Planning application for new training ground facilities

Andy_H

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
633
The new building will be situated right in front of the old pavilion I think.
That was what was said at the meeting/presentation. The new building will be constructed in front of the old one, then when the transfer of facilities is complete the old building will be demolished and that area will become a car park. It was also said that 'services' would also be put in place ready for connection for another new building, this time for The Academy, to be built to the left of the new building when looking from the Sidmouth Rd. This building is 'planned' for commencement in a couple of years.
 

Antony Moxey

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
41,299
Location
Exmuff
In the original tender process, I think four companies were invited to submit to do the work. One dropped out immediately. Enviro Building Solutions Ltd. were chosen and subsequently decided not to proceed. It was stated the main criteria of the winning bid was the lowest cost. Of the two left Modulek Ltd. based in Verwood, Dorset has now been awarded the contract at considerably more money. £778,000 more in fact……
As it was originally stated an expected £1m from player add ons was due in September and The Trust would ‘loan’ up to £600,000. Where’s the extra money coming from?!

  • Restarting the tender process, which would have delayed the project by up to as much as six months and potentially exposed the club to more inflationary pressures, with a consequential increase in the total project cost.
  • Other forms of construction, which would have required a new planning permission and would have delayed the project by 12-18 months. Given the comparison exercises carried out as part of the original assessments, there would have been no guarantee that it would be any cheaper and, with the continuing global volatility around construction prices, the end cost could have, in fact, been more expensive.
    So who has taken this decision then?! We are committed to something that is presently going to cost far more than was originally stated and I don’t see anything to cover the fact that this company might back out and leave us hanging financially again. Just a mention of due diligence. I bet if the boot was on the other foot we wouldn’t get longer to pay! I hope this isn’t going to impact other budgets. A lot of season tickets have been sold and plenty of people on here are talking up expectations.
    If you were slightly cynical you could say this has appeared now and been rushed through on the back of the euphoria of promotion when people may not ask too many questions. Hopefully those on the two boards have thought this through and are not gambling with our long term future or our current progress.
You wonder why anything ever gets built anywhere. This is exactly what every single construction project that ever happened at any time anywhere in the world ever has had to go through. Also, I thought we'd agreed the new contractors before we were promoted. Perhaps change 'slightly cynical' for 'completely f***ing stupid looking for conspiracies at every opportunity'.
 

Antony Moxey

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
41,299
Location
Exmuff
The decision to award the original contract to Enviro looked dangerous to me when I looked at its balance sheet.

Modulek is a bit more substantial but its net assets are only £624,000 so to me they look a risky contractor choice for a contract of this size when costs are soaring.

I would seriously consider whether it is desirable to put this project on hold until building cost inflation settles down.

The "big project" that goes wrong is often fatal in financial terms.
What assets do you think it should have? Perhaps, instead of owning costly kit and tying up capital for years on end, it might be financially more prudent to lease or hire equipment as and when it's needed thus keeping the company more fluid and adaptable to changing working conditions and environments?
 

Alistair20000

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
43,256
Location
Hunkered down
What assets do you think it should have? Perhaps, instead of owning costly kit and tying up capital for years on end, it might be financially more prudent to lease or hire equipment as and when it's needed thus keeping the company more fluid and adaptable to changing working conditions and environments?
That might be fine for the company but as a customer with a very large contract to place I would want a contractor with a more substantial balance sheet.
 

older-codger

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
3,942
Location
Wondering if I'm on a different planet
I would be more interested in knowing what Modulek's original tender figure was. What was the difference between the lowest tender and that of Modulek? A high percentage difference should have raised a flag. Then what is the difference now between Modulek's original tender and the current contract price? How has the difference been arrived at? The percentage difference between the original contract figure and the new seems very high to me, unless there was a substantial difference between the two tenders originally.
 

Alistair20000

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
43,256
Location
Hunkered down
I would be more interested in knowing what Modulek's original tender figure was. What was the difference between the lowest tender and that of Modulek? A high percentage difference should have raised a flag. Then what is the difference now between Modulek's original tender and the current contract price? How has the difference been arrived at? The percentage difference between the original contract figure and the new seems very high to me, unless there was a substantial difference between the two tenders originally.
Building costs have rocketed in recent months over here o-c.

I saw a client yesterday who had been advised to add £70,000 to a quote of £100,000 received last year. Residential extension so not a like for like comparison with the C&F project but it is a pointer.
 

older-codger

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
3,942
Location
Wondering if I'm on a different planet
Building costs have rocketed in recent months over here o-c.

I saw a client yesterday who had been advised to add £70,000 to a quote of £100,000 received last year. Residential extension so not a like for like comparison with the C&F project but it is a pointer.
I appreciate that Ali but I suspect that a 70% increase must include a degree of contingency and "design risk" I suspect - more likely with a residential extension than with an open field site I would suggest. The RICS Building Cost Index indicates annual increases in the first three quarters of 2022 in the range of 5%-7% and slowing over the second half of 2022. That does not appear to align with the increase in this case.

I am also intrigued by the statement from the company "We were able to quickly re-engineer the project to fit within the club’s committed budget" that would suggest that the final design is changed from the original, although quite what they mean by "re-engineer" escapes me with a modular building. The method of manufacture is hardly likely to have changed so I can only presume that there is a saving of space for example in which case the increase raises even more questions.
 

Antony Moxey

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
41,299
Location
Exmuff
Then the RICS is talking out of its proverbial. Material costs have gone through the roof - timber in particular seems to have doubled in price in the last twelve months. There's no way prices have only risen by 5-7%, I think the hyphen in your post is entirely misplaced.
 
Top