Stage 1: OP3 could not provide a practical master program, despite the fact they have already had

d experience with the first store. Result in scopes of work in different stages overlapping, and also requires me to take part in almost all day to day site supervision. This result is very time consuming and cost ineffective; which are the very first and foremost criteria a project management consultant must avoid. When it comes to coordinating and representing Starbucks to deal with the specialist consultants, OP3 failed to act as a project manager but more like a project secretary. Many times they only deliver the messages without proposing a solution for the matter at hand; which again also time consuming and cost ineffective. For example: OP3 could not fully foresee and align the shop design with site condition, as well as landlord agreement; which in different cases has led to us being painted in a corner and forced to pay additional cost. For example: OP3 proposed to only relocate 3 sprinkler heads, but in the end the building required almost every sprinklers in the shop to be relocated at extremely high and non-negotiable cost. OP3 could not assist in preparing required document to submit for the following certificate/permission Fire Safety, Environmental Commitment, Outdoor Seating, Construction. This also led to unnecessary additional charges, forced to be paid in last minute and pose threat to opening date and operation OP3 could not control the fit-out quality and standards. This comes from lack of knowledge and experience despite the fact they have already seen through the first store; also their personnel lack professionalism and work ethic, for example the appointed site supervisor has no experience with interior and too aggressively defensive. Final fit-out result can be seen in the defects list. This proves once again that the conflict in their interests is very serious. OP3 failed to prepare initial bill of quantities with estimate costs. This has been proved in the above points.

Stage 2: OP3 did not complete the construction drawings, which is time consuming. OP3 did not submit the required document to local authority, as stated above. OP3 did not submit the required document to landlord in time, as stated above and commented by landlord.

Stage 3: OP3 could not fully control, issue instruction and coordinate between contractors, as well as between contractors and building management. OP3 lacks of professionalism shows in periodic report, the report form was not in the correct format the purpose and for most of the time the reports were very generic and late. OP3 could not fully monitor on site work due to lack of experience and knowledge

OP3 failed to pro-actively foresee and prevent defects during the course of the project, can be seen in defects list