Room to Improve.

Charles Babbage

Dermot changing things and so on is all part of the format of this programme. so that people are talking about it here. It is a show as much as a project.

Sleepy

I certainly wouldn't go on the show expecting to have much input in the final outcome. The best results usually come from handing him a budget, a wish-list and stepping back and letting him get on with it once you've approved the design.

In both things he changed last night, he was right imho. Blue units on the top would have made that galley kitchen too dark and the house wasn't large enough for the red-brick not to overly dominate the room.

pilly

Sleepy wrote:

I certainly wouldn't go on the show expecting to have much input in the final outcome. The best results usually come from handing him a budget, a wish-list and stepping back and letting him get on with it once you've approved the design.

There's not a hope I'd even hire Dermot Bannon let alone go om the show.

Who does he think he is to change the colour of someone's kitchen?

Hurrache

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

The qs is there to price dermots designs...


Doing prep work would refer to having done some pricings in advance to measure if your wishlist is achievable in the budget available.

Exactly, and it was Dermot's designs that were relevant here with her input.

mloc123

seamus wrote: »

And given that she was pestering Dermot on Twitter in October suggests that it wasn't finished until sometime towards the end of the year.

Any source on this?

Franz Von Peppercorn

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Yeah coz a logistics manager or hr manager or it managers doesnt deal with budgets....

In a very minor way. I am one of those.

If building worked like IT contracts (and most other contracts) here is what would happen.

The cost and delivery time are agreed.
The suppliers are responsible for contingency and it’s costed in the tender.
Delays are not a cost to the client but to the provider. As in there are penalties to the supplier, not extra labour costs to the client just arbitrarily added on.
The supplier can’t change the agreed layout or the look and feel because he doesn’t like the colour of your brand.
Conversely the client can change things but it results in a new contact or a costed change request. Generally this is a time and materials request. Christine did that and was ok with it.

So she probably does work in IT as an account manager in a large company that deals with suppliers rather than a small company that supplies, and probably thought that a contract to get something done for 140k is an defined legal agreement to get something done for 140k.

Not so in the 19C building industry.

seamus

pilly wrote: »

There's not a hope I'd even hire Dermot Bannon let alone go om the show.

Who does he think he is to change the colour of someone's kitchen?

To be fair, it's pretty clear he knows his stuff; the fact that he could pick out the names of the people who designed the furniture in her apartment.

And architect's job is more than just drawing a few structural lines, it's about designing the space in a way that works. So if someone has a small, dark property, the architect knows that you need to maximise light and the appearance of space, so you stick in lots of glass and bright colours; not bold red walls and an imposing dark kitchen.

It is part of the theatre of the programme, but you can also see that it's also part of how he works; when he's sure about something he forces the client's hand by just doing his thing and making them see what he sees, rather than just going with something he knows won't work.

My wife was also raging about him changing the colours for the kitchen, but also admitted that had he not forced the issue, the kitchen would have been rank the way the client wanted it.

I wonder though do Coco put up a small contingency fund of their own so that if Dermot does go ahead and buy five grand's worth of stuff the client doesn't want, that it's easy to go back on?

The suppliers are responsible for contingency and it’s costed in the tender.
Delays are not a cost to the client but to the provider.

As someone who works in I.T., this is apples and oranges. Contingency in I.T. is way more predictable and the scope for unforeseens is way smaller.

iamwhoiam

pilly wrote: »

There's not a hope I'd even hire Dermot Bannon let alone go om the show.

Who does he think he is to change the colour of someone's kitchen?

Me neither . I wouldn't let him near my house , I can't stand being railroaded into a decision

evolving_doors

pilly wrote: »

There's not a hope I'd even hire Dermot Bannon let alone go om the show.

Who does he think he is to change the colour of someone's kitchen?

I agree, when it comes to furniture and colours it should be left to an interior decorator/designer.
Although Dermot probably wants the final money shot as being a 100% Dermot Bannon house... which is usually cold.
When they did they zoom up shot (with obligatory Air porn music playing) they stressed that it was 'from a magazine'. So I reckon Dermot finished it off but wouldn't be willing to put his name to it... hence the put downs at the dinner party.
I think there was a program a while back with interior decorators helping people out. With decent results and a homely feel.

Penn

mloc123 wrote: »

Any source on this?

I'll not link to her Twitter account as that's likely a no-no, but she responded to two tweets of his about him being on holiday basically telling him to get back quickly because clients in Ireland were missing him.

jon1981

Alot of clowns on here are taking "IT manager" literally. You ever stop to think they just used a general title to cover "She does something in IT" ?

mloc123

Penn wrote: »

I'll not link to her Twitter account as that's likely a no-no, but she responded to two tweets of his about him being on holiday basically telling him to get back quickly because clients in Ireland were missing him.

Found it now That was a lot of scrolling through Twitter search results tho

Franz Von Peppercorn

seamus wrote: »

To be fair, it's pretty clear he knows his stuff; the fact that he could pick out the names of the people who designed the furniture in her apartment.

And architect's job is more than just drawing a few structural lines, it's about designing the space in a way that works. So if someone has a small, dark property, the architect knows that you need to maximise light and the appearance of space, so you stick in lots of glass and bright colours; not bold red walls and an imposing dark kitchen.

It is part of the theatre of the programme, but you can also see that it's also part of how he works; when he's sure about something he forces the client's hand by just doing his thing and making them see what he sees, rather than just going with something he knows won't work.

My wife was also raging about him changing the colours for the kitchen, but also admitted that had he not forced the issue, the kitchen would have been rank the way the client wanted it.

I wonder though do Coco put up a small contingency fund of their own so that if Dermot does go ahead and buy five grand's worth of stuff the client doesn't want, that it's easy to go back on?

As someone who works in I.T., this is apples and oranges. Contingency in I.T. is way more predictable and the scope for unforeseens is way smaller.

Is it? Why not add a 10% contingency to a conversion of an old building and 5% to a newer one. Or give the client the option. If it’s all clear you the supplier get 10% extra.

Also why don’t builders do preparatory work. Why is it - “oh you want underfloor heating, sure” rather than “prior to costing this we may need to do some opening of the floor, or get old schematic designs. If there’s existing piping there we can’t do it without raising the floor. Better to know this now. The preparatory work will cost you”

(Similar to a prototype maybe).

Anyway contracts should be contracts.

Franz Von Peppercorn

jon1981 wrote: »

Alot of clowns on here are taking "IT manager" literally. You ever stop to think they just used a general title to cover "She does something in IT" ?

No.

mloc123

Based on Linkedin it seems that "IT Manager" might be playing down her role just a bit.

The budgets on the show are ridiculous now... not in that they are too large etc.. but that the final budget is never anywhere near the original planned/costed one.

donkeykong5

pilly wrote: »

RobertKK wrote: »

But where is the money for it coming from?

Why is everyone on this thread so concerned about where the money is coming from? It's really nobodies business.

I think they mean the extra money on top of what was already agreed.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Sleepy wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't go on the show expecting to have much input in the final outcome. The best results usually come from handing him a budget, a wish-list and stepping back and letting him get on with it once you've approved the design.

In both things he changed last night, he was right imho. Blue units on the top would have made that galley kitchen too dark and the house wasn't large enough for the red-brick not to overly dominate the room.

Yeh that’s fine provided she agreed. I think she did with the brick. She may have with the kitchen but we didn’t see it.

Redo91

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

I thought the same, could make out the badge on the steering wheel i thought, and the leather interior and headrest looked merc to me.

I noticed a small Swedish flag on the drivers seat so I assume its a Volvo he drives.

Penn

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Is it? Why not add a 10% contingency to a conversion of an old building and 5% to a newer one. Or give the client the option. If it’s all clear you the supplier get 10% extra.

Also why don’t builders do preparatory work. Why is it - “oh you want underfloor heating, sure” rather than “prior to costing this we may need to do some opening of the floor, or get old schematic designs. If there’s existing piping there we can’t do it without raising the floor. Better to know this now. The preparatory work will cost you”

(Similar to a prototype maybe).

Anyway contracts should be contracts.

The price of the works didn't allow for any contingency because that was her decision. As for why builders don't do preparatory works, it's because they're not the only builder pricing the job. There'd be several builders pricing the works. If the client wants to pay to have one builder do some investigation works prior to going out for pricing, they can, but it's not common practice unless it's known or suspected there is an issue (which in this case, there wasn't). Builders are normally advised to visit the site so they can assess means of access, support works needed etc to allow in their pricing, but it's visual only.

Hence, why you have a contingency sum. In case something is found during the works, there's a price allowed to cover it. If the client wasn't willing to take things out of the scope to allow for a contingency or raise the budget to allow for a contingency, then that's their decision, and should an issue arise there's an additional cost. At that point it's the QS' responsibility to ensure the additional works required are priced correctly by the builder and follow typical costs and rates.

seamus

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Is it? Why not add a 10% contingency to a conversion of an old building and 5% to a newer one. Or give the client the option. If it’s all clear you the supplier get 10% extra.

Because you're talking more like 50% contingency if you're insisting that the builder shoulder the cost. Which I'm sure they'd be more than happy to take off your hands, but no client is ever going to accept that. Clients are going to be happier to shoulder the contingency themselves because that's the cheaper option.

It's not I.T. This is not corporations throwing far too much money at project managers. This is individuals using personal cash and trying to stretch it as far as possible.

You can't do "preparatory" work to find all issues, because some of the issues will only appear mid-build. It's destructive work by nature, so you can't rollback when you hit problems and just stop what you're doing.

What would preparatory work have gotten her? A few walls pulled down and a floor pulled up before being told, "Yep, we've got a problem here, that's gonna add €40k to your final costing. "Oh, and the cost of this exploration was €15k btw"

What's she going to do then? "Nah, let's call it off so".

Franz Von Peppercorn

seamus wrote: »

Because you're talking more like 50% contingency if you're insisting that the builder shoulder the cost. Which I'm sure they'd be more than happy to take off your hands, but no client is ever going to accept that. Clients are going to be happier to shoulder the contingency themselves because that's the cheaper option.

It's not I.T. This is not corporations throwing far too much money at project managers. This is individuals using personal cash and trying to stretch it as far as possible.

You can't do "preparatory" work to find all issues, because some of the issues will only appear mid-build. It's destructive work by nature, so you can't rollback when you hit problems and just stop what you're doing.

What would preparatory work have gotten her? A few walls pulled down and a floor pulled up before being told, "Yep, we've got a problem here, that's gonna add €40k to your final costing. "Oh, and the cost of this exploration was €15k btw"

What's she going to do then? "Nah, let's call it off so".

Your 50% is plucked from nowhere. I didn’t pay extra for work I did a few years ago barring the additions I agreed to during the project. The idea isn’t that the contractor gets to price in the worst case scenario but that he adds an average and if it’s more he shoulders it (via insurance perhaps) and if less he takes the profit. Or puts it into a contingency fund.

Your second example is also an argument to extremism. At worst in this case they would have needed to take up some of the floor. Surely where pipes go in these houses could be, or should be, on some database somewhere. If not you surely don’t need to take up the whole floor.

If the preparatory work is costed too high then, there and then, you say “scrap that work and the under floor heating”.

And, to answer someone else’s point, the builders doing prep dont need to be the ones building.

Anyway. I’m sure that fixed cost builds do exist for large projects.

Sleepy

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Is it? Why not add a 10% contingency to a conversion of an old building and 5% to a newer one. Or give the client the option. If it’s all clear you the supplier get 10% extra.

It's not really comparable to an IT project. For example in this episode, they found woodworm in the house. Luckily for the client, it was only about 6k worth of work to deal with. How about if the project had happened 20 years later when the woodworm had thoroughly destroyed the joists of her upper floor and the partition walls within it but wasn't obvious from a surveyors inspection? How about if they'd discovered asbestos or black mould requiring tens of thousands of specialist removal work? Remember last season where they discovered part of the original house didn't have any foundations?!

In any restoration of an old property you can find massive issues which could completely devour any reasonable contingency budget could ever cover.

Sleepy

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Anyway. I’m sure that fixed cost builds do exist for large projects.

They certainly do for new builds and the client pays a huge premium for them.

Haven't ever heard of one for a renovation though perhaps they exist.

Addle

I read the thread before I watched the show, and I feel like I've watched a different programme!

I don't get the negativity towards the client at all. Her optimism and positive outlook is considered delusional? Why?

She was disrespected a lot. Multiple decisions being made without her. Decisions she insisted on working out, despite the initial reaction of the professionals. The island would have fit-there were enough of them standing around it in the end.

Dermot started off negatively. His body language and choice of words from the get go was antagonistic. She seemed nervous to me. He was such a hypocrite complaining about her being late.

She's a beautiful home. She's earned it.
Best of luck to her.

Addle

Has there ever been a show where they had to do a complete re-design after starting before?
To me, that's why it was such a difficult build, not because of the client.
She was very easy going about the layout.

freshpopcorn

People really seem to dislike people on room to improve in the last few years. Some people might come on a little strong or argue with Dermot,etc. There always seem to be a criticism with them. I found some a little annoying at times but people get very wound up about it.
I will admit I didn't like the one from Tipperary who wan't to lock the husbands all Ireland medals away and she didn't seem pushed about the mother in law wither.

seamus

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Your 50% is plucked from nowhere. I didn’t pay extra for work I did a few years ago barring the additions I agreed to during the project. The idea isn’t that the contractor gets to price in the worst case scenario but that he adds an average and if it’s more he shoulders it (via insurance perhaps) and if less he takes the profit. Or puts it into a contingency fund.

I tell you what - next time you're getting a big piece of building work done, propose a fixed price to the builder and see what he says. The 50% figure is absolutely plucked out of nowhere because that's where the builder will get it from too.

Your second example is also an argument to extremism. At worst in this case they would have needed to take up some of the floor. Surely where pipes go in these houses could be, or should be, on some database somewhere. If not you surely don’t need to take up the whole floor.

Should be, maybe. Could be - no way. Even a house built last week there's a good chance nobody has a clue exactly what's underneath it without pulling it up. Something built a century ago? It's pot luck. There could be a hidden wine cellar down there for all you know.

You wouldn't need to take up the whole floor, IF you knew that you were checking to see if there was a conflict between the desire for underfloor heating and the depth of the pipe. That's very specific. What else would you check?

If she didn't want underfloor heating, the pipe wouldn't have been a problem. So ultimately a lot of problems only become problems after you've gone through the entire design stage.

I'm not sure what the individual gains by then having a builder look at the design and start ripping the house apart looking for problems. By that stage you're pot committed. Why not just start building?

Penn

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Your 50% is plucked from nowhere. I didn’t pay extra for work I did a few years ago barring the additions I agreed to during the project. The idea isn’t that the contractor gets to price in the worst case scenario but that he adds an average and if it’s more he shoulders it (via insurance perhaps) and if less he takes the profit. Or puts it into a contingency fund.

Your second example is also an argument to extremism. At worst in this case they would have needed to take up some of the floor. Surely where pipes go in these houses could be, or should be, on some database somewhere. If not you surely don’t need to take up the whole floor.

If the preparatory work is costed too high then, there and then, you say “scrap that work and the under floor heating”.

And, to answer someone else’s point, the builders doing prep dont need to be the ones building.

Anyway. I’m sure that fixed cost builds do exist for large projects.

The location of the pipes might be shown indicatively on the Councils maps, but given the age of the buildings and the pipes, the exact location and depths would likely not have been accurate to base such a decision off. Again, this can only be done once works have commenced unless there was a manhole in the garden.

And I agree that the builders doing the prep don't need to be the ones building, but you missed my point. There's a cost for that, and unless it was known or suspected that there was an issue, there would be no need to do prep works. In this case, it wasn't known or suspected the drainage would be an issue.

Sorry, but you simply don't understand how these things work. Builders can only price what they're told to price. If something unforeseen happens which isn't the builder's fault or responsibility and there's an extra cost to fix it, it's the client who is supposed to have the contingency sum in the contract to cover it, because it's not the builder's fault. If a builder tried to add in an average for some things that might come up during the works, he'd never get the job because his costs would come in too high.

The builder prices what's on the drawings & specifications. If something comes up outside of that, unless it's directly the builder's fault, the client pays for it.

James 007

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Also why don’t builders do preparatory work. Why is it - “oh you want underfloor heating, sure” rather than “prior to costing this we may need to do some opening of the floor, or get old schematic designs. If there’s existing piping there we can’t do it without raising the floor. Better to know this now. The preparatory work will cost you”

Its not up to the builder to do the prep work. Its up to the PM along with the QS to ensure that the BOQ items should reflect what will be built, afterall the tendered builders will price from this document.

Normally in projects like these you should have an engineer employed to do some opening up works (open the floors, lintels, open up existing cracks where shown, do some trial holes where it is planned to put in foundations, review existing drainage and recommend CCTV if required etc).

Its a question, do you want to employ an engineer or not, PM has to make this decision or at least recommend the requirement of one to the client. Its clear that there was a steel frame structure for the extension along with the foundations, so an engineer sign-off would of have been required for this, but the extent of his brief most likely stopped there.

Sleepy

Judging from the clients initial requirement list versus her budget, do you think she'd have paid for such engineering work were it suggested to her to do so? For all we know, that's exactly what happened.