2017 - APC Part 2 Assessors Notes

QUANTITY SURVEYING DIVISION
ASSESSMENT OF PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE
FINAL ASSESSMENT 2017
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
Tuesday, 19th September, 2017

and
Wednesday, 20th September, 2017
THE HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF SURVEYORS
FINAL ASSESSMENT – 19TH & 20TH SEPTEMBER 2017
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
CONTENTS
1) Candidates’ Role
2) Candidates’ Experience
3) Depth of Answers
4) Format and Style of Answers
5) Notes to Assessors
6) Marking
7) Acceptance Standard
8) General Notes
9) Notes to Candidates (as given in the Question Paper)
10) Five Common Criteria (as given in the Question Paper)
Page 2
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
1.0 CANDIDATES’ ROLE
1.1 Candidates should approach the submissions in the role of a manager /

supervisor considering letters, reports, estimates, etc. which have been
prepared by a qualified member of staff, ready for typing and signature and
formal issuance by the company to the requesting party in accordance with
the Instructions to Candidates.
2.0 CANDIDATES’ EXPERIENCE
2.1 In many cases, Candidates would not have much experience of the situations
encountered in this Final Assessment. This should be kept in mind when
carrying out your assessment.
3.0 DEPTH OF ANSWERS
3.1 The question paper is quite extensive. Candidates were required to consider
a range of problems. In the limited time available, it is expected that
Candidates would cover the main principles of each issue.
3.2 Candidates are not expected to go into exhaustive detail, quoting extensively
from textbooks, but should address the crucial points and demonstrate an
understanding of the fundamental requirements of each question. Where
appropriate, Candidates should provide a brief account of the issues involved,
and state any rationales that support their argument given in the answers.
Merely stating the issues without giving the reasoning would not be
considered as satisfactory.
3.3 The answers given by Candidates should show that they had identified the
problem, recognised a practical solution and given constructive professional
advice or solid arguments to the recipient. You should put yourselves in the
position of the recipient and ask if you have received proper advice on the
problem or if you could easily reject the arguments.
Page 3
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
4.0 FORMAT AND STYLE OF ANSWERS
4.1 When the questions require a letter, a report, a memo or an e-mail to be

drafted, Candidates’ answers should be in the form of a letter, a report, a
memo or an e-mail as required with date, addressee, title, salutation, space
for signature, etc.
4.2 Candidates should begin their answers with a brief introductory description of
the matter being asked, such as “With reference to the telephone
conversation with you yesterday regarding …”, “We refer to your query
regarding …”, etc. They should not jump straight to give points of answers.
4.3 Candidates should lay out their answers systematically. Lengthy paragraphs
without broken into an itemized or annotated list would be difficult to read. On
the other hand, answers given all in point form without an introductory
sentence would not be a good style.
4.4 It is not suggested that you should mark down the paper if the format and
style of the answers are not in the above desirable conditions. However,
answers should be presented in a professional manner such that the recipient
would understand the answers.
5.0 NOTES TO ASSESSORS
5.1 The Notes to Assessors are given here to:
(a) simplify your task in assessing Candidates’ answers; and

(b) facilitate a more uniform level of assessment.
5.2 The time spent in preparing the Notes to Assessors is much more than that
allowed to Candidates. Therefore, Candidates should not be expected to
mention all the points given in the Notes to Assessors for full marks. It should
be considered as Acceptable if a Candidate could address the core issues.
5.3 Other valid points given by Candidates should be admitted, particularly when
the question can have alternative interpretation to that intended by the
question drafter and the Notes to Assessors.
Page 4
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
6.0 MARKING
6.1 The Practice Problems (Part II Written Test) were undertaken in an

examination hall on two days – each lasting for 4 hours.
6.2 See “NOTES TO CANDIDATES” below for the number of questions and the
passing marks.
6.3 A marking sheet is given in table form for you to assign marks.
6.4 Just before the final total of each day’s paper, a line is given for you to add
discretionary bonus marks of up to 2.5 marks. The bonus marks should be
given to Candidates for good presentation, good English, good handwriting,
and those who deserve a few more marks after your second-thoughts on their
overall performance and potential.
6.5 You should not write notes or other marks on the submissions which you are
assessing since such notes or other marks may influence the next Assessor’s
marking.
7.0 ACCEPTANCE STANDARD
7.1 In case you desire not to follow the Notes to Assessors in detail or you want
a simper guide, you are offered the following questions to ask yourself when
giving your marks:
(a) Would I sign the letter for dispatch after minor editing corrections as
supervisor?
(b) Would the recipient consider sufficient advice has been given?
(c) Could the recipient easily reject the arguments?
7.2 If the answers are “yes” to (a) and (b) and “no” to (c), then the answer should
be considered as Acceptable or better.
7.3 The most important question when concluding the overall result as a pass or
a failure would be “Would I employ the Candidate to work as a qualified
Quantity Surveyor with the ability to resolve problems in a professional
manner?”
Page 5
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
8.0 GENERAL NOTES
8.1 This year’s questions are intended to test Candidates’ knowledge from a wide
spectrum of issues, with weight given to their associated and extended
thinking.
8.2 The Five Common Criteria (perception, imagination, technical skills, judgment
and communication) for assessing Candidates’ answers have also been
included in the Question Paper for Candidates’ attention.
9.0 NOTES TO CANDIDATES
9.1 Headings to questions are for ease of identification only and do not form part
of the questions.
9.2 The number of main questions is as follows:
(a) First day – Questions with varying marks but the aggregate mark is 50
marks
(b) Second day – Questions with varying marks but the aggregate mark is
50 marks
DAY 1
Question No. 1 Cost Estimate 12 marks

Question No. 2 Value Engineering 16 marks
Question No. 3 Tender Price Index 10 marks
Question No. 4 Contract Procurement 12 marks
---------------
50 marks
---------------
DAY 2
Question No. 1 Valuation of Variations 12 marks

Question No. 2 Determination by Employer 10 marks
Question No. 3 EOT and Time for Completion 15 marks
Question No. 4 Programme of Works 13 marks
---------------
50 marks
---------------
9.3 All Main Questions and Sub-Questions are compulsory.
Page 6
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
9.4 The total mark of each day’s paper is 50. The passing mark of each day’s
paper is 55% of the total mark of that paper. Candidates who have passed
both days’ papers will be considered as having passed the APC Practice
Problems.
9.5 Refer also to INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES, which were issued to you

in advance.
10.0 FIVE COMMON CRITERIA
10.1 Candidates are expected to demonstrate a reasonable level of professional

competence against five common criteria outlined below, sufficient for the
Assessors to answer the question “Would I employ the Candidate to work
as a qualified Quantity Surveyor with the ability to resolve problems in
a professional manner?” However, it should be recognized that not all these
criteria apply to every problem, nor do they carry equal weight.
(a) Perception: A full understanding of the problem posed, evidenced by

a response to each item in the question. Candidates should also show
foresight by anticipating additional problems not specifically
mentioned.
(b) Imagination: The assumption of essential supplementary information

so as to provide a full response; also the use of imaginary telephone
inquiries, quotations, notes, etc.
(c) Technical skills: The correct use of measurement principles, prices,

discount factors, etc. The use of appropriate short cuts, rounding off of
figures, etc. to suit the scale of the problem. The provision of analysis
to a depth appropriate to the stage reached by Candidates and the
time constraints imposed on Candidates.
(d) Judgement: The provision of sound professional advice indicative of

professional knowledge and experience gained by Candidates. The
advice should be firm and unhesitating, except where suitable caveats
are essential.
(e) Communication: Free of ambiguity, with clear expression and an

absence of irrelevant or inappropriate technical details, particularly
when provided to a lay Employer. Correct syntax and good
professional style in letters and reports are important. Candidates
should clearly convey their interpretations and proposals.
Page 7
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations used in the Notes to Assessors mean:
SFBC 2005 Agreement & Schedule of Conditions of Building Contract for use
in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Private Edition
- With Quantities 2005 Edition
SFBC 2006 Agreement & Schedule of Conditions of Building Contract for use
in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Private Edition
- Without Quantities 2006 Edition
GCC 1999 General Conditions of Contract for Building Works 1999 Edition
published by the Government of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region.
Candidates should clearly state the standard form of contract upon which their
answers are based.
Page 8
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
DAY 1
19th SEPTEMBER 2017
Page 9
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 1 – Cost Estimate
Your Company is the Consultant QS to ABC Development Limited for two residential
development projects, Project Greenland and Project Hillside. Project Greenland is
a newly proposed project at 18 Green Road. Project Hillside is under construction.
The development parameters of Project Greenland are as follows:
Existing building: A 6-storey high residential building (building fully occupies the Site
Area)
Site area: Approximately 1,200m2 (30m x 40m) on levelled ground; one shorter
side adjacent to service lane; remaining sides facing roads.
Description of A twenty-three-storey high residential development comprising:

the proposed
building: Ground floor to 2nd floor - Clubhouse and above ground
multi-storey Carpark
3rd floor to 22 nd floor - Residential flats
Construction Residential: 9,500m2*

Floor Areas of Club House: 350m2
the proposed Carpark: 2,250m2#
building:
Notes: -
(1) * 3rd to 22nd floor + 100m2 G/F entrance lobby + 200m2 roof plant rooms
(2) # inclusive of plant rooms
(3) Residential tower footprint = 460m2
(4) Podium footprint = 900m2
Your Director asked you to prepare a cost plan of Project Greenland for the
Employer’s review. He reminded you that the following information/documents are
available for your cost estimation:
(i) Design matters discussed during Project Design Meeting No. 2 (Appendix A);
(ii) Project details of Project Hillside (Appendix B); and
(iii) Tender Price Index (Appendix C).
He said that the exercise should be simple without the need to do a lot of
measurement, and that apart from working out the cost figures, it is more important
for you to write down the considerations and further enquiries that you have made in
arriving at the cost figures so that he may easily understand and accept without the
need to do an independent check again.
[12 marks]
Page 10
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Appendix A to Question 1
Redevelopment of Residential Building at 18 Green Road (Project Greenland)

Minutes of Project Design Meeting No. 2
Date: 7 September 2017

Time: 9:00 a.m.
Place Head Office of ABC Development Limited, ABC Development Tower
Present: The Project Division of the Employer (EProject)
The Property Division of the Employer (EProperty)
The Architect (Arch)
The Structural Engineer (SE)
The M&E Engineer (MEE)
The Quantity Surveyor (QS)
Item Action
1.0 Amendments to Minutes of Last Meeting
Nil. -
2.0 Typical Floor Plan for Residential Units
2.1 Arch tabled the residential typical floor plan for Project All parties
Greenland, the layout is similar to the design of Project to note
Hillside (SK-1, as shown on Attachment 1).
2.2 Façade Design

(a) EProject considered that ceramic tile for external wall Arch to
finishes is acceptable. Based on their experience in note
Project Hillside, the cost of curtain wall is very
expensive. Eproject requested Arch to propose
alternative façade design: adopting windows instead of
curtain walling.
(b) Arch reminded that curtain wall design would gain All parties
some exempted GFA. EProject took note of that. to note
Nevertheless, QS shall sort out the cost saving of
adopting windows for reporting to the top management.
(c) Arch proposed alternative façade design as below: All parties

to note
a) change curtain walling at bedrooms to windows
of 1.5m high
b) change curtain walling at balcony of living

rooms (2.5m wide) to glazed screen with sliding
door
Page 11
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Appendix A to Question 1 (Cont’d)
Item Action
(d) EProject requested QS to estimate the cost saving of QS
adopting windows as an optional value engineering
item. The changes of CFA due to omission of curtain
walling could be ignored at this stage.
3.0 Structural and Geotechnical Matters
3.1 SE advised that the Demolition Plan and Hoarding Plan All parties
had just been approved by BD and demolition works to note
could proceed shortly. Covered walkway shall be
provided to boundary facing roads, remaining shall be
with hoarding.
3.2 Piling and Pile Caps
(a) SE stated that the foundations design would be All parties

commenced soon, they would require information about to note
the ground conditions, and suggested that the ground
investigation be carried out. Minimum provisions:
a) 6 nos. boreholes 35m deep
b) At least 4 trial pits
(b) For foundations and substructure design: All parties

to note
· 130 nos. pre-bored socketed H-piles,
305x305x223kg/m; average depth 30m.
· 2.5m thick pile cap under the footprint of the

residential block. Lateral support system: steel
sheet piling type FSPII.
3.3 EProject confirmed that the pile cap works would be All parties
included in the Foundation Contract. to note
3.4 SE advised that the structural framing system for All parties
Project Greenland would be similar to Project Hillside, to note
that is, reinforced concrete beam and slab with
loadbearing columns and walls of conventional
construction.
Page 12
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
4.0 Architectural Matters
4.1 EProject stated that they would adopt such standard of All parties
architectural provisions similar to Project Hillside. to note
5.0 Building Services Installation Matters
5.1 EProject stated that they would adopt such standard of All parties
building services installation provisions similar to to note
Project Hillside.
6.0 Cost Matters
6.1 EProject requested QS to prepare a preliminary QS

estimate (together with an optional VE item of adopting
windows instead of curtain walling) based on the design
information discussed for reporting to their top
management.
Next Meeting
Date, Time and Place to be confirmed
Page 13
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Attachment 1 to Appendix A
Residential Typical Floor Plan of Project Greenland
denotes the extent of curtain wall to bedrooms and living rooms
Drawing SK-1
Page 14
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Appendix B to Question 1
Project details of Project Hillside are as follows:
Site area: 1,500m2 adjacent to hill slopes
Description of A twenty-seven-storey high residential development comprising:

the building:
· Ground floor to 2nd floor – Clubhouse and above ground
multi-storey Carpark
· 3rd floor to 26th floor – Residential flats
Item Contract Name Construction

Cost
HK$’M
1. Ground Investigation Contract 2.70
· Comprising drilling of boreholes within
site boundary and adjacent hill slopes.
· Contract awarded in October 2013.
2. Site Formation and Foundations Contract 85.00

· Comprising site formation, foundations,
pile caps and substantial rock
stabilization works on adjacent hill
slopes.
· Contract awarded in December 2014.
3. Main Contract 423.00

· Comprising substructure (ground slab
and beam, substructure columns),
structural frame, architectural works,
building services installation, external
works and landscaping.
· Contract awarded in December 2016.
HK$’M
(a) Residential (11,820m2 @$30,000/m2 CFA) 354.60
(b) Clubhouse (440m2 @$45,000/m2 CFA) 19.80
(c) Carpark (2,800m2 @$12,000/m2 CFA) 33.60
(d) External Works and Landscaping 15.00
Sub-total 3(a) to 3(d): 423.00
TOTAL (1) to (3): 510.70
Page 15
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Appendix C to Question 1
Tender Price Indices (“TPI”)
Year 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter
Year 2017 1790 1800 1818

(provisional)
Year 2016 1775 1776 1783 1783
Year 2015 1732 1761 1777 1775
Year 2014 1621 1648 1679 1703
Year 2013 1516 1532 1559 1590
Page 16
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 1 – Cost Estimate

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Objective
The objective of this question is to test Candidates’ ability to:
Ø appreciate various design requirements that could affect the construction costs
and incorporate the same into the cost plan;
Ø make use of cost data of similar project and apply appropriate adjustments to
suit the proposed new design; and
Ø make reasonable assumptions in terms of construction costs for areas where

the design has not been fully developed.
Cost Plan for Project Greenland
(1) Ground investigation
Candidates are expected to work out the costs of the boreholes and trial pits
based on the quantities advised by the SE (item 3.2(a) of the minutes of
meeting) plus allowance for field and laboratory tests.
(i) Boreholes: 6 Nos. x 35m deep x $2,500/m = $525,000

(ii) Trial pits (assume 1.5m x 1.5m x 1.5m deep per pit)
= 4 Nos. x $15,000/No. = $60,000
(iii) Field and laboratory tests = 20% of above items = $117,000
(iv) Preliminaries = 10% for Ground Investigation = $70,200
(Cost build-up for ground investigation in the range of $0.7M to $1.0M would
be acceptable.)
Direct application of the cost data from Project Hillside is common but must
be exercised with care. The site investigation works for Project Hillside
involve boreholes on hill slopes. If the cost data from Project Hillside is used,
reasonable assumptions and appropriate adjustments should be made to
address the absence of boreholes on hill slopes in Project Greenland. TPI
adjustment should also be made.
Page 17
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 1 – Cost Estimate (Cont’d)

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
(2) Demolition and Hoarding
Reference should be made to SE’s advice given in item 3.1 of the minutes of
meeting.
(i) Demolition of 6-storey existing building = 1,200m2 per floor x 6 floor

x $800/m2 = $5,760,000
(ii) Covered walkway = (40 + 40 + 30)m x $18,000/m = $1,980,000
(iii) Hoarding = 30m x $7,000/m = $210,000
(iv) Preliminaries = 10% = $795,000
(Cost build-up for demolition in the range of $7M to $10M is considered

acceptable.)
(3) Foundations
Reference should be made to SE’s advice given in item 3.2(b) of the minutes
of meeting.
(i) Pre-bored socketed H-piles = 130 Nos. x 30 m deep x $7,000/m

= $27,300,000
(ii) Preliminaries = 15% = $4,095,000
(Cost build-up for the piles in the range of $28M to $35M would be acceptable.)
The foundations of Project Hillside involved a substantial amount of rock

stabilization works on hill slope which are not required for Project Greenland.
Therefore, direct application of the cost data from Project Hillside would NOT
be appropriate because the foundations design would depend very much on
individual site’s conditions. If the Candidate chooses to use the cost data
from Project Hillside, he should demonstrate how he would exclude the cost
effect of rock stabilization works in Project Hillside. This may be
demonstrated by search and enquiry within the company for the details of
cost data from Project Hillside.
Page 18
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
(4) Pile Caps
Cost build-up for pile caps which includes reinforced concrete, formwork,
rebar, blinding, excavation and lateral support: -
(i) Concrete:
- Cap under footprint area of residential block = 460m2 x 2.5m = 1,150m3

- Small caps for the podium (number and size assumed by QS)
area =16 nos. x 1.5m x 1.5m = 36m2; volume = 36m2 x 1.5m thick = 54m3
- Total concrete volume = 1,150m3 + 54m3 = 1,204m3
- Cost = 1,204m3 x $1,400/m3= $1,685,600
(ii) Formwork:
Perimeter of pile caps under footprint area of residential block = 120m
- Cap under footprint area of residential block = 120m x 2.5m = 300m2

- Small caps for the podium (number and size assumed by QS) =16 nos. x
1.5m x 4 x 1.5m = 144m2
- Total = 300m2 + 144m2 = 444m2
- Cost = 444m2 x $500/m2= $222,000
(iii) Rebar (assumed 300kg/m3 by QS):
- Total = 1,204m3 x 300kg/m3 = 361,200kg

- Cost = 361,200kg x $10/kg = $3,612,000
(iv) Blinding Layer (say 75mm thick)
- Total = 460m2 + 36m2 = 496m2

- Cost = 496m2 x $100/m2 = $49,600
Page 19
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
(4) Pile Caps (Cont’d)
(v) Excavation of Pile caps:
Assume space from top of pile caps to ground level is 1.5m depth
- Excavation of pile cap under footprint area of residential block

= 460m2 x (2.5m +1.5m) = 1,840m3
- Excavation of small caps for the podium (assumed by QS)
=16 nos. x 1.5m x1.5m x (1.5 + 1.5) m =108m3
- Total excavation volume = 1,840m3 + 108m3 = 1,948m3
- Cost = 1,948m3 x $600/m3 (unit rate including cart away / backfill)
= $1,168,800
(vi) Steel sheet piles:
Perimeter of pile cap under footprint area of residential block = 120m

Depth of sheet piles (assumed by QS) = 2 x excavation depth = 2 x 4m =8m
- Total = 120 x 8m deep x 120kg/m2 = 115,200kg

- Cost = 115,200kg x $16/kg = $1,843,200
(vii) Steel waling and strutting:
Perimeter of pile cap under footprint area of residential block = 120m

Depth of excavation = 4m; assume waling and strutting = 300kg/m2 on
strutting area.
- Total = 120 x 4m deep x 300kg/m2 = 144,000kg

- Cost = 144,000kg x $16/kg = $2,304,000
(viii) Preliminaries
- Allow 15% on above costs = $1,632,780
(Cost build-up for the pile caps in the range of $10M to $15M would be
acceptable.)
Candidates are expected to highlight that small caps have to be allowed for
the podium. Candidates should write down the considerations or send
queries to the Structural Engineer to confirm the pile cap design for the
podium, depth of steel sheet piles and tonnage of steel strutting and shoring.
Page 20
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
(5) Substructure (Ground slab and beam, tie beams, substructure columns, cable
trenches, lift pits, etc.) - costs were included in the superstructure unit costs
of Project Hillside.
(6) Superstructure – Residential
Before adopting the unit costs of the Project Hillside, Candidate should check
the following to verify that the unit costs are appropriate for reference:
- Building height: 23 storeys for Project Greenland and 27 storeys for

Project Hillside, i.e. comparable
- Area of typical floor: 460m2 for Project Greenland and 480m2 (i.e.
(11,820m2 – entrance lobby 100m2 – roof plant rooms 200m2 as Project
Greenland) / 24 floors) for Project Hillside, 4.4% different, i.e. comparable
- No. of flat: 160 flats (i.e. 8 x 20 floors) for Project Greenland and 192 flats
(i.e. 8 x 24 floors) for Project Hillside, i.e. comparable
- Typical floor plan layout and standard: similar in both projects as advised
in Project Design Meeting
It is crucial that TPI adjustment should be made with reference to the TPI
given in Appendix C to bring the cost to the current price level.
Factor for adjustment of TPI = 1818 (2017Q3 TPI) / 1783 (2016Q4 TPI)
= 1.0196
Adjusted unit cost of residential = $30,000/m2 CFA x 1.0196

= $30,588/m2 CFA, say $30,600/m2 CFA
Cost = 9,500m2 x $30,600/m2 = $290,700,000 = $291M
Page 21
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
(7) Superstructure - Clubhouse
CFA of Clubhouse in both projects are small and comparable, one is 350m2
and the other one is 440m2. The unit cost of the Clubhouse of Project Hillside
could be adopted for the estimate of Project Greenland. TPI adjustment
similar to that described for the Residential Portion is required.
Adjusted unit cost = $45,000/m2 CFA x 1.0196

= $45,882/m2 CFA, say $45,900/m2 CFA
Cost = 350m2 x $45,900/m2 = $16,065,000 = $16M
(8) Superstructure - Carpark
The cost per CFA of the carpark of Project Hillside could be adopted for the
cost plan of Project Greenland. TPI adjustment similar to that described for
the Residential Portion is required.
Adjusted unit cost = $12,000/m2 CFA x 1.0196

= $12,235/m2 CFA, say $12,300/m2 CFA
Cost = 2,250m2 x $12,300/m2 = $27,675,000 = $28M
(9) External and Landscaping Works
Candidates should apply the cost data from Project Hillside and make
appropriate adjustment for the difference in TPI.
Project Hillside: Site area 1,500m2 – tower 480m2 = 1,020m2
Project Greenland: Site area 1,200m2 – tower 460m2 = 740m2
Cost = $15M x (740/1,020)m2 x 1.0196 (TPI adjustment) = $11M
Page 22
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
(10) Preliminaries
If the costs are based on the cost data from Project Hillside, they should have
included preliminaries and no separate allowance should be made on top.
If the costs are built up independently, then additional allowance could be

made for preliminaries.
(11) Contingencies
Even though the some of the costs are based on the cost data from Project
Hillside, it would still be prudent to allow for design development and
construction contingencies for this Project Greenland.
Summary of costs of above items:
a. Ground Investigation: $0.7M to $1.0M

b. Demolition and Hoarding: $7M to $10M
c. Foundations: $28M to $35M
d. Pile Caps: $10M to $15M
e. Superstructure: Residential: $291M
f. Superstructure: Clubhouse: $16M
g. Superstructure: Carpark: $28M
h. External and Landscaping works: $11M
Contingencies = Allow 10% for items with cost build-up based on Project
Greenland’s design and 5% for items using the unit costs of Project Hillside
(that is, 10% for items a to d ($4.6M to $6.1M) and 5% for items e to h ($17.3M)
= $22M to $24M
Based on the above estimated figures, the total estimated construction cost should
be in the range of HK$414M to HK$431M.
Page 23
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Optional VE Item – Adopting Windows / Glazed Screen instead of Curtain

Walling
Base Scheme (per floor):
Length of curtain wall = 63.4m

Area of curtain wall = 63.4m x 3.3m = 209.22m2
Cost of curtain wall = 209.22m2 x $9,000/m2 = $1,882,980
Alternative Scheme (per floor):
Area of curtain wall replaced by:

(assume 700mm deep beam along building perimeter)
Length of glazed screen with sliding door at balconies = 2.5m x 8 flats = 20m
Length of window = (63.4m – 20m) = 43.4m
- Area of glazed screen with sliding door at balconies = 20m x (3.3m – beam 0.7m)
= 52m2
- Area of window = 43.4m x 1.5m high = 65.1m2
- Area of external RC wall (150mm thick) = 43.4m x (3.3m – beam 0.7m – window
1.5m) = 47.74m2
- Area of ceramic tiles = 209.22m2 – glazed screen 52m2 – window 65.1m2
= 92.12m2
Cost of glazed screen with sliding door = 52m2 x $6,000/m2 = $312,000

Cost of window = 65.1m2 x $4,500/m2 = $292,950
Cost of external RC wall (150mm thick) with paint to surface facing interior =
47.74m2 x $1,800/m2 = $85,932
Cost of ceramic tiles = 92.12m2 x $800/m2 = $73,696
Total cost = $764,578
Estimated cost saving for adopting window / glazed screen = $1,882,980 - $764,578
= $1,118,402 per floor
Total estimated cost saving = $1,118,402 per floor x 20 floors x 1.15 for preliminaries
x 1.1 for contingencies = $28,295,571, say $28M
Candidates’ answer covering 80% of the points above should have full mark.
[12 marks]
Page 24
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 2 – Value Engineering
Your client is going to build a 12-storey multi-functional building on a vacant site.

The total Construction Floor Area (CFA) is 30,000m2 with typical floor CFA of
2,400m2. The new building comprises mainly lecture rooms, multi-purpose rooms,
offices, a western restaurant, store rooms, etc.
You as the Consultant QS has just completed a Scheme Design construction cost
estimate at HK$800M, which is 5% over the budget. Your client then requested the
consultant team to give value engineering (VE) ideas to alleviate the cost overrun.
Your assistant attended the first VE meeting on your behalf with the client and the
design consultants yesterday. The client requested your firm to firstly estimate the
indicative cost saving of 5 VE ideas. Your assistant has finished the estimate and
summarized as follows. His backup calculations are shown in Appendix A to this
question.
VE Item / Location Proposed Changes by Design Consultants Estimated

No. Saving HK$
1 Structural reinforced Change from round columns (800mm dia.) to (-)1,680,000
concrete columns square columns (800x800mm) (total 35 no. per
floor as shown on drawings)
2 Atrium glass skylight Change flat glass skylight to green roof matching (-)970,000
the roof surrounding the skylight
3 Western restaurant on Total dining area is 500m2. Relocate 300m2 from (-)3,000,000
G/F indoor to outdoor area.
4 Back-of-house (BOH) Omit metal ceiling at BOH e.g. store rooms, (-)20,000
false ceiling maintenance office, associated corridors, etc.
(approx. 300m2)
5 Transformers Reduce the spare capacity of the electrical load, (-)300,000

reduce number of transformers from 4 to 3.
You are required to review your assistant’s backup calculations and revise the cost
estimate if appropriate. More importantly, you should prepare estimating notes,
assumptions or record of queries made so that you can be more certain about the
scope of changes. For the avoidance of doubt, you are NOT required to comment
on the aesthetical, functional or statutory aspects of the VE ideas or propose any
new VE ideas in your answer. It would be acceptable to directly mark on the question
paper.
[16 marks]
Page 25
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
VE No. 1 – Structural reinforced concrete columns
Quantity Unit Rate Amount HK$
Omit formwork to round columns of (-)4,200 m2 1,000 (-)4,200,000

800mm diameter x 35 no. per floor
4m high (total area of formwork =
approx. 4,200m2)
Add formwork to square columns 4,200 m2 600 2,520,000
Estimated saving (rounded to nearest Total (-)1,680,000

10,000)
VE No. 2 – Atrium glass skylight
Omit glass skylight (8m x 8m on plan) Item (-)1,000,000
Add green roof 64 m2 500 32,000
Estimated saving (rounded to nearest Total (-)970,000

10,000)
VE No. 3 – Western restaurant on G/F
Omit dining area 300 m2 10,000 (-)3,000,000
Estimated saving (rounded to nearest Total (-)3,000,000

10,000)
Page 26
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
VE No. 4 – Back-of-house (BOH) false ceiling
Omit metal false ceiling 300 m2 800 (-)24,000

10,000)
VE No. 5 – Transformers
Omit supply and installation of one (-)300,000

transformer
10,000)
Page 27
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 2 – Value Engineering

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Objective
The objective of this question is to test Candidates’ ability to carry out cost studies
of specific design changes. To come up with a more realistic estimate, Candidates
should list the points already clarified with or subject to clarification by the design
consultants and/or the Client. Candidates should demonstrate sanity check on the
quantities and rates in the assistant’s backup calculations by giving their own
estimate with clear build-up.
VE No. 1 – Structural reinforced concrete columns
Candidates should address the following after reviewing the assistant’s backup
calculation:
· Formwork – Apart from the unit rates, the quantity of formwork will change.
Candidates should check the quantity for round columns and estimate the
quantity for square columns.
· Concrete – Similar to formwork, the volume of concrete will change as well.

Candidates should show the adjustment of the volume of concrete.
· Reinforcement – The reinforcement designs of round columns and square

columns are different. The structural engineer should advise on the difference.
At scheme design stage, it is acceptable to apply the same reinforcement ratio.
· Finishes to columns – The quantity and unit rate will change. The rates for
circular wall finishes (like cladding / tiles) should be higher than those for flat wall
finishes.
Cost implication of other building elements e.g. concrete shoulders of different mixes,
floor finishes, ceiling finishes, building services can be considered relatively
insignificant.
VE No. 2 – Atrium glass skylight
calculation:
· The unit rate for skylight with structural frame is approximately HK$15,000/m2.
This is considered reasonable for a typical glass skylight.
· In addition to the omission of glass skylight, interfacing details such as curbs and
joints between the glass skylight and adjacent structure and finishes could also
be omitted.
Page 28
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 2 – Value Engineering (Cont’d)

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
VE No. 2 – Atrium glass skylight (Cont’d)
· The unit rate for the green roof is too low. The structure supporting the green
roof is apparently missing. It can be reinforced concrete or steel. Candidates
should add back the cost of the structure based on his assumption.
· Waterproofing, insulation, roof finishes, and ceiling finishes should be added

back.
· Candidates should state the green roof system (soil and plant) and associated
irrigation system and review the rate.
Bonus
Bonus marks for Candidates who have considered design changes to lighting and
building services installation.
VE No. 3 – Western restaurant on G/F
The relocation of 300m2 dining area from indoor to outdoor can only mean a change
of use, not necessarily a reduction of the CFA. A change of use without reduction
of the CFA would not save a lot and there would be extra cost to provide the dining
area outdoor. It is therefore not appropriate to report any cost saving without further
descriptions of the actual changes, as evidenced by records of clarification with the
design consultants and the client. Candidates should demonstrate that they have
considered (but not necessarily adopting) the following possible scope changes in
the answer:
· Reduction or not of CFA, stating the new use if CFA is not to be reduced.
· Reduction of extent or standard of interior finishes to indoor dining area.
· Reduction of extent or standard of M&E provisions to indoor dining area.
· Addition of canopy, umbrellas or similar covering outdoor dining area.
· Upgrading of indoor furniture to outdoor weatherproof furniture.
· Downgrading of the outdoor furniture to simpler style.
· Revision of external area to accommodate outdoor dining.
· Addition of outdoor lighting.
· Addition of outdoor ventilation and heating.
Page 29
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
VE No. 3 – Western restaurant on G/F (Cont’d)
Bonus
· Bonus marks to Candidates who have considered modification of façade design

to allow for more open access between indoor and outdoor.
VE No. 4 – Back-of-house (BOH) false ceiling
calculation:
· Arithmetical error in the assistant’s calculation of the omission is found. 300m2 x

HK$800/m2 = HK$240,000 not HK$24,000.
· Typically, with false ceiling, fire sprinklers are installed at the soffit of false ceiling
and inside ceiling void. With the omission of the false ceiling, ceiling void fire
sprinklers and associated pipework, fittings etc. should also be omitted.
· Similar to the above, ceiling void smoke detectors and associated wiring, control
etc. should be omitted.
· Wall finishes to the exposed ceiling void should be added back.
· Painting to building services at the exposed ceiling void might be required.
· Plastering and painting to concrete ceilings and beams should be added back.
The area on plan plus 10 to 20% addition for sides of beams would be a
reasonable assumption. Having said that plastering may be ignored to reduce
cost.
· The type of lighting fittings and fixing method will change.
Bonus
If air conditioning is provided at BOH area, its loading will increase due to the
omission of false ceiling.
Page 30
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
VE No. 5 – Transformers
calculation:
· The transformer itself is supplied and installed by the electricity supply company.
However, a service charge is normally paid by the client to the electricity supply
company, and could be reduced.
· Reduction in the costs of main switchboard and rising mains.
· Possible reduction of CFA due to the reduction in size of the transformer room,
or a change of use. Similar to VE No. 3 (Western restaurant on G/F), Candidates
should record the queries raised with the design consultants about the changes.
· Reduction of associated builder’s works e.g. cable trench, ventilation, louvre,

lighting etc. in the transformer room.
Corresponding changes to preliminaries and contingencies
Preliminaries and contingencies are usually allowed for simply as percentage mark-
ups on the basic costs when preparing the Scheme Design cost estimate. With
every change in the basic costs, the preliminaries and contingencies should in theory
also be changed arithmetically. In reality, the preliminaries should not change so
responsive to the change in the basic costs, especially when the change is small. It
is therefore acceptable to include or exclude the corresponding changes to
preliminaries and contingencies at every cost study. In case of exclusion, it should
be so stated to signify that it is not forgotten.
Candidates’ answers covering 80% of the points above should have full mark.
[16 marks]
Page 31
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 3 – Tender Price Index
Your consultant QS firm publishes Tender Price Index (TPI) quarterly in its
publication. The Project Manager of one of your developer clients has observed that
the percentage increase in the unit construction cost per Construction Floor Area
(CFA) of residential developments is significantly higher than the corresponding
percentage increase in your company’s TPI in the past decade, which casts doubt
on the accuracy of your company’s TPI.
Please draft a letter to the Project Manager explaining:
(a) the purposes and limitations of the TPI; and
(b) why there is a deviation between the percentage changes in the residential
unit construction cost and the TPI.
[10 marks]
Page 32
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 3 – Tender Price Index

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Objective
The objective of this question is to test Candidates’ understanding of the application

of common tender price indices and ability to reconcile the apparent deviation
between the changes in unit construction costs and TPI.
Purposes and limitations of Tender Price Indices
· Tender Price Indices (TPIs) are often compiled by government departments and
quantity surveying consultants based on data collected from tenders. The
targeted sector varies from index series to index series. Indices compiled by
government departments often focus on public works while indices compiled by
quantity surveying consultants often focus on the private sector. Most of the TPIs
published by quantity surveying consultants measure tender price movements of
a fixed quantified list of notional builder’s works items which are typical to building
construction projects, and may exclude certain building elements e.g. piling,
substructures, external works and mechanical & electrical services.
· Factors reflected by TPI:
o General fluctuations of common materials, labour and plant costs;

o Trend of risks allocation between contractors and employers; and
o Competition among contractors.
· However, since the quantified list is fixed, TPIs generally do NOT reflect changes
in the design standards and provisions of the buildings occurring after the Base
Year of the respective index in response to the property market.
· Even if the TPI has been compiled very responsive to changes in the design
standards and provisions, a single TPI covering all building types would only
represent the weighted average of all building types. Because of the different
choices of design standards and provisions, the unit construction costs of
different building types are different, and the changes of the unit construction
costs of different building types over time are different. Some unit construction
costs will change more rapidly than the averaged TPI while other unit
construction costs will fall behind.
· The TPI is just an aid to indicate the general average trend of tender price level
changes of all building types. It would be useful to serve as an economic
indicator and for making minor adjustment due to change in time to costs already
estimated on a more solid basis for estimating purposes. TPIs are based on
historical tender prices which trend may not necessarily apply to the future.
Page 33
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 3 – Tender Price Index (Cont’d)

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Purposes and limitations of Tender Price Indices (Cont’d)
· Even the unit construction cost for a particular building type is also an average of
that particular building type, and should not directly be applied to a particular
building.
· The actual cost of a building will depend upon the design, site conditions and
many other factors relevant to that particular building. The more solid cost
estimate should be based on the building itself rather than relying on the
published TPI or unit construction cost for that building type.
Reasons for residential unit construction cost rising more rapidly than the average
building construction cost
· Increasing tendency of developers uplifting the design standards and provisions

of private residential buildings in the past decade:
o Increased floor-to-floor height;

o Adoption of curtain wall system and glazed screen;
o Heavy use of natural stone finishes;
o Luxurious provision of kitchen appliances;
o Luxurious provision of sanitary fittings and wares;
o Sophisticated club house design; Etc.
· BEAM Plus Certification;
· Mandatory implementation of Building Energy Codes;
· Enhanced fire services provisions required by latest Code of Practice / Circular

Letters; and
· Enhanced site safety, environmental management and site hygiene provisions.
[10 marks]
Page 34
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 4 – Contract Procurement
You are the project quantity surveyor of a consultant QS firm and are responsible for
a proposed residential development in Wanchai (“the Project”). The Project is being
procured using a traditional contractual arrangement under two separate contracts,
namely, Foundations Contract and Superstructure Contract. The Foundations
Contract has been tendered for, while the detailed design of the Superstructure
Works is underway.
Part A
The tenderer submitting the lowest tender for the Foundations Contract has advised
your Client that the overall construction cost and time can be reduced if the
foundations and superstructure works are combined under one single contract and
awarded to him.
You have been requested to address the following:
1. Benefits and drawbacks of combining the foundations and superstructure

works into one contract at this juncture; and
2. Issues to be resolved if the combined approach is to be adopted.
Please respond with a letter to the Client.

[6 marks]
Part B
The Client eventually awarded the Foundations Contract only. It is now three months
before the completion of the foundation works. The tender drawings for the
superstructure works (including M&E services and lifts) have been completed and
your firm is preparing the Bills of Quantities for tendering in a single package within
one month followed by two months’ tendering, analysis and award.
The Client has just decided to change the use of the development from residential
to serviced apartment. The Engineer has advised that there would be no change to
the foundation works. The Employer would want to commence the superstructure
works immediately after the foundation works, and apply to the relevant Government
departments for the change from residential to serviced apartment while the
structure is being constructed. The structure will not be changed significantly. The
lifts will also not be changed. The Employer is prepared to take the risk of the
statutory approval process. The Employer would like you to advise him by a letter
how to implement his idea in the imminent tendering exercise and the Tender
Documents to ensure cost certainty, noting that there would not be sufficient time to
revise all the detailed architectural and M&E drawings by the due day for issuing the
Tender Documents but the general plans for the serviced apartment should be ready
by then.
[6 marks]
Page 35
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 4 – Contract Procurement

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Part A:
Objective
The objective of this question is to test Candidates’ appreciation of the benefits and
drawbacks of a single contract and ability to identify the issues to be resolved at this
particular juncture when the design of the superstructure works is not ready and the
prices are not certain.
Benefits of one contract
· Elimination of demobilization time by the Foundations Contractor and

mobilization time by the Superstructure Contractor after the completion of the
foundation works.
· Reduction of overall time due to more time overlap of the foundation works and
the superstructure works.
· Saving of some temporary protection measures otherwise required due to two

contracts.
· Less interfacing problems when incorrect foundation works occurs and requires
rectification.
· Undivided responsibility by one contractor.
· Possibility of deferring the design of part of the superstructure works otherwise

required for tendering for the Superstructure Contract.
· Possibility of using the Contractor’s design and buildability input for the
development of the superstructure design.
· Elimination of the time required to prepare full-blown Tender Documents and

conduct tendering.
Page 36
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 4 – Contract Procurement (Cont’d)

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Drawbacks of one contract at this juncture
· Design of superstructure works not yet completed for tendering.
· Tender Documents for the superstructure works not yet prepared.
· Competitive tender prices for the superstructure works not yet obtained.
· Deferment of the foundation works even if tendering for the superstructure now
is possible.
· Less price certainty and more arguments if the prices for the superstructure
works are negotiated with the lowest foundation works tenderer based on
schedule of rates or provisional quantities or cost-plus.
· No benchmark to judge whether the prices for the superstructure works would
be cheaper.
· Increase of the time required to calculate and agree the prices during the post
contract stage.
Issues to be resolved
· Credibility, track record, technical and financial capabilities, statutory

qualifications, etc. of the lowest tenderer to be checked to ensure that he is
capable and trustworthy and not just deceiving to secure more works.
· Drafting of specification and contract provisions to cover the superstructure

works and to cover the later availability of the complete design.
· Possible inclusion of responsibility to provide the Contractor’s design input.
· Agreeing a pricing mechanism for the superstructure works, i.e. schedule of

rates or provisional quantities or cost and fee definitions and fee basis.
· Finding a pricing benchmark such as past jobs with the same contractor.
· Setting a deadline to drop the idea and award the Foundations Contract.
[6 marks]
Page 37
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Part B:
Objective
The objective of this question is to test Candidates’ ability to suggest contractual

provisions and pricing methods to be included in the Tender Documents to cover
known but future major design changes with better cost certainty.
Measures
· Write into the Tender Documents to clarify:
o the basis of the design and quantities used for tendering
o that the works are to be commenced based on the BD approved residential

design initially
o the programme for the availability of the construction drawings and BD

approved drawings for the serviced apartment design after the
commencement of the works
o the extent that the Contractor has to accommodate in terms of time, cost and
statutory compliance in case of a failure to obtain statutory approval or
consent or a delay to the programme
o the mechanism to evaluate the extra time and cost effects if the failure or
delay is more severe than expected.
· Keep measuring the Bills of Quantities exactly based on the present set of
residential drawings to form a clear base for measuring the future change to
serviced apartment.
· Produce (by the Architect and Engineers) additional specification for additional
work items required for the serviced apartment.
· Produce (by the Architect and Engineers) typical details for additional work items
required for the serviced apartment.
· Prepare a schedule of rates (or a set of provisional BQ) to represent the

additional work items to obtain rates for future pricing of variations.
· Include a cost-plus mechanism to cover major items not coverable by the

schedule of rates or provisional BQ.
Page 38
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Part B: (Cont’d)
Measures (Cont’d)
· Include the aforesaid into the Tender Documents and update where appropriate
by means of tender addenda or post tender clarifications until contract award.
· Monitor the cost of the serviced apartment design during its development.
· Measure, value and agree the variations as soon as the construction drawings
for the serviced apartment are issued.
[6 marks]
Page 39
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
DAY 2
20th SEPTEMBER 2017
Page 40
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 1 – Valuation of Variations
You are a Project Team Leader of a Consultant QS firm. Your assistant Peter, the
Project Quantity Surveyor for a residential project (“the Project”), disapproved of the
Contractor’s practice which applied a mark-up of 25% on every item of work involving
a variation indiscriminately. The mark-up comprises 15% for profit & overheads and
10% for site preliminaries.
The type of contract for the Project is a lump sum contract with Bills of Quantities.
Peter considers that no mark-up as such shall be applied in accordance with the
valuation rules for variations stipulated in the Contract.
The Contractor disagreed with Peter and argued that every piece of work ordered
by variation instructions (or orders), regardless of whether it is valued by applying
the rates in the Bills of Quantities or valued at fair rates, would necessitate extra
expenses in respect of additional head office resources and site preliminaries
provisions. The Contractor cited certain practical happenings like, overtime for site
QS to prepare the quotations for the variations, more supervision workload for
superintendents, more frequent visits by project director. The Contractor, however,
did not argue for delays and disruptions due to the variations.
The matter has been escalated to you for advice. Please express your views in a
memorandum to Peter to advise him and quote the relevant contract clause numbers
whether you endorse his view or otherwise and the proper course of actions to be
taken.
[12 marks]
Page 41
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 1 – Valuation of Variations (Cont’d)

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Objective
This objective of this question is to test Candidates’ understanding of the application

of the valuation rules with respect to overheads and profit.
Applicable Contract Provisions
· Both Peter and the Contractor’s approaches are not entirely correct. The
Contract provides a set of valuation rules for various situations, for some of which
separate calculation of overheads and profit is allowable. Candidates should be
able to determine under what situations such mark-up would be allowable and
apply the applicable valuation rules in accordance with the Contract.
· Overheads and profit are deemed to have been included in the contract rates
and prices according to the most commonly used methods of measurement (i.e.
SMM4 or HKSAR SMM for Civil Engineering Works). Items valued using or
making reference to the contract rates should therefore have the same allowance
for overheads and profit included automatically.
· Contractors are free to allow for head office overheads, site overheads and profit
in the unit rates for the relevant measured work or in the preliminaries. Tender
Documents usually stipulate that the preliminaries prices are fixed and would not
be adjusted in case of variations to the measured works.
· Contracts priced based on a set of fixed unit rates and prices (i.e. contract rates)
usually stipulate that the contract rates should by default be used for pricing
increases or decreases in quantities due to variations [SFBC2005/2006 clauses
13.4(1)((a) to (c))(i) & (3)(a) or GCC1999 clauses 61(1) (a) & (b)]. No further
mark-up for overheads and profit is admissible.
· If the variation addition is not of the same or similar character to or executed

under the same or similar conditions to the original work, then the contract rates
should still apply but adjustment can be made for the difference in characters or
conditions. (SFBC2005/2006 clause 13.4(1)((a) to (c))(ii) stipulates conditions
only. GCC1999 clause 61(1) (c) stipulates characters and conditions.) Therefore,
only if the Contractor can demonstrate that the variation addition has caused him
extra overheads over those reasonably anticipated at the time of tendering, then
there can be additions for the extra overheads and related profit. The Contractor
should substantiate such additional costs in details rather than apply an arbitrary
mark-up percentage.
Page 42
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Applicable Contract Provisions (Cont’d)
· The happenings cited by the Contractor can apply to all variations, are therefore
normal, and should therefore have been allowed for in the contract rates.
· Only if, due to different characters or conditions, the contract rates cannot
reasonably serve as the base for valuation, then fair rates are to be used
[SFBC2005/2006 clause 13.4(1)(c) (iii) or GCC1999 clause 61(1)(c)].
· Fair rates derived from the first principles (costs plus overheads and profit) can
take into account all reasonable costs (including extra site preliminaries) arising
from the carrying out of the variation, and have a mark-up percentage to cover
overheads and profit. The overheads can cover head office overheads and site
overheads not allowed for in the preliminaries. It would be necessary to
scrutinize that the site overheads allowed for in the mark-up do not overlap the
site overheads allowed for in the costs. 15% is taken as the common norm for
simplicity sake only. The Contractor may be required to demonstrate that the
percentage is the same as that used to price his contract rates, to follow the
principle that the price levels of the contract rates should still be applicable.
· If the fair rates are determined by making reference to market rates, those rates
should already have included for overheads and profit. Care should be taken
when deciding whether further mark-up for the same should be made.
· If the variation work cannot be properly measured and valued, it can be valued
on daywork basis [SFBC2005/2006 clause 13.4(2) or GCC1999 clause 62]. The
principle is the same as that described above for fair rates derived from the first
principles. SFBC2005/2006 clause 13.4(2)(d)(iv) stipulates that the percentage
for overheads and profit should be that included in the Contract, otherwise 15%.
GCC1999 is silent about the percentage.
Page 43
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Proper course of actions
· Give the contract provisions and contractual interpretations to the Contractor for
his reference.
· Request the Contractor, if he still disagrees, to explain in more details the contract
provisions on which his claim for such mark-up is based.
· Request the Contractor to submit proof or records to substantiate that extra site
overheads or head office overheads over the normal anticipation will be or have
been incurred.
· Review the assessment of the Contractor’s claim in light of the above-mentioned.
· Request the Contractor to demonstrate the percentage mark-up for overheads

and profit used in pricing his tender. Request where necessary for a copy of the
audited accounts for the past 3 years to counter-check the head office overheads
and profit percentages.
Candidates’ answer covering 80% of the points above should have full mark. The
text can be simpler.
[12 marks]
Page 44
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 2 – Determination of Contractor’s Employment
You are the Project Consultant QS for a residential project. During a monthly
progress meeting, the Architect expressed his concerns about the progress of Works
as the prevailing programme revealed a 4 weeks’ delay. The Architect urged the
Contractor to expedite the Works and asked the minutes taker to put it on record that
if there is no sign of improvement within 14 days, he will formally recommend to the
Employer to determine the Contractor’s employment.
14 days after the progress meeting, the Architect was still unsatisfied with the
Contractor’s progress of Works. He then wrote a letter to the Employer
recommending determination of the Contractor’s employment and engagement of
others to complete the remaining works.
The Employer is inclined to accept the Architect’s recommendation and asked for
your view before deciding on any further action.
You are requested to write a letter to the Employer to advise him and quote the
relevant contract clause numbers on the procedures to invoke determination and
whether the 4 weeks’ programme delay is sufficient to do so.
[10 marks]
Page 45
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 2 – Determination of Contractor’s Employment

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Objective
The objective of this question is to test Candidates’ understanding of the strict

contract provisions to be observed with regard to determination of the Contractor’s
employment.
For answers based on SFBC2005/2006
Procedures
Invoking the determination provisions under the Contract is a serious matter and
getting it wrong can be fatal.
The ingredients and sequence of a valid determination by the Employer are:
· A default by the Contractor as listed in clause 35.1(1)(a) to (e).
· A notice of default served by the Architect under clause 35.1(1) and in

compliance with the requirements set out in clause 35.1(2) stating the default and
with a clear warning of determination.
· A continuation of the default by the Contractor for 14 days after receipt of the
Architect’s notice of default [clause 35.1(3)(a)].
· A certification by the Architect of the same [clause 35.1(3)(b)].
· A notice of determination served by the Employer pursuant to clause 35.1(3)

within 14 days of the said Architect’s certificate. Alternatively, a notice of
determination may be served under clause 35.1(5) if the conditions mentioned in
sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) are satisfied.
· Sending of all notices of default or determination by special delivery [clause 1.10].
Candidates should remind the Employer that a single wrong step in the
determination procedures by the Employer may lead to the Employer himself being
in repudiatory breach of the Contract. Therefore, the matter, timing and formality
must be handled with extreme care.
Page 46
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 2 – Determination of Contractor’s Employment (Cont’d)

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
For answers based on SFBC2005/2006 (Cont’d)
Sufficiency
Based on the given facts that the Contractor has an unsatisfactory progress of
Works, clauses 35.1(1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) are therefore irrelevant. The Architect is
probably referring to the Contractor’s failure to proceed regularly and diligently with
the Works under clause 35.1(1)(b).
However, a programme delay of 4 weeks does not by itself provide conclusive proof
of a lack of due diligence.
The programme may not have been updated for all kinds of delays (with or without
extension of time entitlement) to serve as a realistic programme for monitoring.
The 4 weeks’ delay may be the result of accumulation over a long time and it is no
longer feasible to catch up.
The Contractor may have been working very regularly and diligently but because of
site problems the progress has not been satisfactory.
Much more evidence is required such as:
· Failing to achieve the programmed productivity because of inadequate

resourcing.
· Diminishing resources without justifiable grounds.
· Actual resources deployed are far less than what were planned.
The record in the minutes cannot serve as a notice of default under clause 35.1(1).
The procedures described above should be strictly followed in order to invoke

determination.
To conclude, none of the ingredients of a valid determination under the Contract has
been established at this moment and it is pre-mature for the Employer to issue a
notice of determination.
Page 47
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 2 – Determination of Contractor’s Employment (Cont’d)

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
For answers based on GCC1999
Same principle generally applies to answers based on GCC1999. Candidates

should be able to construe and apply clauses 81 and 87 of GCC1999.
The key differences would be: 14 days’ warning notice followed by determination
notice within 14 days of the Architect’s certification of continuation or repetition of
default under SFBC2005/2006, but unspecified period of warning notice followed by
determination notice within 7 days of the Architect’s certification of continuation or
repetition of default under GCC1999.
[10 marks]
Page 48
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 3 – EOT & Time for Completion
You are the Project Consultant QS for a 30-month construction contract for a Sports
Stadium in Kowloon East (“the Contract”). The Works were commenced on 1 June
2015 and the date for completion is 30 November 2017. The Sports Stadium has
been designed to have a seating capacity of 50,000 to host international sports
events such as important soccer and rugby matches as well as entertainment events
like concerts and carnivals. The Sports Stadium is to be a modern and quality type
and equipped with advanced stadium facilities such as retractable roof, 3-
dimensional video wall, heating and cooling systems, etc.
Part A
Under the Contract, the retractable roof is to be designed by the Contractor in

accordance with the requirements set out in Particular Specification Section 10
(Appendix A). On 1 October 2016 when the construction of the retractable roof was
about to start on the site in 3 months, the Contractor submitted a detailed design in
which the following major elements were proposed:
“Roof structure: Structural steel complying with BS EN 10210; 4-

hr FRP
Retractable arm: Electricity-operated hydraulic retractable arm
Roof panel: UV-reflective polycarbonate panel providing a

Sun Protection Factor of 10 (SPF10) [Remarks:
Plexiglass can only provide SPF5 maximum]”
On 31 October 2016, the Architect rejected the Contractor’s submission with the
following comments:
“Polycarbonate panels are prone to yellowing under prolonged

sunlight and not ideal for stadium roof. Please re-submit by using
Plexiglass despite it can only provide SPF5.”
During the Site Progress Meeting on 7 November 2016, the Contractor pointed out
that the re-design and the material ordering of Plexiglass panels would take 3
months, thereby causing an overall delay of 1 month to the completion of the Works.
The Architect confirmed to proceed with Plexiglass panels registering the mutual
disagreement to be resolved later.
The Architect has now asked for your opinion on whether the Contractor may have
grounds for the claim for the delay. Please draft a memo to the Architect to advise
him and quote the relevant contract clause numbers. [8 marks]
Page 49
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 3 – EOT & Time for Completion (Cont’d)
Part B
It is early August 2017 now. The outstanding works are signalling, floodlighting,
cooling and heating systems etc. which are to be carried out in the next few months.
The date for completion has now been extended to 30 December 2017.
During the Project Management Meeting yesterday, the Employer expressed his
desire to take occupation of the stadium by the original date for completion, i.e. 30
November 2017, for the Asian Cup scheduled to be held in January 2018. In this
respect, measures have to be taken to recover the delay for which an extension of
time of 30 days has been granted previously.
The Architect enquired the Contractor if more workers could be deployed to

accelerate the Works. The Contractor responded that he could only maintain the
same number of workers but might arrange overtime working. He then submitted a
delay recovery proposal as attached in Appendix B. The Architect has asked you to
quickly check and email to advise him whether the proposal has any fundamental
errors in the calculation principle. Please give him 5 points. Detailed adjustment of
the proposal would not be necessary.
[7 marks]
Page 50
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Particular Specification
Section 10 – Retractable Roof
Design Responsibility 10.1 The Contractor shall be responsible for the

of Contractor design, supply, delivery and installation of
retractable roof in accordance with the
requirements set out in this Particular
Specification Section 10.
10.2 The Contractor shall warrant that all

reasonable skill, care and diligence have
been and will be exercised in connection
with the design of retractable roof.
10.3 The Contractor shall not be obliged to

ensure that the design of retractable roof is
fit for the purpose for which it is intended.
Roof Structure 10.4 The roof structure shall be structural steel

in compliance with BS EN 10210 with 4-
hour fire-resistant rating.
.
.
Retractable Arm 10.7 Retractable arm shall be electricity-

operated hydraulic arm
.
.
Roof Panel 10.9 Roof panel shall be UV-reflective and

provide a Sun Protection Factor of 10;
preferably Plexiglass.
Page 51
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Appendix B to Question 3
Fast Speed Construction Co. 20 August 2017

Sports Stadium in Kowloon East
Delay Recovery Proposal
Item Description Qty Unit Rate ($) Amount ($)

Floodlighting; 40m high
1 Light mast erector; 0800-1800 30 MD 1,400 42,000
2 Ditto; 1800-2200 30 MD 2,100 63,000
3 300 ton mobile crane; 0800-1800 10 Day 18,000 180,000
4 Ditto; 1800-2200 10 Day 27,000 270,000
Signalling
5 Signal technician; 0800-1800 40 MD 1,200 48,000
6 Ditto; 1800-2200 60 MD 1,800 108,000
7 Signal cable 1,500 M 200 300,000
Turfing
8 Turf installer; 0800-1800 150 MD 900 135,000
9 Ditto; 1800-2000 150 MD 1,350 202,500
10 Air-freight charge Sum 150,000
3-D video wall + Builder’s work

11 Concretor; 0800-1800 20 MD 2,200 44,000
12 Ditto; 1800-2200 20 MD 3,300 66,000
13 Ditto; 2200-0200 20 MD 4,400 88,000
14 Steel fixer; 0800-1800 20 MD 2,400 48,000
15 Ditto; 1800-2200 20 MD 3,600 72,000
16 Electrician; 0800-1800 10 MD 1,200 12,000
17 Ditto; 1800-2200 10 MD 1,800 18,000
C/F 1,846,500
Page 52
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Appendix B to Question 3 (Cont’d)
Item Description Qty Unit Rate ($) Amount ($)

B/F 1,846,500
Structural steel advertisement
panel
18 Structural steel erector; 0800-1800 25 MD 1,600 40,000
19 Ditto; 1800-2200 25 MD 2,400 60,000
20 Structural steel 8 Ton 12,000 96,000
Task light
21 Task light 50 No 2,000 100,000
Supervision
22 Project Manager 75 MD 2,500 187,500
23 E&M Manager 75 MD 2,000 150,000
24 E&M Engineer 75 MD 1,500 112,500
25 Foreman 150 MD 1,500 225,000
Security
26 Security guard; 0800-1800 180 MD 600 108,000
27 Security guard; 1800-2200 180 MD 900 162,000
General cleaning
28 Labourer; 0800-1800 360 MD 800 288,000
29 Ditto; 1800-2200 360 MD 1,200 432,000
Profits & Overheads

30 Profits & Overheads (15%) 571,125
Total 4,378,625
Terms & Conditions
1. This Delay Recovery Proposal is to cover the period from 1 September 2017 to 30 November
2017.
2. The quoted price is on a lump sum basis and shall not be subject to remeasurement.
Page 53
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 3 – EOT & Time for Completion

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Part A - Variation and Late Instruction
For answers based on SFBC2005/2006 or GCC1999
Objective
The objective of this question is to test Candidates’ ability to identify the possible
grounds for the delay claims.
Contractual grounds
The delay claim may be based on delays due to variation or late instruction.
Variation
Candidates are expected to identify the contract requirements for the roof panels
and determine whether the Architect’s reply constituted a variation under the
Contract.
The Particular Specification requires that the roof panels shall have SPF10. The
Contractor’s proposed polycarbonate panels are compliant in this regard. The
yellowing consideration stated in the Architect’s reply is not stated in the Particular
Specification, but this may not be the real issue to the Contractor. It should be the
more expensive Plexiglass which is the real issue.
The preference for Plexiglass in the Particular Specification should not be interpreted
as prevailing over the SPF10 requirement. If it is proven that Plexiglass does not
have SPF10, then it would be reasonable for the Contractor not to have allowed for
the more expensive Plexiglass. The Architect’s request for using the more expensive
Plexiglass should therefore be regarded as a variation [SFBC2005/2006 clause 13.1
or GCC1999 clause 60] which could entitle the Contractor to extension of time
[SFBC2005/2006 clause 25.1(3)(h) or GCC1999 clause 50(1)(b)(iv)].
Page 54
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Part A - Variation and Late Instruction (Cont’d)
For answers based on SFBC2005/2006 or GCC1999 (Cont’d)
Late instruction
The Contractor may also argue that the instruction was late, which being given at 1
month after the Contractor’s submission of design [SFBC2005/2006 clause 25.1(3)(f)
or GCC1999 clause 50(1)(b)(iii)].
However, it should be checked to see whether the submission of the polycarbonate

design 3 months before work on site was early enough or too late. Reasonably,
sufficient time should be allowed for the Architect’s comments, at least one revision
and re-submission, material ordering and off-site fabrication. The 3 months’ period
appears to be too short.
If it is proven that the submission was late making the variation from polycarbonate
to Plexiglas critical, then the delay caused by the variation should not be entitled to
extension of time.
Furthermore, the Contractor should have the duty to request for clarification over the
ambiguity of contract requirement between SPF10 and Plexiglass prior to submitting
its design [SFBC2005/2006 clause 2.4 or GCC1999 clause 5(2)].
[8 marks]
Page 55
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Part B – Valuation of Delay Recovery Proposal
Objective
This question is to test Candidates’ understanding of how an acceleration / delay

recovery proposal should be valued.
Fundamental errors in the calculation principle
· Daytime working with no increase in the number of workers or plant should not
be an extra.
· For overtime work at higher pay, only the extra (i.e. after deduction of the normal
payment with the same productivity) should be paid.
· The rate for overtime pay is excessive because of possible confusion in counting
the mandays. Using the light mast erector as an example, the numbers of
workers (and MD) working normal hours and working overtime are the same. It
means that the MD is actually a headcount instead of the equivalent mandays.
Paying 1 MD to a worker working 1800-2200 for 4 hours gross already means
more than double-pay. The rate per MD should not be increased from $1,400 to
$2,100.
· Provision of materials should not be an extra unless extra reserve has to be

ordered.
· Why are there more signalling workers working overtime than daytime?
· Only overtime pay should be treated as extras for supervisory personnel which
are usually paid monthly salaries.
· Should check whether the Contract already requires 24-hour security guard
service.
· There should be some savings in the payments to the supervisory personnel and
security guards because of a reduction of the construction period. This also
applies to overheads. In other words, the prolongation cost claim due to
extension of time should be waived.
· Profit & overheads are admissible only if the other prices are costs without profit
& overheads.
Candidates need to give 5 valid points only to have full mark. [7 marks]
Page 56
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 4 – Programme of Works
Part A
You are the Consultant Project QS for a project with a contract period of 36 months.
In the 33rd month after the commencement of the Works, the Contractor submitted
an EOT claim. After consideration, the Architect notified in writing to the Contractor
of his decision that no EOT is to be granted. The Contractor subsequently submitted
a programme with the anticipated completion date falling behind the currently
extended time for completion. While the Architect verbally reminded the Contractor
that the anticipated completion date should fall within the currently extended time for
completion, the Contractor insisted on the date as shown on his programme. While
the Architect is preparing his comments on the programme, the Employer would like
to have a letter from you giving your view on:
(a) whether the Contractor is justified to show on the programme anticipated

completion beyond the extended date;
(b) what may be the reasons for the Contractor not complying with the Architect’s
request;
(c) why some contractors never update programmes; and
(d) whether the Employer’s right will be diminished due to the above.
Part B
After the Architect’s written notification to the Contractor of his decision that no EOT
should be granted against the claimed EOT and with reference to the Contractor’s
submitted programme, the Architect verbally reminded the Contractor at site meeting
No. 66 to expedite the progress of the Works in order to ensure that the Works are
completed on time. It was recorded in the Minutes of Meeting promptly issued within
2 days as follows:
Progress of Works:
1.1 The Architect requested the Contractor to expedite the progress of the Works
to complete before the currently extended time for completion.
1.2 The Architect requested the Contractor to re-sequence part of the Works so
as to expedite.
Page 57
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 4 – Programme of Works (Cont’d)
Part B (Cont’d)
One week later, the Contractor submitted a notice of claim for additional payment
stating that:
“(a) An instruction has been given by the Architect as recorded under item 1.1 of
the Minutes of Meeting No. 66 to accelerate the progress of works on Site,
hence the Contractor is entitled to compensation for the costs of acceleration.
(b) Furthermore, an instruction has been given by the Architect as recorded

under item 1.2 of the Minutes of Meeting. This constitutes a variation which
should be measured and valued accordingly.”
You are requested to draft a letter to advise the Employer on the validity of the claim.
[13 marks]
Page 58
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Question No. 4 – Programme of Works

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Objective
The objective of this question is to test Candidates’ ability to
· understand the formality for instructions;
· understand the use and contractual implication of programmes; and
· differentiate between acceleration of works and expedition of the progress of

works to meet the time for completion.
Part A
Justification to show anticipated completion date beyond the extended date for
completion
For answers based on SFBC 2005/2006
· It is the responsibility of the Contractor to regularly update the master programme

to reflect the current status of the progress of the Works [clause 3.2(1)].
· A realistic programme should serve as a better tool to monitor progress and

ascertain delays.
· The Contractor has the sole right to plan the Works as he likes.
· Provided that the Contractor has reflected the true progress of the Works with
due consideration of possible means to complete the balance of the Works
regularly and diligently during the remaining contract period, the Architect cannot
insist on the Contractor to submit a programme with anticipated completion date
set earlier than the current Completion Date.
· The Contractor is therefore justified and in fact obliged to do so.
Page 59
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Part A (Cont’d)
Justification to show anticipated completion beyond extended date (Cont’d)
· Generally same principle as SFBC2005/2006 applies.
· Programme is required to be submitted [clause 16(1)] and updated whenever

there is an extension of time [clause 50] and whenever there are steps to
expedite progress to keep the extended date for completion [clause 50].
However, there is no express provision stating that the programme must treat the
extended date for completion as the anticipated completion date.
Reasons for not complying with the Architect’s request
For answers based on SFBC 2005/2006 & GCC1999
· If the delay is already beyond recovery, showing the extended date as the
anticipated completion date would need to compress or advance many activities
unrealistically. This may have the adverse effect of missing all the planned days
for the unrealistic activities. The Contractor will then face serious complaints of
slow progress.
· Showing earlier completion may mean acceptance of the decision of no

extension of time.
· Showing earlier completion would need acceleration to achieve.
· If earlier completion is eventually achieved, it would be difficult to prove the

existence of prior delay needing extension of time.
Page 60
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Part A (Cont’d)
Reasons for not updating programmes
For answers based on SFBC 2005/2006 & GCC1999
· Some Contractors only update programmes when there is extension of time but
extension of time is usually not readily granted. Keeping the original programme
unchanged can put pressure upon all sub-contractors to work according to the
original programme so as to catch up delays especially when the delays do not
have or are unlikely to have extension of time.
· This can also put pressure upon the Architect to issue information or give
comments and approval earlier so that the prospect of catching up culpable
delays as well as claiming excusable delays due to the Architect’s late information,
comments and approvals can be increased.
Employer’s right
· The obligation of the Contractor under the Contract to carry out and complete the
Works on or before the current Completion Date will not be diminished or relieved
no matter whether the Contractor updates the programme or not, with or without
the Architect’s comments [clause 2.2].
· Similarly, the obligation of the Contractor under the Contract to carry out and
complete the Works within the currently extended time for completion will not be
affected [clause 49(1)].
Page 61
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Part B
Form of instruction
· Instructions from the Architect must be issued to the Contractor in writing [clause
4.2(1)]. Generally, minutes of meeting cannot be regarded as a valid form of
instruction.
· The Contractor may write to the Architect to confirm the Architect’s oral instruction
within 7 days, but the oral instruction will be effective only if the Architect confirms
it or does not reject it within 7 days [clause 4.2(1)].
· The Architect did request the Contractor to expedite and re-sequence but did not
intend to result in additional payment. To avoid the Contractor’s notice of claim
from being treated as a confirmation of oral instruction, the Architect should clarify
and reject the notice of claim within 7 days, though the Contractor’s notice was
submitted a week after the minutes and might have just missed the specified
confirmation period.
Authority
· The Architect may issue instructions that he is empowered to issue under the
Contract [clause 4.1]. Strictly speaking, even if the Architect does not reject
confirmation of oral instructions in time, oral instructions given beyond the
Architect’s authority will not be valid.
· The Architect is empowered under the Contract to notify the Contractor if, in his
opinion, the rate of progress of the Works is too slow to ensure that the Works
will be completed by the current Completion Date for any reason which does not
entitle the Contractor to extension of time [clause 25.5(1)]. Upon receipt of such
notification, the Contractor, at his own discretion and with no entitlement to
receive additional payment, may take the measures that he considers necessary
to expedite the progress to complete the Works by the current Completion Date
[clause 25.5(2)]. In essence, there will be no payment to catch up the
Contractor’s own delay as requested by the Architect.
Page 62
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Part B (Cont’d)
For answers based on SFBC 2005/2006 (Cont’d)
Authority (Cont’d)
· The Architect is empowered under the Contract to request the Contractor to

propose delay recovery measures with additional payment to reduce delays
which are entitled to extension of time [clause 26.1]. To be effective, the
measures and additional payment must be specifically agreed by the Architect
[clause 26.2(2)], and the Architect must issue an instruction to implement after
receiving written directions from the Employer [clause 26.3(1)].
· Delay recovery can be regarded as a kind of acceleration. The delay refers to

excusable delays. Strictly speaking, there is no contract provision empowering
the Architect to order acceleration of Works with payment to reduce the original
contract period. Express mutual agreement must be made. However, delay
recovery measures with payment are also subject to express mutual agreement.
The fine distinction between recovery of delay and shortening of original time
does not appear to be significant so long as there is express mutual agreement.
· In any case, the Contractor’s notice did not amount to an express mutual
agreement.
· An instruction by the Architect for the Contractor to re-sequence the Works may
be regarded as a Variation [clause 1.6] but the instruction may be subject to the
formality described above to be effective.
· In order to avoid potential disputes, the Architect is recommended to clarify in

writing his intention and intended implications of the oral instructions given in the
site meeting.
Page 63
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Part B (Cont’d)
Form of instruction
· Unlike the SFBC2005/2006, the GCC1999 do not have provisions dealing with
oral instructions. On the other hand, the GCC1999 are not specific that every
instruction must be in writing. Therefore, it may be argued that oral instructions
can be valid.
· However, variations must be ordered in writing [clause 60(1)(b)]. Generally,

minutes of meeting cannot be regarded as a valid form of order. Yet, the
GCC1999 do not use expression like “issue the order”, the Contractor may have
a slim chance to argue that the oral request confirmed by the Minutes of Meeting
amounted to an order.
· To avoid doubt, the Architect should clarify as soon as possible.
Authority
· If the rate of progress of the Works is at any time in the opinion of the Architect
too slow to ensure the completion by the original/extended time for completion,
the Architect may inform the Contractor in writing and the Contractor shall
immediately take necessary steps to expedite the completion of the Works
[clause 51(1)]. The Architect has the authority to instruct the Contractor in writing
to carry out the Works during any hours of the day where the Architect considers
it necessary owing to the slow progress of the Contractor [clause 51(2)].
However, the Contractor shall not be entitled to any additional payment [clause
51(3)].
· The Architect has the power to order variation that in his opinion is desirable for
or to achieve the satisfactory completion of the Works, including “changes to any
sequence, method or timing of construction specified in the Contract” [clause
60(1)(b)], but as pointed out above the order must be given in writing for it to be
effective.
Page 64
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
NOTES TO ASSESSORS

NOTES TO ASSESSORS
Part B (Cont’d)
For answers based on GCC1999 (Cont’d)
Authority (Cont’d)
· Unlike the SFBC2005/2006, the GCC1999 have no provisions for the Architect
to request for acceleration of any kind with payment.
· In order to avoid potential disputes, the Architect is recommended to clarify in

writing his intention and intended implications of the oral instructions given in the
site meeting.
Candidates have not been required to quote contract clause numbers.
[13 marks]
-- END --
Page 65

2017 - APC Part 2 Assessors Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 - APC Part 2 Assessors Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 - APC Part 2 Assessors Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

QUANTITY SURVEYING DIVISION

ASSESSMENT OF PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE

FINAL ASSESSMENT 2017

Tuesday, 19th September, 2017

4) Format and Style of Answers

9) Notes to Candidates (as given in the Question Paper)

10) Five Common Criteria (as given in the Question Paper)

1.0 CANDIDATES’ ROLE

1.1 Candidates should approach the submissions in the role of a manager /

2.0 CANDIDATES’ EXPERIENCE

3.0 DEPTH OF ANSWERS

4.0 FORMAT AND STYLE OF ANSWERS

4.1 When the questions require a letter, a report, a memo or an e-mail to be

5.0 NOTES TO ASSESSORS

5.1 The Notes to Assessors are given here to:

(a) simplify your task in assessing Candidates’ answers; and

6.1 The Practice Problems (Part II Written Test) were undertaken in an

7.0 ACCEPTANCE STANDARD

8.0 GENERAL NOTES

9.0 NOTES TO CANDIDATES

9.2 The number of main questions is as follows:

Question No. 1 Cost Estimate 12 marks

Question No. 1 Valuation of Variations 12 marks

9.3 All Main Questions and Sub-Questions are compulsory.

9.5 Refer also to INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES, which were issued to you

10.0 FIVE COMMON CRITERIA

10.1 Candidates are expected to demonstrate a reasonable level of professional

(a) Perception: A full understanding of the problem posed, evidenced by

(b) Imagination: The assumption of essential supplementary information

(c) Technical skills: The correct use of measurement principles, prices,

(d) Judgement: The provision of sound professional advice indicative of

(e) Communication: Free of ambiguity, with clear expression and an

The following abbreviations used in the Notes to Assessors mean:

19th SEPTEMBER 2017

Question No. 1 – Cost Estimate

The development parameters of Project Greenland are as follows:

Description of A twenty-three-storey high residential development comprising:

3rd floor to 22 nd floor - Residential flats

Construction Residential: 9,500m2*

(ii) Project details of Project Hillside (Appendix B); and

(iii) Tender Price Index (Appendix C).

Redevelopment of Residential Building at 18 Green Road (Project Greenland)

Date: 7 September 2017

2.0 Typical Floor Plan for Residential Units

2.2 Façade Design

(c) Arch proposed alternative façade design as below: All parties

b) change curtain walling at balcony of living

Appendix A to Question 1 (Cont’d)

3.0 Structural and Geotechnical Matters

3.2 Piling and Pile Caps

(a) SE stated that the foundations design would be All parties

a) 6 nos. boreholes 35m deep

b) At least 4 trial pits

(b) For foundations and substructure design: All parties

· 2.5m thick pile cap under the footprint of the

Appendix A to Question 1 (Cont’d)

4.0 Architectural Matters

5.0 Building Services Installation Matters

6.0 Cost Matters