BU504 – Construction Management

BU504 – Construction Management

Question 1

A main contractor’s (Bumpy Construction Ltd.’s) estimator has been told by his managers the company is very keen to win the tender for the construction of a five story classroom block with a ground floor atrium area for the University of Leicester.

The estimator has to price for the following two items of work that are to be built into the tender price:

(i) Handrails to the perimeter of 150m of the roof for the 10 weeks period that workers will be required to work on the roof in an exposed manner.

(ii) Earthwork support to the excavation faces of 3,000m² of very deep basement excavations, 1,000m² of trench excavation of various depths and 500m² of shallow trenches for concrete kerb footings.

The estimator has made notes on how rates are to be priced, calculated some rates, and obtained a subcontract quotation which are discussed below:

A scaffold subcontract quotation has been obtained for providing the 150m of handrails to the roof for 5 weeks amounting to £7,500.00. The quote includes an extra hire period rate of £300.00 per week if the roof handrail is to be on-site longer than the 5 weeks period.

The estimator has calculated rates for providing earthwork support if required to:

• The basement excavation faces at £20 per m².

• The trench excavation faces at £10 per m².

• The shallow concrete kerb excavation faces at £5 per m².

The estimator’s notes record the scaffold quote needs 5 – 10% adding because its fixed price term expires before the project commences.

The estimator’s notes record there is a belief that Bumpy Construction Ltd will be the lowest tender if the price does not include for providing all the excavations with earthwork support and that there is an additional competitive advantage that can be taken if Bumpy Construction Ltd does not price the roof handrail for the full 10 week period.

The estimator’s notes also make reference to what the ground report states about the ground conditions and the discussions that have been had with managers as to how to build this project and construct the roof work in a safe manner.

The estimator notes record that all the rates discussed above should have added 10 – 20% for overheads, profit & general attendance.

• Provide a build-up and explain how you as the estimator would calculate the figures for the roof handrails and the earthwork support that you decide needs to be included in the tender price. Also provide an outline of your reasoning as to why you have priced the work in this manner.   (12 Marks)

• Explain and discuss by reference to your answer to this question whether an estimator is in fact pricing up “work” or pricing up “risk” when building up a tender price.

Ensure your answer to this part of the question makes reference to:

• Health and safety risk.
• Financial risk.
• Ethical considerations associated with taking measures to remove or minimizing risk.
• Marks)
• Discuss whether the course of action that you have proposed to take as an estimator can be justified as correct from:
  • A commercial perspective.
  • A Health and Safety perspective.
  • An ethical perspective. (6 Marks)            (Total 25 Marks)

Sample Expert Answer for Question 2 – Estimating: Pricing Work vs. Pricing Risk (25 Marks)

Part (a) – Build-Up of Tender Prices for Roof Handrails and Earthwork Support (12 Marks)

1. Roof Handrail Scaffold (150m for 10 Weeks)

The scaffold subcontractor quoted £7,500 for 150m of roof handrail for 5 weeks, with a hire extension rate of £300/week for any period beyond 5 weeks. The estimator’s notes identify that the fixed-price term of the quote expires before the project commences; therefore, a risk uplift of 5–10% is required to account for potential price escalation.

As the estimator, I would price the FULL 10-week period because health and safety legislation – specifically the Work at Height Regulations 2005 – requires that collective protective measures (such as edge protection) must be maintained for as long as workers are exposed to a fall risk. Removing the handrails after 5 weeks to save cost while workers remain on the roof would constitute a criminal breach of duty.

Handrail Cost Build-Up:

Item	Calculation	Amount (£)
Base quote (5 weeks)	Fixed	7,500.00
Price escalation uplift (7.5% applied as mid-point)	£7,500 × 7.5%	562.50
Adjusted base cost (Weeks 1–5)		8,062.50
Additional hire: 5 extra weeks @ £300/wk	5 × £300	1,500.00
Subtotal before OH&P		9,562.50
Overheads, Profit & General Attendance (15% mid-point)	£9,562.50 × 15%	1,434.38
TOTAL TENDER INCLUSION – ROOF HANDRAIL		£10,996.88

2. Earthwork Support Build-Up

The estimator has pre-calculated rates per m². The critical decision is whether to include all areas or omit some to be more competitive. However, failure to provide adequate earthwork support exposes operatives to collapse of excavation faces, which is potentially fatal and is regulated under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015) and the Excavation HSE guidance.

A responsible estimator would price ALL areas of earthwork support, with rates derived from the ground report conditions:

Excavation Type	Area (m²)	Rate (£/m²)	Sub-Total (£)	OH&P @ 15%
Very deep basement excavation	3,000	£20.00	£60,000	£9,000
Trench excavations (various depths)	1,000	£10.00	£10,000	£1,500
Shallow kerb footing trenches	500	£5.00	£2,500	£375
TOTAL – EARTHWORK SUPPORT (incl. OH&P)			£72,500	£10,875

Grand Total (Earthwork Support incl. OH&P): £83,375.00

Reasoning: All excavation faces must be priced as the ground report and CDM 2015 obligations compel adequate support measures. The omission of earthwork support purely for competitive gain creates an unacceptable and unlawful safety risk. The 15% OH&P represents a reasonable mid-point of the instructed 10–20% range.

Part (b) – Is the Estimator Pricing ‘Work’ or Pricing ‘Risk’? (7 Marks)

In practice, estimating is inseparably the pricing of risk. Every rate built up by an estimator embeds assumptions about what might go wrong, how long tasks will take, what conditions will be encountered, and what regulatory obligations must be met. Potts and Ankrah (2021) confirm that construction estimating is fundamentally a risk-quantification exercise, with the tender price representing the contractor’s best estimate of the total cost of managing all foreseeable and probabilistic risks on a project.

Health and Safety Risk

The Work at Height Regulations 2005 impose a non-negotiable duty to provide collective protective measures for any person working at height. Pricing only 5 weeks of handrail hire when the programme requires 10 weeks deliberately creates a period of unprotected working at height. This is not a commercial decision – it is a criminal exposure. Similarly, CDM 2015 Regulation 13 places duties on the principal contractor to ensure excavations are supported. Failing to price earthwork support for competitive advantage transfers a safety risk to operatives. Hughes, Ferrett and Ferrett (2022) note that health and safety risk cannot ethically or legally be ‘priced out’ of a tender.

Financial Risk

Omitting earthwork support introduces enormous financial risk. If a trench collapses and a worker is injured or killed, Bumpy Construction Ltd faces Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecution, unlimited fines, and potential imprisonment of directors. Even in the absence of injury, an HSE enforcement notice could halt the project, generating delay costs far exceeding the saving made at tender. Potts and Ankrah (2021) note that the cost of construction accidents regularly exceeds the direct savings made through corner-cutting at estimating stage.

Ethical Considerations

Pricing below full safety provision to win a tender is ethically indefensible. The Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) Code of Professional Conduct requires members to act with honesty and to protect public health and safety above commercial interests. An estimator who knowingly omits safety provisions to secure a tender is in breach of professional ethical codes and risks personal liability. The estimator’s managers’ instruction to price below the full safety standard creates a professional dilemma; the correct course of action is to escalate the matter and insist on full safety pricing.

Part (c) – Justification of Actions Proposed (6 Marks)

Commercial Perspective

From a short-term commercial perspective, omitting safety provision may appear to reduce the tender price and improve the chance of winning. However, from a long-term commercial perspective, the financial consequences of accidents, enforcement notices, and prosecution far outweigh any initial saving. A responsible business approach recognises that sustainable profit cannot be built on suppressed safety costs. The RICS (2023) guidance on procurement integrity confirms that estimators should not price below regulatory compliance thresholds.

Health and Safety Perspective

The proposed course of action – pricing the FULL 10-week handrail period and all areas of earthwork support – is entirely justified from a health and safety perspective. It complies with the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and CDM 2015 and protects workers from fatal risks. There is no commercial justification that outweighs a worker’s right to a safe working environment.

Ethical Perspective

The ethical justification is unambiguous. The CIOB Code of Professional Conduct (2021) and the ICE Code of Professional Conduct both require construction professionals to place public health and safety above commercial considerations. Pricing the full scope of safety provisions is the only ethically defensible action, regardless of the competitive impact on the tender.

References – Question 1

• Hughes, P., Ferrett, E., & Ferrett, E. (2022). Introduction to Health and Safety in Construction (6th ed.). Routledge.
• Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB). (2021). Code of Professional Conduct. CIOB.
• Potts, K., & Ankrah, N. (2021). Construction Cost Management: Learning from Case Studies (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). (2023). Procurement and Tendering: Professional Guidance. RICS.
• Health and Safety Executive (HSE). (2021). Excavation Health and Safety: Safe Work in Excavations. HSE Books.

Question 2

“If in the Architect/Contract Administrator’s opinion completion of the Works or Section has been, is being or is likely to be delayed beyond the relevant Completion Date by any of the Relevant Events, then, save where these Conditions expressly provide otherwise, the Architect/Contract Administrator, as soon as he is able to estimate the length of the delay beyond that date, shall by notice to the Contractor give a fair and reasonable extension of time for completion of the Works or Section.” JCT, ICD, Intermediate Building Contract, 1st Edition, 2016, London, Sweet & Maxwell Clause 2.19.

Standard forms of construction contracts such as the JCT and the NEC suite of contracts contain provisions in respect of time to complete the construction works.

a. Discuss the general scheme for time found in most standard forms of construction contracts. (8 Marks)

b. Ensure your answer makes a brief reference to contract law and considers the following matters:

i. The notices that are required to be issued by the main contractor to request grants of extension of time and recover additional prolongations costs caused by the delays. (2 Marks)

ii. The certification of practical completion. (2 Marks)

iii. The original contract period. (1 Mark)

iv. The delay period beyond the contract original completion date. (2 Marks)

v. The amount of liquidated damages that the employer may be able to claim from the main contractor.  (5 Marks)

vi. The amount of prolongation costs that the main contractor may be able to claim from the employer. (5 Marks)        (Total 25 Marks)

Sample Expert Answer for Question 2 – Time, Extensions of Time & Prolongation Costs (25 Marks)

Part (a) – The General Scheme for Time in Standard Forms of Contract (8 Marks)

Standard forms of construction contracts, including the JCT Intermediate Building Contract (ICD 2016) and the NEC4 Engineering and Construction Contract, provide a comprehensive and balanced regime for managing time obligations. The fundamental purpose of this regime is to preserve the employer’s right to liquidated damages while providing the contractor with a fair mechanism to seek relief when delays are caused by events for which the employer bears contractual responsibility.

The general scheme operates as follows:

• Contract Period: The contract specifies a Completion Date by which the contractor must practically complete the works.
• Contractor’s Obligation: The contractor has an absolute duty to complete on time unless granted an extension.
• Relevant Events: The contract lists events (e.g., employer-caused delays, force majeure, exceptionally adverse weather) that entitle the contractor to an extension of time (EOT). Without this mechanism, any act of prevention by the employer would set time at large under general contract law (Peak Construction v McKinney, 1970).
• Notices: The contractor must issue timely written notices to the Contract Administrator (CA) when a Relevant Event occurs, recording the cause and anticipated delay.
• Extension of Time Assessment: The CA assesses EOT applications and grants fair and reasonable extensions. Completion Dates are revised accordingly.
• Practical Completion: When the CA certifies Practical Completion, the defects liability period begins and the employer’s right to deduct liquidated damages is triggered if completion was late.
• Liquidated Damages (LDs): If the contractor fails to complete by the (revised) Completion Date, the employer may deduct LDs at the pre-agreed rate from the contractor.
• Prolongation Costs: Where employer-risk Relevant Events delayed completion, the contractor may claim prolongation costs (additional preliminaries, etc.) for the delay period.

Chappell (2021) confirms that this scheme is designed to maintain certainty, avoid time being set at large, and protect both parties’ legitimate interests.

Part (b) – Specific Issues

(i) Notices Required by the Main Contractor (2 Marks)

Under JCT ICD 2016 Clause 2.18, the contractor must give written notice to the CA promptly when a Relevant Event occurs or is likely to occur that may cause delay. The notice must identify the Relevant Event and its anticipated effect on the Completion Date. Subsequently, the contractor should submit particulars (details of the delay and its impact) and an estimate of the delay period. For Relevant Matters causing additional costs, the contractor must also comply with the loss and expense notice provisions under Clause 4.21, giving notice as soon as it becomes apparent that regular progress has been or is likely to be materially affected. Failure to issue timely notices can prejudice the contractor’s entitlement.

(ii) Certification of Practical Completion (2 Marks)

Practical Completion is certified by the CA/Architect when the works are complete in all material respects, even if minor defects remain (Snagging items). Under JCT ICD Clause 2.27, the CA issues a Practical Completion Certificate (PCC). The effect of the PCC is significant: (a) the Defects Liability Period (usually 6–12 months) commences; (b) the contractor’s obligation to insure the works changes; (c) half of the retention is released; and (d) the cut-off point for the employer’s entitlement to LDs is established. The date of practical completion is therefore crucial in calculating both LDs and prolongation costs.

(iii) Original Contract Period (1 Mark)

Based on the scenario context, assume the original contract period is 52 weeks (1 year), commencing on a specified start date with a fixed Completion Date. This agreed period forms the baseline against which all delay calculations are made.

(iv) Delay Period Beyond Original Completion Date (2 Marks)

Assume Practical Completion was achieved 8 weeks after the original Completion Date. Of these 8 weeks of delay, suppose 5 weeks were caused by employer-risk Relevant Events (e.g., late receipt of information, employer-instructed variations) and 3 weeks by contractor-risk events (e.g., poor productivity). The CA grants a 5-week EOT, revising the Completion Date by 5 weeks. The contractor therefore completed 3 weeks beyond the revised Completion Date and is liable to LDs for those 3 weeks only.

(v) Liquidated Damages the Employer May Claim (5 Marks)

The contract must specify the rate of Liquidated and Ascertained Damages (LADs) in the Contract Particulars. Assume the LAD rate is £5,000 per week.

Item	Amount
Contractor’s culpable delay (beyond revised completion)	3 weeks
LAD Rate (per contract particulars)	£5,000 per week
Total LADs Claimable by Employer	£15,000
Employer’s procedural step	Issue withholding notice/pay less notice before deducting from interim certificate

The employer must issue a written Pay Less Notice (JCT ICD Clause 4.13) before the final date for payment to lawfully deduct LADs. Chappell (2021) notes that failure to issue the correct notice means the employer cannot deduct LADs.

(vi) Prolongation Costs the Main Contractor May Claim (5 Marks)

The contractor may claim prolongation costs for the 5-week employer-caused delay period under JCT ICD Clause 4.21 (loss and expense). Prolongation costs typically comprise time-related preliminary costs that continue during the delay period.

Prolongation Cost Item	Weekly Rate	5-Week Total
Site management (PM, agent, foreman)	£3,500	£17,500
Site accommodation and welfare facilities	£800	£4,000
Plant hire on-site (tower crane, hoists)	£2,200	£11,000
Site security	£400	£2,000
Temporary services (power, water)	£300	£1,500
Head office overheads contribution (Emden formula)	£1,200	£6,000
TOTAL PROLONGATION CLAIM		£42,000

The contractor must demonstrate a causal link between the Relevant Event and each head of claim, and must mitigate losses. The Society of Construction Law (SCL) Delay and Disruption Protocol (2nd edition, 2021) provides industry-accepted guidance on calculating and substantiating prolongation claims.

References – Question 2

• Chappell, D. (2021). The JCT Intermediate Building Contracts 2016 (3rd ed.). Wiley Blackwell.
• Society of Construction Law (SCL). (2021). Delay and Disruption Protocol (2nd ed.). SCL.
• Furst, S., & Ramsey, V. (2022). Keating on Construction Contracts (11th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.
• Pickavance, K. (2022). Delay and Disruption in Construction Contracts (5th ed.). Informa Law.

Question 3

A senior manager assembled a workshop team at initial concept stage to steer a massive proposed expansion to the old DRI hospital site in Derby. The manager understands it is imperative the existing hospital is to remain in use whilst the construction work takes place. The workshop team included the facilities management contractor who currently runs the site and handpicked construction professional such as an architect, civil engineer, quantity surveyor and the hospital health and safety manager. Later a main contractor is selected to build the works.

One risk that did not register high as a priority at initial concept stage was the risk associated with the existing fabric of the building. The overall scheme eventually became a construction contract comprised of retaining 50% of the existing building unaltered and refurbishing the balance of the existing building, to which a new build extension was the attached. Initially an overall budget of £6,000,000 was decided upon.

Standard forms of construction contracts such as the JCT and the NEC suite of contracts contain provisions in respect of time to complete the construction works.

Discuss the risk associated with the asbestos in the fabric building from a health and safety, financial and time perspective.

a. The discussion should indicate how the risk of asbestos should be managed and dealt with at each stage of the development of the hospital expansion project during the RIBA Plan of works 2013 stages 2, 5 and 7 as discussed below: (10 Marks)

b. Stage 7 in use

The facilities management contractor has a survey of the existing building that identifies a minimal amount of asbestos exists in the building which they have used to operate and manage the building over many years. (5 Marks)

c. Stage 2 Develop Design

The facilities management contractor provides the workshop team with their survey of asbestos identified in the existing building.  (5 Marks)

d. Stage 5 Construction Stage

The existing survey undertaken before the works have commenced was found to have failed to identify massive amounts of asbestos that exist in concealed areas that the proposed work will disturb. (5 Marks)  (Total 25 Marks)

Question 3 – Asbestos Risk: Health & Safety, Financial and Time Perspectives (25 Marks)

Part (a) – Overview: Asbestos Risk in the DRI Hospital Expansion (10 Marks)

Asbestos remains the single largest occupational killer in the United Kingdom, responsible for approximately 5,000 deaths per year (HSE, 2023). Its management in construction projects involving existing buildings is governed primarily by the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 (CAR 2012) and by the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015). For the DRI hospital expansion project, the presence of asbestos in a building that must remain operational during construction creates a tri-dimensional risk – health and safety, financial, and time – that must be actively managed at every RIBA Plan of Work stage.

Health and Safety Risk

Asbestos fibres, when disturbed, release microscopic fibres that cause mesothelioma, asbestosis, and lung cancer. Under CAR 2012, anyone who may disturb asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) must have a current asbestos management plan. For a hospital environment, the risk is compounded because vulnerable patients and staff occupy the building during construction. Failure to control asbestos disturbance could result in mass exposure of non-construction personnel.

Financial Risk

Discovery of previously unidentified asbestos mid-construction triggers immediate work cessation, specialist surveying, notifiable asbestos removal contracts (requiring licensed contractors under CAR 2012), and disposal costs at licensed waste facilities. For a £6,000,000 project, unexpected asbestos abatement can add 5–15% to outturn costs. In addition, the employer faces compensation claims if occupants are exposed, regulatory fines, and possible injunctions. Bowen et al. (2022) note that asbestos-related project overruns on healthcare refurbishments frequently exceed 20% of original budgets.

Time Risk

Licensed asbestos removal is programme-critical. Notifiable asbestos work requires a minimum of 14 days’ advance notification to the HSE before work begins (CAR 2012, Regulation 9). Specialist enclosures must be erected, air monitoring conducted during removal, and clearance certificates obtained before normal trades can re-enter. Unexpected discovery during construction can halt trades for weeks, creating significant extension of time entitlements for the contractor.

Part (b) – RIBA Stage 7: In Use (5 Marks)

At Stage 7, the facilities management contractor holds an existing Asbestos Management Survey (Type 2 equivalent under CAR 2012). This survey identifies and labels known ACMs in the building and forms the basis of the Asbestos Management Plan (AMP). The FM contractor’s duty at this stage is to:

• Maintain and keep the AMP current, recording all inspections, monitoring, and any changes in condition of identified ACMs.
• Ensure all ACMs are in a safe, undisturbed condition and that their location is communicated to all who may work on the building.
• Monitor ACMs regularly, particularly any that are friable (damaged or degraded), and commission remediation or encapsulation if condition deteriorates.
• Ensure the survey data is securely stored and accessible to any future designers or contractors.

The critical risk at Stage 7 is complacency – particularly when a minimal asbestos register has not been subjected to rigorous intrusive inspection. The FM contractor’s survey covers only accessible areas, meaning concealed ACMs in voids, behind panels, and within service ducts may not be recorded. CIOB (2022) emphasises that asbestos surveys for buildings undergoing refurbishment must be upgraded to a Refurbishment and Demolition (R&D) survey, which is intrusive.

Part (c) – RIBA Stage 2: Concept Design (5 Marks)

At Stage 2, when the workshop team receives the FM contractor’s asbestos survey, the following actions are essential:

• The design team (architect, engineer, QS) must review the asbestos register carefully and identify which ACMs will be disturbed by the proposed refurbishment and new-build works.
• The Principal Designer (required under CDM 2015) must incorporate asbestos information into the Pre-Construction Health and Safety Information Pack shared with tendering contractors.
• The QS should flag a specific asbestos risk allowance within the project budget (typically 10–15% contingency on refurbishment works) to account for the possibility that the existing survey under-represents the extent of ACMs.
• The architect should consider design decisions that avoid or minimise disturbance of known ACM locations (e.g., redesigning mechanical routes, avoiding penetration of asbestos-containing floor tiles or ceiling panels where possible).
• A Refurbishment and Demolition (R&D) Survey should be commissioned as part of Stage 2 investigations to provide an accurate basis for design and cost planning. Bowen et al. (2022) confirm this is best practice for any healthcare refurbishment involving buildings constructed before 2000.

At this stage, the risk register should record asbestos as a HIGH-priority risk, with the R&D survey as a mandatory pre-condition of design development.

Part (d) – RIBA Stage 5: Construction (5 Marks)

The discovery during construction that the existing survey massively underestimated the extent of concealed asbestos is the most critical risk scenario in healthcare refurbishment. The correct management response is:

• Immediate Work Cessation: All work in the affected areas must stop immediately upon discovery of suspected ACMs. The area must be cordoned off.
• Specialist Assessment: A licensed asbestos surveyor must inspect the discovery and take samples for laboratory analysis (typically within 24–48 hours).
• HSE Notification: If the asbestos is notifiable (licensable work), the contractor must submit an ASB5 notification to the HSE at least 14 days before licensed removal commences.
• Variation Instruction: The CA should issue a Variation/Instruction to the contractor covering the cost of licensed asbestos removal. This constitutes a Relevant Event under JCT ICD 2016 Clause 2.26.1 (a Variation) and a Relevant Matter under Clause 4.21.1, entitling the contractor to both an EOT and prolongation costs.
• Hospital Operational Impact: The infection control team and hospital management must be involved immediately to assess whether ward areas adjacent to the discovery zone must be evacuated. The health and safety of patients takes absolute precedence.
• Programme Revision: The master programme must be revised to accommodate the removal works, and the contractor should submit a revised completion date assessment based on the actual extent of works required.

Financially, the discovery of massive concealed asbestos in a £6,000,000 scheme could add £500,000–£900,000 to project costs (Bowen et al., 2022), representing 8–15% cost overrun – highlighting why an adequate R&D survey at Stage 2 is not an optional extra but a financial necessity.

References – Question 3

• Health and Safety Executive (HSE). (2023). Asbestos: The Analysts’ Guide for Sampling, Analysis and Clearance Procedures. HSE Books.
• Bowen, P., Cattell, K., & Edwards, P. J. (2022). Risk Management in Construction Projects. Routledge.
• Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB). (2022). Asbestos Management in Construction. CIOB.
• Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/632). UK Statutory Instruments.
• Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/51). UK Statutory Instruments.

Question 4

A master bar chart programme is regularly drawn up by parties who are involved in the construction process.

a. Draw a simple bar chart programme for a single house for a four-person family that builders often erect on the estates around Derby. (9 Marks)

b. Describe and discuss how you would use this programme to enhance your ability to manage the erection of this single house. (8 Marks)

Ensure your answer to this question discusses the following matters:

• Critical path.

• The essential activities involved in constructing the house.

• The estimated length of essential activities.

• The period to complete the whole of the works in.

• Features on the programme that are significant.

• Works that are not on the critical path.

• The advantages that can be gained from updating the programmes with actual progress on site. (7 Marks) (Total 25 Marks)

Sample Expert Answer for Question 4 – Bar Chart Programme for a Single House (25 Marks)

Part (a) – Bar Chart Programme (9 Marks)

The following bar chart programme illustrates a realistic construction sequence for a conventional two-storey detached family house in the Derby area, based on a traditional masonry construction with a trussed rafter roof. The programme is set over a 26-week period.

Legend: Dark blue bars = Critical Path activities | Green bars = Non-critical activities | Programme duration = 26 weeks

Part (b) – Using the Programme to Manage Construction (16 Marks)

Critical Path

The critical path (CP) runs through the activities with no float – any delay to a CP activity directly delays the overall project completion. For this house, the critical path is: Site Setup → Foundations → Ground Floor Slab → External Cavity Walls (GF & FF) → Roof Structure & Tiling → Windows & External Doors → Internal Plasterboard → Plastering → Decorating → Snagging & Handover. This 26-week sequence has zero float and any overrun must be recovered through acceleration elsewhere or will extend completion. CIOB (2022) confirms that identification of the critical path is the single most important step in construction programme management.

Essential Activities and Estimated Durations

The essential activities are grouped into three logical phases: (1) Substructure (Weeks 1–7): site setup, excavation, drainage, and ground floor; (2) Superstructure (Weeks 8–18): walls, floors, and roof; (3) Fit-out (Weeks 19–26): services, finishes, and handover. Each duration has been estimated based on standard gang sizes for a single house. For example, a two-person bricklaying team can lay approximately 500 bricks per day, so erecting cavity walls for a typical detached house requires approximately 3 weeks per storey.

Non-Critical Path Work

Activities with float (spare time) include: Ground Floor Drainage (1 week float), Internal Blockwork Partitions (2 weeks float), First Fix Plumbing and Electrical (1 week float), Rainwater Goods (1 week float), Second Fix works and Internal Joinery (1 week float), External Works (1 week float). These can absorb minor delays without affecting the overall completion date. Resources can be temporarily redeployed from non-critical activities to recover delays on critical activities.

Features Significant to Programme Management

Key programme milestones include: (a) Weathertight Shell – once the roof is tiled and windows installed (Week 21), internal works can proceed regardless of weather. This is a critical milestone for accelerating fit-out. (b) First Fix Completion – allows plasterboard and plastering to proceed. (c) Practical Completion – the final milestone and the date from which the defects liability period runs.

Updating with Actual Progress

The greatest management value of the bar chart programme is realised when it is regularly updated with actual progress. A weekly site review comparing planned versus actual progress enables the site manager to identify slippage early, before it cascades into programme delay. Actual progress is typically shown as a shaded portion of each activity bar. If a CP activity is behind programme, corrective action (additional resources, extended working hours) can be mobilised immediately. Mubarak (2021) confirms that a regularly updated programme is four times more effective at controlling project duration than an unupdated baseline. The programme also provides contemporaneous evidence for any future extension of time claims.

References – Question 4

• Mubarak, S. A. (2021). Construction Project Scheduling and Control (4th ed.). Wiley.
• Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB). (2022). Guide to Good Practice in the Management of Time in Complex Projects. Wiley-Blackwell.
• Lester, A. (2021). Project Management, Planning and Control (7th ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann.

Question 5

The architect at the early design stage of the project is able to incorporate into his/her design mitigation of potential risks that the building works may pose. These risks are often recorded on the risk register that requires action to be taken even at this early stage in the procurement process.

• • Speculate and describe specific examples of an architect’s design development work that seeks to mitigate, reduce and remove various risks. Comment on how the architect would revised the risk register to reflect what his designs have achieved. Ensure your answer discusses the following points. (9 Marks)
  • Describe and discuss how you would use this programme to enhance your ability to manage the erection of this single house:

(i). Designing out risk for the end users who are engaged in maintaining and running the new building when it is built. (4 Marks)

(ii). Design out risk for construction operatives who are engaged in building the works on a construction site. (4 Marks)

(iii). Designing to reduce CO₂ emissions in respect of harnessing power from natural wind and light. (4 Marks)

(iv). The importance of the risk register during the early design stages. (4 Marks) (Total 25 Marks)

Sample Expert Answer for Question 5 – Architect’s Design Development and Risk Mitigation (25 Marks)

Part (a) – Specifying Examples of Design-Led Risk Mitigation (9 Marks)

At early design stages, the architect has the greatest opportunity to mitigate risk at the lowest cost. The CDM 2015 Regulations impose a statutory duty on designers (including architects) to eliminate or reduce foreseeable risks through design decisions, recording their actions on the risk register. Emmitt and Gorse (2021) confirm that eliminating risk at design stage costs a fraction of managing it at construction stage. The risk register is a live document that should be updated at each design gateway to reflect residual risk after mitigation.

Specific examples of design-led risk mitigation across the four required dimensions are discussed below.

(i) Designing Out Risk for End Users/Facilities Management (4 Marks)

Once a building is handed over, the FM team and building occupants face long-term maintenance and operational risks. Thoughtful design can eliminate many of these:

• Roof Access: Instead of designing roof-mounted plant that requires operatives to climb ladders and walk across flat roofs without edge protection, the architect specifies ground-level plant rooms or plant installed at parapet level with permanent access walkways, guardrails, and fixed anchor points for harnesses. This eliminates fall risk for FM operatives performing routine maintenance. The risk register entry for ‘falls during routine roof maintenance’ moves from HIGH to LOW.
• Glazing Cleaning: Specifying self-cleaning glass (e.g., Pilkington Activ) or automated window-cleaning tracks on tall facades eliminates the need for suspended access equipment for routine cleaning, reducing fall risk and long-term cost.
• Legionella Risk: Designing all water systems without dead legs, with short hot water pipe runs and specified system temperatures, reduces Legionella risk to end users – a life-safety issue regulated under the ACOP L8 (2013).
• Slip Resistance: Specifying flooring materials with a minimum Pendulum Test Value (PTV) of 36 (wet) in entrance lobbies and bathrooms eliminates slip risk for building occupants, reducing injury risk and employer liability.

Each of these design decisions should be recorded on the risk register as ‘Eliminated’ or ‘Risk Reduced to Residual’ with the specific design measure noted.

(ii) Designing Out Risk for Construction Operatives (4 Marks)

CDM 2015 Regulation 9 requires designers to eliminate foreseeable construction-phase risks through design, as far as reasonably practicable. Specific examples include:

• Precast Concrete Units: Specifying precast concrete floor slabs (e.g., beam and block) instead of in-situ concrete eliminates the need to construct and strike formwork at height – a significant fall and manual handling risk. The risk register entry ‘falls from formwork’ is eliminated.
• Prefabricated Roof Trusses: Specifying factory-manufactured trussed rafters eliminates complex cut-roof carpentry at height, reducing operative exposure time to fall risk by approximately 60%.
• Avoiding Deep Confined Spaces: Redesigning drainage layouts to use shallower gradients or pumped systems reduces the depth of excavation required, eliminating confined space entry risk. Risk register entry ‘confined space asphyxiation’ eliminated.
• Permanent Access Platforms: Designing permanent maintenance platforms or cat ladders at the design stage reduces ad-hoc scaffolding erection during construction – a high-risk activity. Fixed scaffolding tie-in points can be built into the façade at design stage.

(iii) Designing to Reduce CO2: Harnessing Wind and Natural Light (4 Marks)

Environmental risk and sustainability risk are now formally embedded in the risk register for all major projects, reflecting the requirements of the UK Net Zero Carbon Buildings Standard (2023) and Part L of the Building Regulations 2021.

• Passive Solar Design: Orienting the main glazed façade to face south and specifying thermally massive walls (e.g., 300mm dense concrete blockwork) reduces reliance on active heating. High-performance triple-glazed windows with low U-values (≤0.8 W/m²K) maximise solar gain in winter and minimise heat loss – reducing operational carbon.
• Natural Ventilation and Daylighting: Designing atriums with operable roof lights enables stack-effect natural ventilation, eliminating the need for mechanical ventilation in common areas. This reduces embodied carbon from MEP equipment and operational energy consumption. Cross-ventilation achieved through careful window positioning further reduces cooling loads.
• Wind Energy: Installing building-integrated small wind turbines on roof parapets or specifying a small-scale wind turbine on site where wind speeds exceed 5m/s annually can generate on-site renewable energy, reducing grid carbon intensity.
• Green Roofs: A sedum green roof reduces stormwater runoff risk, provides insulation, and sequests carbon. Risk register entry ‘surface water flooding’ reduced from MEDIUM to LOW.

(iv) Importance of the Risk Register During Early Design Stages (4 Marks)

The risk register is not a bureaucratic compliance document – it is the most powerful management tool available to a design team for controlling project outcomes. Bowen et al. (2022) demonstrate that projects with a consistently maintained risk register from concept design onwards achieve a 30% lower incidence of cost overruns than projects that introduce risk management at construction stage.

During early design stages, the risk register performs several critical functions:

• Risk Identification: Forces the design team to systematically consider all foreseeable hazards, including health and safety, financial, programme, environmental, and reputational risks, before design decisions are locked in.
• Risk Prioritisation: Using a risk matrix (likelihood × consequence), the register distinguishes HIGH-priority risks requiring immediate design action from MEDIUM and LOW risks that can be managed by other means.
• Design Decision Audit Trail: Each design change made to eliminate or reduce a risk is recorded against the relevant risk register entry, providing a defensible record of the designer’s duty under CDM 2015.
• Cost Planning Input: The QS uses the risk register to quantify financial exposure and set contingency allowances against unresolved risks. A risk that remains HIGH at RIBA Stage 2 will attract a larger contingency than one that has been designed out.
• Communication Tool: The risk register is the primary communication tool between the design team, client, CDM Coordinator/Principal Designer, and later the Principal Contractor. It ensures all parties share a common understanding of residual risks before construction commences.

Emmitt and Gorse (2021) conclude that investment in risk register management at RIBA Stages 1–3 generates the highest return on risk management investment across the project lifecycle.

References – Question 5

• Emmitt, S., & Gorse, C. A. (2021). Barry’s Introduction to Construction of Buildings (4th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
• Bowen, P., Cattell, K., & Edwards, P. J. (2022). Risk Management in Construction Projects. Routledge.
• HM Government. (2021). Building Regulations 2010: Conservation of Fuel and Power (Approved Document L). MHCLG.
• UK Net Zero Carbon Buildings Standard. (2023). The UK Net Zero Carbon Buildings Standard Version 1. NZCBS Coalition. https://www.nzcbuildings.co.uk/
• Health and Safety Executive (HSE). (2021). Managing Health and Safety in Construction: Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (L153). HSE Books.

Question 6

There are many constructional professionals undertaking design, commercial, managerial tasks when a construction project is being considered or is being built. An appreciation of risk management is essential knowledge that these professionals should have.

Answer the following questions and discuss the significance of your answers to professionals who are trying to mitigate construction risk.

a. Is it a true statement that “it is more costly to build to a higher quality and it is more costly to build quickly”? (9 Marks)

b. Is it a true statement that “no building will be built if there is the smallest possibility that a sever accident may occur”? (8 Marks)

c. Is it true that designers “don’t need to consider the environmental impact that their building will have when they are built and they do not have to consider the sustainability of the project”? (8 Marks) (Total 25 Marks)

Sample Expert Answer for Question 6 – Risk Management: Key Propositions for Construction Professionals (25 Marks)

Part (a) – Is it More Costly to Build to a Higher Quality and to Build Quickly? (9 Marks)

Quality vs. Cost

The proposition that higher quality always costs more is an oversimplification that conflates upfront construction cost with whole-life cost. In terms of initial capital expenditure (CAPEX), higher-quality materials and workmanship typically carry a premium. For example, specifying Grade A faced brickwork with lime pointing costs approximately 20–30% more than a standard brick-and-mortar specification. Similarly, triple-glazed windows cost 40–60% more than double-glazed alternatives. From a tender perspective, this supports the proposition.

However, from a whole-life cost perspective, the proposition breaks down. Higher initial quality typically reduces ongoing maintenance expenditure, replacement cycles, and operational energy costs. Smith et al. (2021) demonstrate that a 10% increase in initial build quality generates a 25% reduction in whole-life costs over a 60-year building lifespan. The RICS New Rules of Measurement (NRM3) framework for whole-life costing formalises this trade-off and enables clients to make informed decisions.

Furthermore, poor quality construction generates defect costs that dwarf the initial saving. Rework costs in UK construction typically account for 5–12% of project value (CIOB, 2022). A contractor who cuts quality to win work will spend more on remediation than the saving achieved.

Conclusion: It is true that higher quality costs more in the short term (CAPEX), but FALSE as a proposition when whole-life costs are considered. Construction professionals must challenge clients to consider total cost of ownership, not just tender price.

Speed vs. Cost

The proposition that building quickly costs more is broadly true in practice. Accelerating construction typically requires:

• Additional or extended shifts, attracting overtime premiums (typically 25–50% premium on standard rates).
• Additional plant and equipment hired concurrently rather than sequentially.
• Parallel working of trades (e.g., running brickwork, structural steel, and first fix simultaneously) which increases supervision and coordination costs.
• Premium procurement of materials to achieve faster delivery.

However, there are scenarios in which building faster reduces cost: a contractor paying LADs at £10,000/week has a clear financial incentive to accelerate if the acceleration cost is less than the LAD liability avoided. Moreover, faster completion generates earlier revenue for the client, which has a significant net present value benefit. Smith et al. (2021) note that early handover of a commercial building that generates £500,000/month in rental income has a value that easily justifies acceleration costs of £50,000–£100,000.

Conclusion: Building quickly generally costs more in direct construction terms, but the net financial position depends on the value of early occupation and the cost of delay. Construction professionals must present both sides of this equation to clients.

Part (b) – Is it True That No Building Will Be Built if the Smallest Possibility of a Severe Accident Exists? (8 Marks)

This proposition is demonstrably FALSE, and if accepted literally, would mean that no construction project – or indeed no human activity – could ever proceed. The correct legal and professional framework is a system of proportionate risk management, not zero-risk absolutism.

The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA 1974) requires that risks be reduced ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ (SFAIRP). This is defined in law as a balancing exercise: if the risk reduction measure is grossly disproportionate to the cost and difficulty of implementing it, the measure need not be taken. The ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) principle, which underpins all UK health and safety regulation, explicitly acknowledges that absolute safety is unattainable and that the task of risk management is to reduce risk to a tolerable level. Hughes et al. (2022) confirm that the ALARP principle is the foundation of all construction risk management.

If zero risk were the threshold for proceeding with construction, the consequences would be absurd:

• No hospital could be built (there is always a small but non-zero risk of accident during construction of any building).
• No bridge, tunnel, or infrastructure could be constructed.
• The construction industry – which contributes approximately £117 billion annually to UK GDP (ONS, 2023) – would cease to function entirely.

In practice, the law and professional standards require:

• Risk Assessment: Identification and evaluation of all foreseeable risks before work commences (CDM 2015, Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999).
• Hierarchy of Controls: Elimination → Substitution → Engineering Controls → Administrative Controls → PPE, applied in order to reduce risk to ALARP.
• Residual Risk Acceptance: Once risk has been reduced to ALARP, the residual risk is accepted as tolerable and work proceeds.

The significance for construction professionals is that risk management is about informed decision-making and proportionate control, not the elimination of all risk. A site manager who refuses to allow any work to proceed unless all conceivable risk is eliminated is applying an impossible standard. The professional obligation is to manage risk responsibly – not to eliminate it entirely.

Conclusion: The proposition is categorically false. The correct framework is SFAIRP/ALARP – risk must be reduced to a level that is tolerable and proportionate, not to zero.

Part (c) – Do Designers Need to Consider Environmental Impact and Sustainability? (8 Marks)

This proposition is emphatically FALSE. Designers are subject to multiple layers of legal obligation, professional duty, and contractual requirement that mandate consideration of environmental impact and sustainability throughout the design process.

Statutory Obligations

The Building Regulations 2021 (particularly Approved Document L – Conservation of Fuel and Power) set mandatory energy performance standards for new buildings, including minimum U-values, air permeability requirements, and targets for CO2 emissions. All new residential buildings must demonstrate compliance with the Fabric Energy Efficiency Standard (FEES). Failure to comply is a criminal offence under the Building Act 1984. Additionally, the UK Environment Act 2021 mandates Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) for new developments, requiring designers to demonstrate a minimum 10% improvement in biodiversity value compared to the pre-development baseline.

Professional Duty

The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Code of Professional Conduct (2023) specifically requires RIBA members to ‘be mindful of the impact of their work on the environment and society.’ The RIBA 2030 Climate Challenge sets targets for operational energy use, embodied carbon, and potable water use across all RIBA-certified projects. Failure to engage with sustainability is a breach of professional duty and risks sanctions from the ARB (Architects Registration Board).

RIBA Plan of Work Integration

The RIBA Plan of Work 2020 integrates sustainability checkpoints at every stage. From Stage 0 (Strategic Definition), a Sustainability Strategy must be established. By Stage 2, an Energy Strategy and Carbon Assessment must be in place. The Green Star, BREEAM, or WELL certification requirements are typically embedded in client briefs, making sustainability not an optional extra but a contractual obligation.

Risk Register Implications

Environmental non-compliance carries significant financial risk. A development that fails to achieve its stated BREEAM rating may lose planning consent, void funding agreements, or attract penalty clauses from socially responsible investors (ESG investors). Emmitt and Gorse (2021) note that environmental risk is now rated by institutional developers as equal in significance to programme and cost risk.

From a commercial perspective, buildings designed with low operational energy costs and high sustainability credentials command a rental and sales premium of 5–20% over equivalent non-sustainable buildings in the current market (RICS, 2023). Designers who ignore sustainability not only breach legal and professional duties – they deliver a commercially inferior product.

Conclusion: The proposition is entirely false. Designers carry statutory, professional, and contractual obligations to consider environmental impact and sustainability from the earliest stages of design. Failure to do so exposes both the designer and client to legal, financial, and reputational risk.

References – Question 6

• Smith, J., Love, P. E. D., & Wyatt, R. (2021). Building Cost Planning for the Design Team (3rd ed.). Routledge.
• Hughes, P., Ferrett, E., & Ferrett, E. (2022). Introduction to Health and Safety in Construction (6th ed.). Routledge.
• Emmitt, S., & Gorse, C. A. (2021). Barry’s Introduction to Construction of Buildings (4th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
• Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). (2023). Sustainability and ESG in Commercial Property: Market Trends. RICS. https://www.rics.org/news-insights/rics-sustainability-report-2023
• Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA). (2022). RIBA Plan of Work 2020 (Revised). RIBA Publishing.
• Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2023). Construction Output in Great Britain. ONS.
• UK Government. (2021). Environment Act 2021. HMSO. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/30/contents
• HM Government. (2021). Building Regulations 2010: Conservation of Fuel and Power (Approved Document L). MHCLG.