Case Study Project Update – 16 December 2020

The project is progressing well. The client has completed the purchase of the land. The issue
regarding access over the strip of land from the public road has been cleared up and will not be a
problem (it turned out the plans originally used were wrong – that strip of land is part of what the
client bought!).

The idea of the “Park and Ride” was definitely not acceptable to the local council for planning
purposes. The Directors agreed that this was not necessary for the project to be commercially viable,
so it has been abandoned. The outline planning application did not include it.

The conditions from the outline planning approval are being addressed. The archaeology and wildlife
surveys having been completed recently; reports were sent to the council and approved accordingly.

Wendy Warner, the architect from W2 Designs Ltd, continues as the project’s Architect. SleepGood
continues to get support from Mr Quinton Smith as a quantity surveyor, and Earthmovers Engineers
Ltd are advising regarding the civil engineering work required. EE’s remit now includes advising on
the traffic mitigation steps required by the council (as noted in the outline planning permission) but
this appears to be manageable without an overly significant impact on the total project budget.

The SleepGood directors are narrowing their considerations, and have two primary options:
Option 1) As well as the 72 bedrooms and restaurant, the hotel will have a small meeting
room available for guest use, fitting 8‐10 people, and a modest “workout room” to fit 3
cardio machines (treadmills, stationary bike, etc), two multi‐use weight machines, and an
area for 2‐3 people to do yoga/pilates type activities.
Option 2) The hotel will include a conference centre, with six meeting and event rooms
ranging in size from 6 to 120 capacity, and a health club facility, including a larger gym, a
swimming pool, steam room, and a 4‐person jacuzzi.
Wendy has prepared the relevant designs for both options, which should be sufficient to submit for
final planning approval. The company’s directors are leaning toward the more basic plan, as it would
be more in keeping with their existing brand and ensure a lower total project cost. The directors are
due to make a final decision imminently. Whilst Wendy’s fees were increased as a result of
progressing both options to this stage, Quinton believes both options appear to be in line with initial
budget projections.

The directors have accepted your advice that, in the circumstances, using the “traditional”
procurement route seems appropriate. Once the directors confirm which of the two options above
they want to pursue, and the final planning documents are submitted, the project can move on to
tendering the main contract. You have outlined the tendering process to Zara and the directors and
they agreed that a selective approach seems very commercial and appropriate here. In your last
meeting you mentioned that there are a few suites of standard forms of contract used for
construction, including naming a few examples, but you have not suggested a particular form of
contract which would be most appropriate.

You have identified one company, Carlton Construction Ltd, as a contractor to be invited to bid for
the job. They have done countless projects of this scale, and Wendy said she worked with them on
an office build project in Swindon a few years ago which went very well. Some initial informal
discussions with Carlton’s management regarding options and estimated costs have been quite
positive.