Dave Williams

[Mark Brough]

Further to our conversation @Kevin Cook , I note that we expect a proposal from DW next week. We are still keeping an open mind, and may or may not accept DW's proposal to project-manage the LCS roof replacement, depending upon the satisfactoriness of Dave's proposal and of his performance so far.

If we were to decide not to appoint DW, here's an alternative arrangement which may perhaps be win-win for all: We could perhaps point out to DW that one of the roofing suppliers has offered to project-manage, as part of their quote, and that we have decided to accept that offer. However we do still require occasional expert advice and occasionally an independent 3rd party's opinion. As indeed was discussed in the office, with Dave, some months ago. And so whilst we choose not to proceed with DW as PM, we would like to engage DW as a trusted advisor, if DW would please de prepared to make a proposal to us along those lines. And, perhaps, we would be prepared to pay DW a nominal good-will fee for the time taken in producing such a proposal. As a demonstration that we do not intend to mess DW around and waste his time.

Such a proposal may involve a small retainer and a payment per hour for attending a meeting, or for undertaking research on our behalf, or for responding to an email request. We would appreciate such billed hours being itemised and invoiced monthly. We reserve the right to challenge, at our cost, and to seek clarifications and justifications of DW, if required, of the expertise and advice DW might provide.


I propose this because Kevin, @Tony Bath and I , I believe, feel exposed though a reasonable lack of technical knowledge, and because we have had such conflicting, contradictory and unreliable advice from different people over the years.

 

[Mark Brough]

There's a broad range of task which we would like DW to undertake, and I suggest we don't get hung up on the term "project management", which everyone defines differently anyway. Kevin used the term "site manager", which may be more apposite. I note that we are still undecided whether we would be confident of asking DW to project-manage and co-ordinate all the trades and scheduling and payments involved in co-ordinating the installation of the roof covering?

Here's the things we want Dave to do:

• organise meetings (I'm not prepared to do this, Kevin doesn't have time)
• trusted advisor
• an expert who can undertake research on our behalf
• tender management - choose suppliers, prepare ITT, get tender responses in, query tender responses, evaluate responses, make justified recommendation
• QA and QC on site
• represent the client on site ("Clerk of Works"?)
• snagging

I reckon this is a bit different to "project management"?

I suggest we need to invite DW to the forum - his email threads are already becoming unwieldy and Tony in particular missed out on some important info. Not this "Directors" forum or the "everyone" discussion forum, just the "management" forum.

 

[Mark Brough]

@Kevin Cook @Robin Williams I seek your agreement to give Dave Williams access to the "Management" forum, only. (Not the leaseholder's "Discussion Forum", and NOT this "Directors" forum. I have looked through and cannot find or recall anything controversial or embarrassing about David.

He will take some persuading to use the forum, but the current situation is that Dave has precipitated too many unstructured emails, which he himself complained about on Friday, and there's no reason why all of Dave' sinfor cannot be recorded in the right place on the forum along with all the other stuff.

 

[Mark Brough]

Kevin emailed:

"Firstly, my apologies to Mark for using e-mail, but for reasons of discretion/diplomacy.

I felt the need to explain my position taken at our meeting on Friday.

I felt that Dave Williams was pushing hard to ensure that we only consider a solution from the manufacturer and contractors of his choice, i.e. Alumasc and a larger, (potentially more expensive) contractor.

This is an understandable hang-over from his (dare I say, more institutional) days at the BRI. Some specifiers and project managers habitually return to suppliers and installers with whom they have previously worked, ignoring any other prospects, because it is the easiest route of least potential trouble and represents the safest route for them personally.

I have no personal or financial incentive to award the order to Danosa or one of their contractors, I hope you know I would declare any such influence, but I do feel morally obligated to ensure that they have the opportunity to submit a tender, given that they came to LCS to inspect the roof and compiled an excellent report, at no cost to us, providing us with guidance when we most needed it.

I believe that Dave Williams can offer a much needed service to DRBML, but it seems clear to me that he prefers Alumasc to Denosa, and Alumasc have also now provided a report, but in truth, we had already been provided with the bulk of this information.

We cannot, at this stage, be certain of the extent of available DRBML funds or the all-in costs with which we will be presented for the various re-roofing options.

I feel that, whether we are dealing with Dave or 3Sixty, it should for the DRBML board to examine the various options, compare warranties against cost and other salient parameters, then to make the decision, without excluding a manufacturer because of an advisor's personal preference.

In this time-sensitive matter, I also see no merit in waiting a month or more for a response to a tender document which is limited to one option from that one manufacturer, so that we then decide if we should go back out to tender for other options from the same or different suppliers/installers. I do not see why Dave cannot seek two specification/method-statements from both Alumasc and Danosa to allow each contractor to quote for any or all of the four options we would then issue. DRBML directors can them make a more rapid and balanced decision after one round of tendering.

Best wishes to all, ......... Kevin"

 

[Mark Brough]

I don't disagree with you @Kevin Cook . I too thought it odd that we were focussing upon different technologies (singly-ply vs. felt vs. liquid) rather than different manufacturers. (And I reckon we should give the invitees three weeks instead of four weeks - they'll do it in the last 5 days and last 5 hours before the deadline anyway, whether we give them four weeks or four months.)

But what do we do now? Are you proposing we get back in touch with Dave, or are you simply stating your concerns for the record?

If you are proposing some action / intervention, then we need to do it this morning, before Dave starts work on what we had agreed. Feel free to phone me to discuss further if required.

 

[Tony Bath]

David Williams was checking with his mate how to handle our request to look at various alternatives, as he hadn’t dealt with a project in this way before- I find that strange in itself.
Perhaps Kevin could follow up with DW, and find out how he is going to proceed.
Hopefully that will produce the Danosa alternative.

 

[Robin Williams]

I note and appreciate all comments as to above. Other than to write we should have more than one supplier quote for the work, am fine for other directors to progress all this in manner they so wish...tho' obviously please keep me in to the financials.

 

[Kevin Cook]

I agree with, and support Mark,s 4.40pm Thursday post, re the benefits that Dave might bring to us.

WRT tender invitations for Alumasc and Danosa, the invitations will be sent to contractors and stipulate a specification (or two) to which they must adhere. Dave was going to seek input from his architect mate to see if it is possible to issue two specifications and then to advise me if there was a problem. So I will find some time to call him tomorrow, Tuesday.

At the risk of sounding anti-Dave, he originally suggested that he would be able to get this work done by Christmas and he repeated this in our meeting with 3Sixty. I noted that both Alex and Ed dismissed this timetable, but I felt a little disappointed that we waited more than three weeks for a visit and report from Alumasc, which confirmed what we knew, but did not actually take us any further forward.

I had hoped that Dave would present some tender responses at our meeting on Friday. If this had been so, I would have struggled to make my point and to ask for more time to invite more contractors to tender.

 

[Mark Brough]

Four queries, I guess to you @Kevin Cook ,or anyone:

1. Has anyone heard from Dave? It's been a week and a half. We wouldn't normally expect a blow-by-blow report of what he's up to, but since the project has only just started, and since he was tardy in producing his proposal, I am curious to know that something is happening?
2. Alex tells us here that he asked Dave to investigate a leak. I suspect that either this never happened, or Dave never got back to Alex. Or Alex never chased up Dave. The leak is "only" in the car park, but it's still important for us to find out why water is ingressing at that part of the car park. If it's a failure of the membrane under the terraces, then we need to know about it.
3. @Tony Bath recalls DW proposing a temporary fix for #11 LCS. And I vaguely remember something along these lines. Is this the case?
4. We need to record the result of Alex attempting to meet with the leaseholder and/or resident. We need to record this in order to demonstrate good faith to the council's inspector.

Edit: Where I say "Alex" in #4, I meant "Dave".

 

[Kevin Cook]

Four queries, I guess to you @Kevin Cook ,or anyone:

1. Has anyone heard from Dave? It's been a week and a half. We wouldn't normally expect a blow-by-blow report of what he's up to, but since the project has only just started, and since he was tardy in producing his proposal, I am curious to know that something is happening?
2. Alex tells us here that he asked Dave to investigate a leak. I suspect that either this never happened, or Dave never got back to Alex. Or Alex never chased up Dave. The leak is "only" in the car park, but it's still important for us to find out why water is ingressing at that part of the car park. If it's a failure of the membrane under the terraces, then we need to know about it.
3. @Tony Bath recalls DW proposing a temporary fix for #11 LCS. And I vaguely remember something along these lines. Is this the case?
4. We need to record the result of Alex attempting to meet with the leaseholder and/or resident. We need to record this in order to demonstrate good faith to the council's inspector.

I believe he made contact with Alex and was given contact details to arrange a meeting at 11 LCS, but I don't believe that the meeting has taken place as yet.
I will try to reach Dave tomorrow and ask him to update all directors.

 

[Tony Bath]

Since involving BCC I don’t think either the LH or tenant are interested in talking to us.
what about the temporary repair DW said he could arrange. Come on chaps, less chat more action please.

 

[Kevin Cook]

Good evening fellow directors, I apologise for my absence, due to greater activity here on our own rebuild. I am afraid that we seem to be locked in a permanent battle with the weather and a slippery cold muddy site.

I believe that I have sent three reminders to Dave Williams and to my embarrassment, unless I have missed something we seem to have received no updates which I am worried means that we have made no progress with the LCS roof project. Please correct me if any have received further information.

I am embarrassed because a) I introduced Dave, b) the tenants of N0 11 LCS continue to live in unacceptable conditions, c) BCC have become involved, d) we have just gone around in circles without progress and d) this brings shame upon DRBML and 3Sixty.

If we have made no progress, I don't feel that we should wait any longer for Dave to do his thing, I would be happy to tell him that we have decided to go ahead without him. If the majorty of directors are in agreement, we could invite Bristol City Flat Roofing (providers of the Danosa report) to project manage the whole affair.

I appreciate that we will be interfering with what might be considered a more structured way forward, but just how much longer can we leave matters as they stand?

 

[Tony Bath]

Kevin very sensible you have my support. A. Very disappointed in Dave Williams. Talks a good talk.
He was the one who suggested the temporary repair, j bet he hasn't even spoke to the LH.

 

[Robin Williams]

Yes, all very frustrating and disappointing, not least for you Kevin. Your post fully understood and appreciated, please do not feel 'bad' in any way. Also:
- I have DW's phone number. As one last throw of dice, am ok to call him (maybe he has an explanation for his silence) but Kevin, only with your say-so. So...your thoughts please as to me calling him
- from what I can see on our bank statement, we have yet to pay him anything. In the circumstances, I suggest we defer any potential payments to him for the time being. I will email 3Sixty now accordingly.

 

[Kevin Cook]

Thanks Robin, I would welcome your involvement. I had hoped Dave would be the perfect counter measure for my increased involvement with our own build. We are investing approx £1.2 million here so I have to maintain focus.
Thanks again

 

[Mark Brough]

Well said Tony and Robin.

With regard to the 2ndary problem of your embarrassment @Kevin Cook , there's absolutely no justification for that.

• When you first proposed DW we realised the risks and we all as a team went into this eyes open.
• We realised recently that DW had already demonstrated some degree of eccentricity.
• DW has already outperformed Ed Hamilton - he has provided more expertise in a more timely fashion than Ed for considerably less money. And yet Adam is not embarrassed! And so you need not be embarrassed!

I like your suggestion of Bristol City Flat Roofing. I suggest you request a quote for the project management. And then I imagine that that project manager would obtain the quote for the professionally-specified work? Would someone also need to get two other quotes?

I felt that Alex was not comfortable with Bristol City Flat Roofing. I suggest that we fess up ASAP and post a status update to Adam and Alex in the "Management" forum, and explicitly ask Alex's opinion about this course of action - BCFR for both implementation and also project management.

@Robin Williams when speaking to DW, I suggest that the situation would be softened if you offered DW to do ad hoc consultancy for us on a T&M basis. In that way, he feels we are not dumping him completely, and indeed, there are bound to be situations where we would value DW's independent 3rd. party opinions.

PS. I too have sent two emails to DW (cc: Kevin) (about our forum) and those too have been ignored.