The importance of having Quantities

Construction is probably the highest 'dispute ridden industry ' of all. The 'old ways' of agreeing contracts on 'the back of a cigarette packet' still exist. The majority of people want to know how much something is going to cost before purchasing, whether a jar of coffee or a new car, and yet when it comes to building contracts a great deal is often left 'to chance' One reason is that all too often clients want 'budget prices' BEFORE appropriate Approvals are achieved --- this is a big mistake. The BEST way forward is to gain Planning and/or Building Regulation approval before talking about final costs. To simply agree a lump sum based on some 'sketchy' drawing/s is very risky. What about if the drawings do not contain all the items actually wanted by the client ? The BEST method is:1. Obtain ALL necessary approvals -- in writing. 2. Prepare a LIST of the drawings and identify them by which revision (usually A,B,C etc) so that these form part of the written agreement between the parties PLUS any other relevant documents (structural engineer's calculations for example). 3. Prepare a list of Quantities with 'rates' (sum of money required 'per m of skirting' or 'm3 of concrete' etc) so that both parties (client and contractor KNOW the basis of the sum to be paid for the Works). Note:- I was present at a court case where the client and builder admitted they had 'shook hands' on a sum of money -- nothing written down -- the problem was, the builder said it was X and the client said it was Y...................... after 3 weeks deliberation, we all went back to the courtroom, and the judge, in his summing up, went with the client's version. There was me thinking he would go for the 'average' ! In this way, both parties KNOW exactly, what is included in the tender (or estimate) and, at the end of the project, adjustments made on an 'Add' or 'Omit' basis. This used to be common practice --- in my first year with a quantity surveying practice I did these 'Variation accounts' every working day on all sorts of projects -- there were NO court cases then ! Brief History of the PQS (Professional Quantity Surveyor)
Up to around 1920 -- in the UK -- contractors were producing their own quantities for tenders and the 'winner' was usually the one who made the biggest mistake. There was no regulation, no standard procedure, no 'rules'.

Then someone (I don't know who) suggested 'why don't we appoint a 'single specialist' to measure the quantities -- all contractors will get a copy of the 'Bill of Quantities' with the other tender documents and therefore ALL will be pricing on the same basis. The winner pays the 'specialist' ! It worked................... the 'Quantity Surveyor' was born and the FIRST SMM (Standard Method of Measurement) was printed in 1922 -- I have more information on this if anyone is interested, please let me know. At last there was a proper system of measurement in place -- ok, the QS could make an error -the same as anyone else but, the difference was they had ALL priced the job on, for example, 120 cubic yards (those imperial days....) of concrete --- even if a mistake had occurred and it should have been 132 cu yds -- this extra was paid automatically to the main contractor by the client -- it was written in to the contract. What has gone wrong in the QS Profession Over the years, the SMM was revised in line with current practice and site operations etc -number 2 in 1927, nr 3 in 1935, nr 4 in 1948, nr 5 in 1963, nr 6 in 1979 and nr 7 in1988 If my maths are correct we are now experiencing the biggest interval between any two SMM's In my opinion, SMM7 is well out of date and far too cumbersome for today's trends. Builders, sub-contractors, estimators, buyers, builders merchants etc WILL ALWAYS WANT QUANTITIES I lectured in QSing at Wolverhampton Polytechnic up to 1993. The RICS used to conduct their own 'internal' professional exams and held these at different centres all across the country. EVERYONE feared these exams -- they were a very high standard -- there was no clue as to 'what would be included this year' - the pass rate was not high. BUT --- all staff at all the various colleges worked WITH the students to make sure EVERYTHING was covered every 'trade' in the current SMM was studied properly so that each student was prepared as well as possible for anything that might crop up in the exams. Most important of all each student was therefore capable of 'doing a proper job' for their employer. The employers were confident the employee could do the work satisfactorily if they had passed these very high standard exams. Everyone worked on the SMM current at that time of the exams. Sometimes a student had been 'brought up' on one version and, suddenly a 'new version' came out just before the exams --- THAT WAS 'STRESS' -- big time stress. I know, I was there..... In the 'mid-80's' the RICS decided to abandon their own exams and gave power to the various colleges to 'give exemption' ------ in my opinion, this has proved to be a retrograde step. Since then, experienced lecturers (in Measurement) have 'moved on' and been replaced with younger staff without this key knowledge (through no fault of their own) and more emphasis has been placed on Management and Economics whereas employers NEED measurement. I personally know several young people who have started work (WITH a degree in QSing) on Day 1, the boss says "will you measure those foundations ?' the reply 'oh, I can't do that' is NOT what the boss wants to hear. A Way Forward

BUT, the OLD way of 'measuring' on dim paper in accordance with an SMM which is well 'past it's sell by date' is no longer viable (this is my firm opinion) and sums up why I have now gone my 'own way' --- renamed 'Builders Quantities' as 'Commercial Quantities' and trying to put over an 'easy to understand system' that can be adopted anywhere in the world. Combined with Excel (which is 'universal' and easy to email finished results) makes the overall experience very enjoyable. One example --- what is the advantage of measuring concrete beds or slabs in cubic metres ? In my opinion, these should be in m2 as that 'ties in' with 'attached items' such as fabric reinforcement, formwork to underside of slabs, screeds, ceiling plaster and paint to underside of slabs, floor finishes --- so SPOT CHECKS can be made. Simple things like this can streamline the whole process and make life easier for all concerned this is exactly what I have endeavoured to do in my Commercial Quantities approach but above all I strongly advocate that the QS will strive to achieve the BEST method of giving the information in each individual contract --- if, for example, there is a complicated oak staircase all fully designed by a specialist, what is wrong in stating 'oak staircase in accordance with drawing ref ABC' ?

Quality of Information In the 'golden period' for quantity surveyors (I would suggest between around 1920 to 1980) where QS's were appointed by clients to work alongside the architects the QS would be preparing the quantities during the Design Stage and keep asking the architect for more information -- an 'extra section' here or 'plan there', whatever was needed to help finalise the documents. This meant when the contract went out to tender it was FULLY DESIGNED and the Bill of Quantities would be correct.......... ok, 'mistakes' COULD occur but there was a proper rectification method built in to the contract). PLUS all these projects already had the proper Local Authority Approvals -- had been vetted by the local Fire Service -- all services (gas, elec, telephones, sewer connections etc) had ALL been sorted. Very unfortunately, it looks like we have reverted back to how things were a hundred years ago -- clients want 'quick fixes' architects asked to prepare 'sketchy designs' - these go out to contractors for 'fixed price tenders' (in many cases) no independent QS appointed at all so each contractor has to prepare their own quantities and the eventual winner is ............ Sadly, everything is 'passed down the chain' the main contractor passes the final responsibility to the sub-contractors who are all 'fighting each other for the work' and submitting silly prices for items not properly designed or described in the contract documents. Maybe, in time, 'they' will 'all' see 'common-sense' and take things more carefully during the vital Design Stage..and maybe, all contracts WILL actually be completed 'within budget'. Overview Working as a QS can be (should be) a very rewarding experience -- in effect, the QS is 'building' the new project in advance of any work starting on site and when, later on, the REAL work starts, the QS, like the architect, is familiar with everything in advance of the contractor.

Difference between PQS and CQS (Contractor's QS) The PQS will always be the one who produces the Bill of Quantities (BQ) for tendering purposes -- for large contracts where a number of tenderers will be involved. The PQS is paid by the client. The CQS works for each individual contractor and works opposite to the PQS in dealing with payments and variations for the contract once it has started on site. Where it has been decided to have no Bill of Quantities for 'multi-tenderers' use -- a CQS would then produce quantities for 'his or her' own employer (ie each contractor tendering for the project). Checklist A checklist of items to be measured is vital and I have produced such a list on this website -see 'Avoid Client/Builder Disputes' Changing role of the QS (meaning a 'hands-on' measuring quantity surveyor rather than a 'project manager' type) The traditional role is still vital production of a Bill of Quantities for ALL items within a contract from excavation through to painting where the quantities produced are NETT (no waste allowed). The Bill is then priced by estimators for each contractor tendering the estimators allow extra for waste (the reason being that 'waste' is impossible to predict 'theft' is included under this heading for example). Each contractor would have their own 'materials control systems' which is why the onus is placed on them for 'waste allowances'. Therefore, the QS's role is straightforward and the end result understood by all. However, changes are taking place ------- builders merchants are now being asked to 'quantify' from the drawings and then quote for 'materials only'. The merchants then appoint a QS to do this for them (or could do it 'in-house' if they have someone with the appropriate skills). In this case, the quantities would NOT be 'nett' but would be in the form of 'minimum consignments' or 'cutting lists'. Sometimes, sheet material such as insulation boards, may only be available in 'packs' 'pack of 10' for example. So the final quantity may be 14 packs which is very different from something like 215m2 on a nett quty system. Timber joists may only be available in increments of 300mm in length ie 600, 900, 1200, 1500, 1800 up to usually 4.8m or the very most 6.0m so the final list could be, for example:6 x 2.1m 8 x 2.7m 27 x 3.6m these would all then be cut to the final size on site when installed by the carpenters. The information may be very poor so the QS has to make 'best guesses' or take shortcuts. 'Composite items' such as 300 wall including 103 facings, 100 blocks, cavity, ties, insulation, plaster and paint' are fairly common now. So the QS needs to know exactly what format is to be produced before starting (and before giving any quote for the service to be provided). NOTE. My system explains these various issues.

Unfair Practices I deal with a lot of current projects and find certain contract clauses extremely unfair:Example A The contractor is to allow for any other items considered necessary for the project even if not measured in the Bill of Quantities. Example B The contractor is deemed to have checked all the quantities provided and no extras will be allowed. 'Stupid' items in some Bills

Example A The continuing use of the term 'cart away'. This was related to horses and carts ! Example B Continuing use of 'half brick wall' and similar for thicker walls. SMM6 threw this out in 1979 when it required the 'thickness to be stated'. Example C Lengths of lintels incorrect especially steel. The opening width on the drawing may be 1000mm (for example) 300 added for end bearings and the lintel in the Bill described as 1300 long -------------- WRONG They are only available in incremental lengths of 150 (and EACH manufacturer needs checking in this respect) so, in this case the lintel should have been described as 1350 long (the next incremental length up).