HT-2023-000006 - [2024] EWHC 1510 (TCC)

The present Programme for the sub-contract works is as per J&B Hopkins construction programme Moulsecoomb draft M&E programme and is subject to revision as the contract proceeds – key dates and short term look aheads will be issued throughout the duration of the works.

….

Critical dates to be achieved: …. As per JBH M&E Construction Programme

….

The Sub-Sub-Contractor will attend site, execute and resource the works in accordance with J&B Hopkins key dates requirements, including for all necessary visits, whilst complying with all reasonable requests and directives issued by J&B Hopkins.

NB: Works will only be considered for payment as daywork on the basis of an order for daywork issued by our Site Manager and will only be evaluated against daywork sheets submitted daily in detail and authorised by our Site Manager and Project Manager. However, such signature will not necessarily entitle the Sub-Sub-Contractor to payment as daywork. Daywork hours shall be checked against the daily allocation sheets signed by the Sub-Sub-Contractor’s labour.

A& V was selected as the plumbing subcontractor by the operations team through an interview and bidding process. A&V’s works included carrying out the mechanical installation works as part of the M&E package on towers 1, 2 & 3 and Podiums 1 and 2 at the Project on the Moulsecoomb University Campus, Lewes Road, Brighton. This included the installation of above ground drainage systems. The works to Podium Levels 1 and 2 consisted of a gym, students union and communal areas. On Podium level 2 there were bedrooms and communal kitchens. Works to Towers 1, 2 and 3 including distribution of domestic hot (“DHWS”) and cold water systems (“DCWS”) water systems (“DHWS”) and low temperature hot water systems (“LTHWS”) all of which derived from the underground district systems which fed these services through risers to each floor plate. Each floor plate generally consisted of approximately 12 Bedrooms and two communal kitchens. A&V’s works included quality assurance (“QA”), testing, and handover.

A&V’s work flow and installation on the Moulescoomb University project was broadly based on the following installation sequences:

General Sequence of works

The main contractor, Bouygues ("BYUK") built walls and single side boarded walls in advance of A&V's works to allow pipes to be installed within the fabric of the walls before being double side boarded and fully enclosed. In the case of plumbing installation works within the service risers, A&V's 1st fix works required the walls to be boarded and fire tape sealed to allow the pipe brackets and surface pipework including the HDPE drainage soil stack installation to commence.

The installation of HDPE drainage started on the ground floor before progressing up the risers which were supplied prefabricated to A&V from JBH. This sequence allowed the bathroom pods and DDA (disabled access) bathrooms wastewater to be connected to a network of drains. Each HDPE drainage system had what we call a stack number. Once installed, this network of pipework was tested to ensure the system was sealed correctly when each stack was complete. This is known as soil stack testing which was an activity for A&V to complete.

Sequence for floor plates (Typical sequence within a floor plate)

Floor plates consisted of bedrooms and two communal kitchens which were constructed by a drylining company and then handed over to JBH for M&E 1st Fix distribution pipework.

A&V had to connect plumbing and soil wastes to bathroom pods associated with each student bedroom. Bathroom pods were pre-constructed fibreglass units which were free issued and positioned completed in bathrooms. A&V had to make external connections to pre-installed pipework connections on these pods for hot and cold water and waste connections for the WC, shower and sink.

There were a small number of DDA bathrooms which had services and sanitaryware connected to in a traditional way with 1st fix pipework, soil pipe and wastes installed, followed by wall closures and QA checks/handovers, The drylining subcontractor would follow on to board and close walls. Once closed, subsequent trades included the decorators, ceramic wall tilers, flooring installation and the installation of vanity units. Once these works had been completed, A&V's 2nd fix works could be carried out which included the fixing of sanitaryware including basins WC's and shower rails.

Handovers for 1st and 2nd fix works were generally managed via meeting minutes issued by BYUK. If areas handed over to JBH were not in a satisfactory condition, we recorded this in the 1-Auditor software and identified why the M&E works were not able to proceed. This would normally result in BYUK rectifying the issue or, as we call it, removing a "blocker" to enable works to commence. An example would be materials of others left in the workspace or an incomplete wall area stopping A&V from making a meaningful start. This system was also used to hand back areas when A&V had completed its works. This process was managed by our freelance QA Manager Wayne Reed and BYUK.

M&E services were completed on floorplates. A&V's 1st fix services works included main distribution of DHWS and LTHW pipework in corridors & risers then tested over a 10-day period which included a two-day transition period for QA checks and removing material ready for hand-over to the next trade. After A&V had installed the pipework services on a floor plate, the pipework was pressure tested in sections prior lagger (thermal insulation) being applied to the pipework.

Floorplates were then handed back to BYUK for dryliners, decorators, the flooring contractor and ceramic tiler to complete their works before handing back to JBH and A&V for M&E 2nd fix works.

A&V's 2nd fix works consisted of the installation of radiators and final connections to kitchen sinks, testing and filling of services. Once completed there was a further transition period for QA checks and clearing the floorplate for handover back to BYUK.

A&V's Final Fix, also referred to as 3rd Fix, included TRV Heads. These are the thermostatic mixing valves which control the heat output on the radiators.

Commissioning

Once the systems were completed, a separate commissioning company was responsible for setting up the heating systems, LTHW and domestic systems. Additional specialists were engaged to flush the systems adding inhibitors to the LTHW heating system and chlorinating the domestic water systems.

The works at Moulescoomb began in late January 2020, with J&B Hopkins being so happy with the performance, quality and the work my business A&V have done in the first few months at Mouslecoomb, again, so happy, that J&B Hopkins have sent eight more projects for A&V to tender (while A&V was working on Mouslecoomb) from which I secured one of the eight projects and signed another Sub-Contract with J&B Hopkins for the Addington Valley Academy Project.

It is admitted that Bouygues closed the site for approximately 8 weeks from 4pm on 27 March 2020 as a result of Covid-19.

The Claimant had already halted its Works and left the site on 24 March 2020, before the closure of the site. On 24 March 2020, Mr Paduraru sent an email stating that the Claimant had “all decided to stay at home for at least 2 weeks”.

Clause 11.1 grants the Defendant a right to suspend performance of the Sub-Contract Works. There is no obligation on the Defendant to do so and it cannot be in breach for failing to exercise this right.

In any event, it is denied that any such breach could have caused the Claimant any loss. Under clause 11.1, if the Defendant exercises its right to suspend, the Claimant is not entitled to any adjustment to the Sub-Contract Sum or additional payment.

The initial effects of Covid-19 on the site meant that the works had to be managed differently by BYUK. BYUK reduced its main contractor site labour levels, which led to corresponding changes to staffing and adjustments to programmes. However, with the work faces available, A&V and our other subcontractors were able to maintain their labour levels when we returned after the site lockdown while still achieving the required safety protocols that the government had in place at the time. Site conditions changed with the implementation of one-way systems. For example, some staircases changed to either up or down only. Workfaces were made available to one trade at a time to reduce the chance of spreading the virus. Toilet facilities were reduced on site as well, with additional facilities added by BYUK to mitigate the risks associated with cross-contamination via other trades. Works had to be planned more carefully as a result of Covid-19 restrictions but, once these were bedded in, we generally found that the single trade access requirements meant that the works progressed more productively than they would have done if several trades were working on workfaces at the same time.

Good morning Julian,

Julian with all my respect you can not keep asking us to jump on something straight away within the last moment, this is a Directed Acceleration Work!

From now on I will request a prior to commencing work notice from you, same as we do with 2 weeks look ahead program.

In one side we are constantly delayed on floors plates day by day by BYUK ([where] I will come back shortly with a delay notice for that)

On the other side you accelerate the program on upper floors or any others area of work without giving us a reasonable time notice and this is a bit frustrating.

Delaying and accelerating the work in a same time it’s not good for us, but I will discuss all this matters and more with Adam on our minutes meeting.

The RWP in T3 was asked by myself to Ian and yourself to be complete 2 weeks ago, as you request I will inform you of everything we require and when it needs to be complete by email. What is required and when is agreed at the weekly 2 week look ahead you would also be copied in with these.

HepBurns will still be on the floor as the floor hasn’t been handed over to us but you can make a start, although saying that you already did last week.

Just to let you know, based on your 2 weeks look ahead we can not do the following:

T1 L2 - 2nd fix can not be complete because of Hepburn, they haven't completed the repairs behind the radiators, disable toilet it's not ready for 2nd fix too.

T1 L3 - not ready for 2nd fix (far behind).

T2 L3 - not ready for 1st fix (far behind).

I'm [recording] all this days since we start in Moulsecoomb, until now we are almost 2 months delayed on floor plate 1st fix and 2nd fix day by day!

The system itself appears to have been created to deal with the problems caused by BYUK’s failure to provide working areas in accordance with pre-Covid expectations;

It was inherent in the system that A & V would only know on the Friday before a two week period what working areas would be made available to them;

The evidence of Mr Paduraru, supported by the contemporaneous documents to which I have referred, was that areas said to be available were not always available, and even where available were often obstructed by other workforces;

Often A & V would go into an area to carry out work ahead, for example, of the dry lining work, but would then be required to revisit areas once the dry lining work had been completed.

A&V’s labour levels were up and down throughout his involvement on the Project, and they regularly left site early which caused problems with progress. It seemed to me that A&V’s labour was impacted by turnover of individuals, with a core of perhaps 3 skilled plumbers. Other A&V operatives completed bracketing out and more of the lower skilled jobs such as cutting stud for clips, fixing radiators, copper to iron converters into valves. I had initially thought that one of A&V's operatives who went by the name of "lan" was the owner of A&V as he appeared to be managing A&V's labour on site. However, I later learned that Alex Paduraru was A&V's owner. Alex was not personally working on the Project and I only saw him on site a few times although, towards the end of A&V's involvement on the Project, Alex did attend more frequently.

During the course of the works, I recall a recurring issue with A&V's installation of pan floats (soil pipes running from the back of the toilet plan to main vertical soil stack) which had not been clipped as required. This resulted in waste pipes running up hill. When I raised this with A&V, A&V instructed one of its operatives (who went by the name of Martinez) to clip the pan floats. This was a basic task that should not have been missed by A&V and resulted in re-work. Despite some improvements being made by A&V initially, the quality and attention to detail in A&V's works dropped off and I ended up clipping a number of floats on different floor plates myself together with other JBH operatives.

On several occasions during the period of A&V's works, concerns were raised by Adam Hill (JBH Operations Manager), Andrew Macey (Senior Mechanical Project Manager) and BYUK that A&V were starting to fall behind programme. In other words A&V was failing to complete the works available on floorplates within the required timeframes. Adam Hill, Andrew Macey and Seth Brown (JBH Quantity Surveyor) wrote letters and emails to A&V regarding the lack of site progress. These issues were mainly due to A&V's productivity levels caused by the fact that A&V did not work to the site hours which were 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday. Instead, from what I witnessed when I was on site, A&V's operatives seemed to work from around 8.00am to 3.00 - 3.30pm (at the latest). I discussed this with our construction team who I know asked A&V to increase their site working hours.

I recall talking to one of A&V's operatives who explained they were leaving at those times due to the travel back to Essex. When I asked the same question to local agency lads on site employed by A&V, they said that that was the time they were told to work to by A&V despite them being local.

Another recurring issue with A&V was its use of materials. I remember raising a concern as to why A&V were using large numbers of copper crimped pipe fittings unnecessarily in pod service risers for offsets and changes in pipe direction. Installing these fittings was time consuming and expensive, and also added to the risk of leaks due to excessive jointing. The other subcontract mechanical installation team on Towers 4 & 5 (Watertight) were installing the pod risers using a pipe bender rather than large amounts of crimped fittings. Watertight's method was the correct/preferable way to install as this reduced the number of joints and potential weak points in the system. The team did challenge A&V on this, but A&V didn't choose to change their installation methods. I was told this was to do with the skill base of their operatives.

l am aware from conversations with Adam Hill from December 2020 through to March 2021 that Adam raised concerns with A&V regarding A&V falling behind programme due to several poor workmanship issues and ongoing poor productivity levels. In January 2021 a [decision] was made by Adam Hill to add an additional mechanical supervisor, lan Davidson, to the site team specifically to support, manage, and supervise A&V's works. This was because A&V were absorbing a lot of the other supervisor's time. lan Davidson was brought to site in February 2021 to fulfil this role.

Concerns regarding A&V's performance came to a head in around March 2021. I can clearly remember Adam Hill raising concerns to me in early March 2021 that A&V had reduced their labour levels on site. Adam made me aware that he had been speaking to A&V on site and by phone and email regarding its labour levels. JBH subsequently escalated matters with more formal correspondence issued by JBH's Quantity Surveyor, Seth Brown.

JBH by not accepting the Towers and Podiums Floor Plates (the Areas of Work) from Bouygues UK, and timely release in accordance with the Contract Programme [Trial Bundle 1, page 308 - 345] has caused major delays for A&V.

In fact, during A&V's time on site, JBH never accepted the Podiums levels from Bouygues UK and formally rejected them, on 22 February 2021 [Trial Bundle 3, page 1176 - 1180].

However, despite the fact that the Podiums levels were never accepted by JBH, A&V was asked by JBH to carry out the plumbing installation works in those areas [Trial Bundle 4, pages 1541; 1542; 1543; 1544; 1545; 1546; 1547; 1548; 1549; 1550; 1551; 1554; 1555; 1556; 1557; 1558; 1559; 1560; 1561; 1562; 1563]

Consequently, on the 12^th of March 2021 (A&V's date for completion of the Sub-Contract) [Trial Bundle 1, page 333] small elements of work remained incomplete on Podium 1- Level 1 (East); Podium 2 – Level 1 (East and West) only, as demonstrated by JBH in [Trial Bundle 5, page 2208 - 2010].

These details are confirmed in the JBH witness statement of Mr Ian Davidson dated 29 February 2024 paragraph 17 [Trial Bundle 1, page 180] and were further confirmed by Mr Davidson, at the Trial, in his oral witness statement under oath.

After a period of three years and two months, the truth finally came out, and it has been conclusively confirmed by JBH now, that A&V's position, consistently maintained as correct and true, is affirmed by the fact that as of 22 March 2021, Tower 1; Tower 2; Tower 3 and Podium 1 - Level 1 (West); Podium 1 - Level 0 (East and West); Podium 2 Level 0 (East and West) were indeed fully completed, this being confirmed by Mr Davidson, at the Trial, in his oral witness statement under oath.

During A&V's time on site, A&V repeatedly informed JBH of the delays they were experiencing, which were not due to their own fault, as documented in the emails listed in [Trial Bundle 4, page 1524; 1529; 1532; 1673; 1674; 1675; 1676; 1799; 1801; 1804]. A&V's emails have never been disputed by JBH (up until March 2021) but agreed / acknowledged that the dates had been re sequenced, as detailed in [Trial Bundle 4, page 1532]

Mr Dominic Harman, a Director of JBH, further confirmed in his oral witness statement under oath that the contract programme was re sequenced due to the eight-weeks Covid shut down and further because the areas of work were not handed over to JBH on time as per the contract programme nor accepted by JBH as areas ready for the Mechanical 1st fix and 2nd fix plumbing installation works to commence in line with the Contract Programme. These programmes were made and issued by BYUK / JBH and not A&V.

Consequently, in fact the Contract was completed only on 4/5 October 2021 [Trial Bundle 4, page 1565, 1566] which is six months and twenty-three days beyond A&V’s completion date, also confirmed by Mr Harman in his oral statement.

Please see attached payment notice covering works completed to period end January 2021. You will notice some comments where we disagree with the claim made.

Are you available this Thursday morning (at Brighton office) to discuss and carry out an account review to try and get this realigned?

Hi Adam / Seth

Thanks for your time today.

Just to let you know I did think about increasing labourer on site.

Basically I need at least 6 to 8 plumbers for couple of weeks. Which will [add] up around to 15 plumbers.

To supply those numbers is not a problem for me, I will get more plumbers in on Monday the 1st of March. But what I will need extra is another supervisor, I must have 2 supervisors between them.

My prelims allowance was for 1 supervisor only and because now we have these unexpected acceleration programme I hope I can get your support by paying the 2nd supervisor for these acceleration period of time on day work sheet basis.

Please let me know if you agree with what I have mention above.

In regard with the delay thing and value of it, I will come back to you by end of play tomorrow.

Have you got anymore costs that we need to review? I am very keen to get this resolved today or tomorrow.

We have instructed Martyn to install the heating pipework above the ceiling in P2 as we are concerned that this would add additional stress to finances.

Can you advise ASAP so we can make a final decision.

Hi Adam,

We working at this as I want to give you more information as possible.

You will receive the 2 weeks look ahead back dates since we start with the proposal dates,and all the floor plates acceptance and rejections, then you can see exactly how big is the gap ( time) that we been pushed back (which I am sure you JBH have all this [information] already).

But just to give you an idea of the cost for direct loss and expense incurred, by the time you get the info sent across to you tonight or early in the morning tomorrow is around 45k.

This is because the progress of our work has been affected by a matter for which your client is responsible for all the delays that BYUK created as you all are aware, by failing to give us the possession of the floors plate and others site areas on the proposal date agreed in the program or in the 2 weeks look ahead.

We have been delayed week by week since we start our 1st fix on site.

With the instruction work I never refuse to do it. I don’t know what made you think there is a financial stress for that.

I also want to come to a final decision ASAP for this project.

To review the labour and workfaces. Introduce the new JBH supervisor we have bought to

Moulsecoomb to help organise works etc.

We have to walk away from this meeting with a clear plan on how to complete the job.

Further to our meeting yesterday, I looked briefly at A&V hours on site. Its looks like your labour is on site for 6 hours a day. In this 6 hours you were attending morning briefs, and site movement.

This would mean your time at the workface was limited to roughly 5 hours per day. Please can you review this and increase your hours on site. On average all your labour spends about 90 to 120min less on site (per person per day) then all the other subbies/contractors.

Hi Adam,

Our working hours are 8:am to 15.30 which are 8.5h a day. Not 6h

But I will increase the hours work from now on.

Thank you

Hi Alex,

earlier in the week, when we sat down with Adam, I spoke about productivity. just noting you guys have left site today 2pm.

I asked if you would look at your team site hrs. where are you with that?

concern that you are not getting the full production from your team, and losing valuable to complete the works.

can you confirm the site working hrs for AV. if you need help monitoring your guys hrs. let me know.

The below is concerning to hear. We need to see this change now.

I am also concerned that you still haven’t got the correct level of labour on site. We spoke on Friday about Watertight helping where they could. At the moment they are busy completing rad pipework in the P2 L00 SU, and haven’t got spare resources. I believe Martyn is trying to get additional labour from tomorrow so he can achieve the completion dates in P2 L00. These are works that A&V should be doing. Martyn (Watertight) will be directed by JBH to work in areas that are available, and A&V are behind on programme. These areas will have a QA inspection before any works commence. Martyn isn’t there to subsidise your labour, he is there to make sure areas are completed in line with the 2 weekly look ahead (as sent by Julian).

As discussed JBH have bought in additional supervision to help A&V manage their works.

It is starting to feel like you are expecting JBH to pick up works you don’t want to do, this can’t be the case. We need A&V completed, and to do this we expect A&V to increase working hours (in line with the contract), productivity and labour.

I am still concerned labour levels are not covering all the workfaces.

I have now looked at your mens Biosite times, and summarise as follows

I have taken a snapshot for 3 or your men. over the recent 20 working days. the daily average time on

site is

man 1 – 07:04 hrs less 00:30 hrs lunch = 06:34 Productive hrs.

man 2 – 06:47 hrs less 00:30 hrs lunch = 06:17 Productive hrs.

man 3 - 07:22 hrs less 00:30 hrs lunch = 06:52 Productive hrs.

you are losing well in excess of 1 hrs production time per man every day

3men on site - 04:17 hrs per day lost.

6men on site - 08:34 hrs per day lost.

9men on site – 12:51 hrs per day lost.

this means your men are only 79% productive, when using 8 hrs work for the standard day. 21% of your

cost is therefore non recoverable.

I am happy to run through this with you.

Following to our conversation we had in the meeting last week I have attached the schedule with all the floor plates acceptances dates for T1 T2 T3 and Podiums.

Also as a [proof] that the floor plates start dates in this schedule are real once I have attached the Handover Inspection Report, where now you can see the gap between them.

This doesn’t really tell JBH anything regarding cost and delay. JBH can’t see that this contributes to a £30,000.00 variation. I understand that you are struggling and we want to help A&V complete this project but we also need to be very cautious of your current situation. JBH are very concerned that A&V will not complete the project due to cashflow.

I understand you were down on labour today again, this means that JBH we not complete on time in areas as per the 2 weekly overhead.

We need you to decide what A&V want to do to complete this project.

You have a few options as far as we can see.

Justify your claim for your variation. To formulate a plan and advise JBH on how you are going to complete the project with the remaining monies.

Complete the towers and fill the systems and test. JBH will take the remaining work within the Podiums 1 & 2 (Level 1 and 2) from A&V.

Walk away from the project and have JBH value your works. JBH to take over your works and take to completion.

Yesterday 8no Labour and Today 7no as it stands it seems you don’t have sufficient Labour to get areas which were released to us Monday 08/03 complete by 12/03. Can you resource sufficient labour to ensure all work accepted is complete by Friday 12/03.

Due to the issues and lack of labour on site JBH will start to subsidise you’re labour so key dates are not missed.

JBH will be controlling this labour and directing them to complete certain areas. Julian and Andy will keep you abreast of the situation on site, records will follow on email soon after.

The next 6 weeks are vital to the handover of the project.

As discussed last night please can you review your options. Also you need to increase productivity on site. I’m being total that you have local labour on site now and they are being told by A&V to finish up at 3pm.

There is no issue with the no. of labourers on site, I have already increasing from 6 plumbers to 10 in the last two weeks.

The problem is with the programme that has been accelerated not with us!

In regard with your options and all others enquires and problems, JBH will receive by this Friday my final decision in written about [Moulsecombe].

I have tried hard in the last weeks to come to an agreement about delays and acceleration programme with you guys ...

I gave you the cost for delays, I gave you the evidences for that too (where for you are not enough) I did ask for a solution of what we gonna do with this acceleration programme (no solutions, no plans) just waiting for me to increase labourer without any kind of deal.

I have put [Moulsecoombe] project top of my priority since we start, I have always hit the dates never let JBH down on site. I lost the interest in my other projects with my other clients for [Moulsecombe], but now at the end I can see JBH let A&V down, on top of that start accounting the time keeping on site and trying to find everything just to hit back on A&V. Disappointing.

Following recent conversations, emails (as attached) and the meeting held at our Brighton office on the 25^th February 2021 we hereby issue the attached notice highlighting the subsidisation of A&V Building Solution Ltd. on site labour.

By return we request that you notify us of your proposed forthcoming labour levels. Please note, the attached does not alleviate A&V Building Solution ltd. of any contractual obligations, A&V Building Solution ltd. are to continue to work towards the close out of their works.

Trust you will find this self-explanatory however, should you have any questions please do let us know.

Further to recent correspondence between yourself and Mr Adam Hill and Mr Andrew Macey (email “Schedule with floor plates delays” From A. Hill @ 17:39 on Tuesday the 9^th March 2021), J&B Hopkins ltd. have become increasingly concerned about A&V Building Solution ltd.’s on-site labour levels. This is now negatively effecting programme and subsequently our ability to deliver our contractual obligations to our client.

Due to this, J&B Hopkins Ltd. are left with no alternative but to supplement A&V Building Solution ltd. on-site labour with that of our own. We request that A&V Building Solution ltd. continue to work to deliver their contracted works and obligations to the best of their endeavours and advise by return as to how A&V Building Solution ltd. propose to complete such.

Please note; In accordance with clause 7.4 of the Sub-Contract all costs associated with the supplementation of on-site labour and its associated management costs will be contra charged to A&V Building Solution ltd. and as such will therefore contribute to the forming of the Sub-Contract final account.

Thank you for your response and letter as this comes as a surprise to me.

First of all can you identify the areas where we are delaying the project?

I will need specific areas and proof of QA acceptance as well JBH notification for me to start works in those areas so then I can accept this areas and place men to work on those areas that you are saying we start delaying you in.

Currently I have 9 men on site today in all the areas that work is available to me.

I also want to bring into your attention that as of tomorrow 12/03/21 indicates that:

I will issue to you again a proper breakdown showing and identifying exactly the delays my team have experienced by no fault of my own but the Main Contractor where floor plates and Podiums were not ready in time as we agreed on the programme and 2 weeks look ahead together with an invoice.

I just want to make it clear that there has never been a delay from A&V on site and we have … are constantly keeping up with our works.

I am happy to walk on site with you so that you can show me exactly where we are delaying you!?

Also last week Adam Hill phoned me and told me that he know that A&V never delay the project and he also said as of good gesture that he will send out some men on the project at no cost or contra charge for A&V to help us out which I appreciated and agreed to.

Why now all of the sudden 180° change?

I will be onsite early Monday morning.

as you and I discussed, JBH need to deliver a project in line with programme/lookahead and efficiently as possible. this means working as we have throughout the project with advance works and early access to areas that can be progressed.

SVP and RWP form essential works that help a) weather the building, b) sequence with the other trades for building walls, thus releasing the work areas to JBH 1st Fix etc. we must continue to progress SVP and RWP.

reducing labour, and by not maximising the site hours, at this stage where all works in Towers and Podiums must be advancing on the dates provided and in the sequence of working, this does not provide sufficient resource to cover all of the available work.

our QA system records if the workface is available to us, in areas such as podiums we are working to dates, and JBH /AV are progressing/advancing works/sequencing with trades, the absence of a QA acceptance in these areas does not constitute rejection nor does it exclude JBH/AV to advance the work in line with the dates, these areas are well published on mark up drawings and all JBH and subcontractor have been briefed with progressing these areas specifically to get heating and radiators fitted during first fix, to enable the start of our flushing/commissioning.

the QA closing of areas remains due on the last day of each agreed duration.

I understand and have been discussing with you the issues AV have and how that needs to be presented to us.

please issue the information as a matter of priority.

if you can get me the Names over the weekend I can review the Biosite actions needed.

As you are aware our contract period for carrying out and completion of the Sub-Contract Works on site was for 52 weeks. The Key Date for Completion and handover of all works on or before 12th March 2021 and that period has now expired and the works are still incomplete.

The reasons for the delays have previously been detailed to you but in brief terms the areas your programme detailed to us as being available were in fact incomplete. A schedule previously sent to you detailed the locations and time periods of delay marked in red. We attach a further schedule particularising the critical delays and these total 74 days.

This period of delay resulted in return visits to complete the works to areas unavailable and as such the works were not able to be undertaken in an economical fashion. This has resulted in us incurring additional costs to which we seek to recover. The attached further schedule details the labour levels in more detail and the corresponding delays for your consideration.

The effect of the above is that the return visits and uneconomical working from that which Hopkins programmed to be available but was in fact not available once on site has incurred us in additional costs. In respect to Hopkins delays we consider that we have only been 65% efficient with our operative installation works. As such £268k of the £413k claimed to date for our works have been installed in the manner that we were anticipating. Unfortunately, the remaining 35% (£144k) has not been SO productive and has resulted in a 33% additional time period to complete those works. On this basis in real terms this is a £45K cost that we have incurred to which we would request is paid for by Hopkins as loss and expense. This cost we have included in our current valuation application but would be grateful of your confirmation and/or instruction that this issue of increased costs for delays and the sum claimed will be paid.

In regard to the remaining works which is predominately to Podiums 1 and 2 again these works should already be complete and are beyond our 52 week programme as a result of Hopkins delays. As we understand you are proposing proceeding with these over the next 5 months. We have discussed the additional costs in brief terms but am able to advise this in more detail below.

The Podium works similar to the Towers have not been made available as Hopkins's programme due to delays beyond our control and thus we have been working uneconomically with return visits. The value remaining for the works to the podiums is circa £34k from an original sum of circa 120k but this as we understand is planned to be installed over a further 5-month period. The original works were for a 10-week period, so it is a little unclear as to why we are expected to continuing installing our works over a longer period. The remaining balance of £34k of labour from our contract to complete this section of the works is approximately 136-man days so effectively 6 men for 4 weeks. Once the 4 weeks has elapsed if the works are incomplete this will require additional instructions for the additional labour.

As requested in terms of providing guidance on the additional costs that we would require instruction to continue for the full 5 month (20 weeks) period on the basis of on average 6 men for the remaining 15 weeks this would equate to a an additional sum of circa £113k. Similarly, if there were 12 men for half the period this would still equate to £113k. The remaining £34k from the original contract sum would also require to be paid. These figures are on the basis that reasonable [and] economical works can take place and there are no further delays.

We look forward to your further instructions and agreement to costs prior to proceeding further.

In addition to the above the works have overrun the 52-week and key date period and A&V request an extension of time to cover the overrun periods currently advised by Hopkins as being 5 months. In additional for the 5-month period we will require additional preliminaries costs of £25k and we look forward to your further instructions and agreement to costs prior to proceeding further.

Mr Brown letter 10th March 2021

We are in receipt of Mr Brown letter and would reject the contents of the letter and any assertion that A&V have any responsibility for the delays or additional labour and/or costs that you refer to. As detailed within this and previous correspondence you are aware of the project overrun which is Hopkins responsibility. In addition, Hopkins has requested a variation to the works (extending the contract period, acceleration etc) and sought A&V costs for the variation prior to instructing and that process continues as described above and look forward to your confirmation in accordance with Clause 8.5 and/or 8.6.

Furthermore clause 7.4 provides for a 7 day period of notice being given, and if resultant actions are not undertaken; it shall be J & B Hopkins prerogative to supplement the on-site labour requirements for the Sub-Contractor recovering all resultant costs as a deduction from the Sub-Contractor account. The notice you refer is dated the 10^th March 2021 and therefore any decisions or actions taken by Hopkins to supplement labour would at the earliest not be applicable until the 17th March 2021. As such any supplementary labour provided thus far and up until the 17^th March 2021 is not the responsibility of A&V [and] any deductions would be deemed unlawful.

Notwithstanding the above and appreciating you are attempting to catch up with the delays you may also wish to consider our alternative proposals as follows:

In the alternative should you wish to provide your own alternative proposals please provide these for our consideration by return.

I trust that the above meets with your approval and look forward to your response/instructions accordingly so that this matter can be progressed to an amicable conclusion.

Further our recent communication, please find the [attached] A&V Building Solution Notice with our alternative agreement proposal as Seth requested on 11th March 2021 together with schedule particularising the critical delays.

Please note that A&V Building Solution will be working on site for the next 7 days of the dated letter.

By return we request that you notify us with your response/instruction accordingly

Further to recent correspondence dated 10th of March 2021 we hereby note that A&V Building Solution ltd. [have] failed to offer the required on-site resource to maintain programme and close out available workfaces.

As such, as of the 17th of March J&B Hopkins Ltd. have supplemented A&V Building Solution ltd. workforce with that of our own. J&B Hopkins Ltd. will continue to monitor and log this over the coming weeks and will advise in due course as to cost associated with such. We request that A&V Building Solution ltd. offer the required resource to close out these workfaces to avoid any further subsidisation.

Please note; In accordance with clause 7.4 of the Sub-Contract all costs associated with the supplementation of on-site labour and its associated management costs will be contra charged to A&V Building Solution ltd. and as such will therefore contribute to the forming of the Sub-Contract final account.

Further to the letter issued on the 17th of March 2021 J&B Hopkins Ltd. hereby offer formal response to A&V Building Solution Ltd.

With reference to the contract period, whilst we note the contract period has now elapsed, prior to your letter dated 15th March 2021 J&B Hopkins Ltd. had not received any request for an extension of time, nor have we had any build up to the costs you have mentioned within the letter. Nothing submitted to date falls in line with clause 8.4 of the subcontract and therefore limits our ability to understand and value your claim.

Whilst the duration has indeed changed the scope and works themselves as tendered by A&V Building Solution Ltd. have not. We therefore see no reason as to why A&V Building Solution Ltd. have any entitlement to additional monies for such. We would remind yourselves that A&V Solutions Ltd. [have] an obligation to manage productivity of staff and adjust numbers to suit programme.

The records you have submitted neglect to show the other work faces your operatives were working on at the time, at no stage have A&V Building Solution Ltd. been placed in a situation [where] there were no workfaces available to progress.

Throughout the duration of the project J&B Hopkins Ltd. have worked very closely with all our subcontract supply chain including A&V Building Solution Ltd. to ensure that sufficient workfaces are available, whilst this is not always within our control, J&B Hopkins Ltd. have gone to great lengths to provide A&V Building Solutions ltd. with visibility of workface availability & works that will be coming available, in turn putting additional pressure on our own preliminary resource. We would also like to remind you that the 2 week look ahead is a fluid programme initiated by the client and referenced within the head contract that A&V Building Solution Ltd. are deemed to be fully aware of at time of tender and subsequent contract agreement.

In regard to the proposed claim for additional cost associated with preliminary resource, J&B Hopkins Ltd. the aforementioned letter does not meet the level of information required of the sub-contract agreement that has prohibited a meaningful review. Once we have received such we will review, assess, and respond accordingly.

With reference to J&B Hopkins Ltd. letter dated 10th March 2021 in relation to the subsidisation of A&V Building Solution Ltd. labour. We acknowledge that any labour subsidised prior to the 17th of March 2021 can and will not be counter charged to A&V Building Solution Ltd. However, we disregard your claim that A&V Building Solution Ltd. have not contributed to the delays on site nor the requirement for J&B Hopkins Ltd. having to initiate such clause. At the time of writing A&V Building Solution Ltd. Have multiple areas of incomplete works, both physical works on site and subsequent Q&A signs off that are now in delay. A&V Building Solution Ltd. have neglected to supply sufficient labour to allow the close out of these works, therefore, J&B Hopkins Ltd. Have been left no alternative on the matter to maintain programme and the pace of the project.

Insufficient labour for the available workfaces & defect closures has been continuously highlighted over the past months by J&B Hopkins Ltd. and A&V Building Solution Ltd. have refused to act in accordance with the site requirements. Alongside this A&V Building Solution Ltd. have been asked multiple times to maximise their own productivity by ensuring their operatives work full days on site. Upon review of the Biosite login it is clear that a vast majority of A&V Building Solution Ltd. labour are leaving site between 3-4pm each day, that is a loss of 2-3 hours productivity per person, per day that only further compounds A&V Building Solution Ltd. inability to close out available workfaces and control its own labour.

We also highlight the vast number of suspension or works notices (SOWN) issued to J&B Hopkins Ltd. by the client for either defective or unsafe acts on behalf of A&V Building Solution Ltd. At the time of writing there have been approximately 10 of these SOWN notices issued by our client that are the sole responsibility of A&V Building Solution Ltd.’s failure or neglect. Each of these notices results in lost time and additional cost for J&B Hopkins Ltd. both in terms of physical works on site and preliminary resource associated with closing these items on behalf of A&V Building Solution Ltd. To date J&B Hopkins Ltd. have carried these costs and disruption to mitigate site progress however, rest assured A&V Building Solution Ltd. are fully culpable for such, further negating A&V Building Solution Ltd. claim that they have not caused delay to the completion of works.

Given the above we are unable to agree with either of your requests for additional monies at this stage

Finally, we understand that you have advised various members of our site team that you will be withdrawing from site on Monday, we urge you to reconsider this position and continue to [fulfil] your contractual obligations. Should you withdraw from site we will treat this as a blatant breach of the subcontract with resultant costs being levied and recovered from A&V Solutions ltd.

I-Auditor is a piece of electronic software that JBH selected for our QA manager to use as an inspection tool so that the JBH site management team and its subcontractors could use it for inspections, to flag up any issues and resolve problems together. The system worked to capture and provide a corrective action platform for the installation teams. The system shares and stores digital checklists. For example, on plumbing systems we need to pressure test the pipework using a pressure gauge and this system helps log and record that test functions have been successful, and that the pipework was tested to and held the agreed pressure. I remember that there was a concern when Alex Paduraru left site that he could still access l-Auditor and potentially tamper with the records on the system. As a precaution, his access was therefore removed. Alex would have had a level of access to allow him to add information and sign documents and modify information previously submitted.

Access to l-Auditor was controlled by the QA manager Wayne Reed who had the management level administrator rights. A&V's licence was re-assigned so we could carry on handing areas over to our QA team. The l-Auditor software captured when an area was handed over to us for 1st fix which was an opportunity for our site management team to go and inspect the area to see if the area was complete and available for JBH's installation works. This function of area acceptance was used by JBH during discussions with BYUK at Lean Meetings where we looked at the next two weeks' work activities and planned works for the subcontract installation teams. I-Auditor therefore facilitated workflow management and enabled JBH to manage resources in line with programme requirements. I-Auditor was not an installation programming tool for our supply chain and physical works and QA tasks could be progressed and completed without access to l-Auditor. It was also not needed for A&V to access site which was controlled by BYUK Bio-site readers.

We were told you wouldn’t carry out any further QA works so we had to employ another supervisor and give him your licence in the meantime.

Further to recent correspondence dated 19th of March 2021 we hereby note that A&V Building Solution ltd. have failed to return to site with any operatives. As such, A&V Building Solution ltd. last productive day is recorded to be that of the 19th of March 2021.

We hereby confirm that A&V Building Solution Ltd. are now deemed to be in breach of their contractual obligations, as such J&B Hopkins Ltd. will continue to undertake A&V Building Solution Ltd. works on their behalf.

All incurred loss and expense to J&B Hopkins Ltd. associated with this breach of contract will be continually tracked and recorded for recovery from A&V Building Solution Ltd.