, to be itemized for presentation to DRBML Board.
3. £44.5k & above, 3Sixty are automatically asked to issue a section 20 notice, once the need for the project is agreed by DRBML Board.
4. Projects which can be let to a single contractor without the need for ancillary trades/services can be let direct to the contractor without the need for a Project Manager, subject to advice from 3Sixty, but at the discretion of DRBML Board.
5. Above a project value threshold, DRBML may wish to invite inspections and comment from trades or manufacturers in parallel with input from 3Sixty.
6. All Capital projects should be subject to open-book accounting, showing quotation values, additional trade/service-costs, surveyor and management fees.
7. All costs/prices should clearly show potential additional costs, especially the VAT element due.

Any comments welcome ......... Kevin

 

[Mark Brough]

Thanks Kevin. Agreed.
1. There is not a need to identify relative priority. All these serious projects have been going on for years, all of them delayed at various times for one reason or another. They all need to be expedited in parallel, without any being pushed to the back-burner through want of "priority".
7. There is no need to show VAT separately. DRBML in (almost) all cases has to pay VAT. All costs notified or discussed should include VAT, without any need to consider it separately. Serious ambiguity, confusion and cost has been caused in DRBML over the years as a result of refusing to accept VAT as being one of many unavoidable components comprising costs. There is absolutely no need to be always elevating the VAT component of cost as a "special case".

 

[Kevin Cook]

Hi Mark, Point 1 agreed.
Point 7. I thought that if we show the VAT, then we can be certain that prices are inc vat, whereas if we rely upon all parties to include vat and to state so, but do not show it, then provided we all observe the protocol, all prices will be inc vat, but if any falter, we will not know that vat has not been included.