Demolition main contractor's responsibility?

[Mr Blobby]

My QS wants the demolition of the existing dwelling on my site to form part of the tender going out to the main contractor.

 

I want to be buildng this summer so would like to save time by getting a demo firm in directly before the tender responses come back. 

 

Any main contractor is only going to go to the same demo firm to get the same job done (I know because demo firms have come to site to quote MCs) so why wait for the same job to be done and probably pay a slice to the main contractor for appointing the demo firm?

 

I can't see any down side in getting the site cleared in June and take the demo outside of the main contract.  My QS is strongly advising against. Why?  What's the downside of clearing the site now?  AM I missing something?

Edited May 30, 2022 by Mr Blobby
crap speeling

[markc]

Ar£# covering. I reckon your QS is saying this so there are no sudden “asbestos debris, hidden services, un filled voids etc etc” that could be used as delays or cost increases once the build starts.

Get the demo/ site clearance spec from QS and use that as basis for your own demo.

Edited May 30, 2022 by markc

[Carrerahill]

33 minutes ago, Mr Blobby said:

My QS wants the demolition of the existing dwelling on my site to form part of the tender going out to the main contractor.

 

I want to be buildng this summer so would like to save time by getting a demo firm in directly before the tender responses come back. 

 

Any main contractor is only going to go to the same demo firm to get the same job done (I know because demo firms have come to site to quote MCs) so why wait for the same job to be done and probably pay a slice to the main contractor for appointing the demo firm?

 

I can't see any down side in getting the site cleared in June and take the demo outside of the main contract.  My QS is strongly advising against. Why?  What's the downside of clearing the site now?  AM I missing something?

Some valid points above and I will make some of my own, but you can do what you want. If you think it will really help, crack on, but be aware, my thoughts are as follows:

 

There will be some benefits to having a single main contractor do all of it. In all honesty they should be fairly quick at demolishing, I assume, a house and can coordinate future requirements with the demo.

 

The benefits are to the onward journey, for example, utility disconnection can be handled now and at reconnection by one, with machines on site demo and found digging can be combined with a single machine on site, certain things can be left and certain things must go. I am making a fair number of assumptions there but I am sure you can see some of the benefits. 

[Roundtuit]

3 hours ago, Mr Blobby said:

Any main contractor is only going to go to the same demo firm to get the same job done (I know because demo firms have come to site to quote MCs) so why wait for the same job to be done and probably pay a slice to the main contractor for appointing the demo firm?

 

 

You may find that anyone that's quoted for one of your potential Main Contractors won't be prepared to do the job for you directly. They may bull$h!t around being too busy to fit you in or quote silly high, but ultimately may not be prepared to risk jeopardising future business with the MC; that's not the way it works. If course, that may just be me being cynical, or,  it may limit your choice of demo guys a bit.

 

I'd be keen to get started too, but realistically, you'll only be gaining a matter of days. 

Edited May 30, 2022 by Roundtuit
typo

[saveasteading]

As a main contractor I did not want novated or nominated subcontractors. That is those chosen by the qs but to be controlled by the main contractor. Why? They would not be my choice, they would more likely be loyal to the qs than me, and I have no idea how competent they will be. And what if they cause problems or delay. 

And then I would add at least 20% to their cost for the management and risk, which you pay.

 

So your contractors will all add time and money for this.

 

Why does your qs suggest it? Takes responsibility off them. Perhaps uncomfortable managing it. Not their money. Any problems and the contractor has to deal with it.

 

Demo companies are not always the most careful. Make sure you have insurance. This is easily the best argument for main contractor control.

[Mr Blobby]

Just for some background, the house is detached, no asbestos, service disconnected. Easy access.  Stripped inside.  Easy job, low risk.

 

2 hours ago, Roundtuit said:

 

You may find that anyone that's quoted for one of your potential Main Contractors won't be prepared to do the job for you directly. They may bull$h!t around being too busy to fit you in or quote silly high, but ultimately may not be prepared to risk jeopardising future business with the MC;

 

That's what I would have thought but one of the demo firms visiting the site offerred to give me a quote to do it directly. 

 

5 hours ago, markc said:

Get the demo/ site clearance spec from QS and use that as basis for your own demo.

 

Interesting.  I looked through the tender documents and couldn't find any detail on the demolition, which is odd. 

 

One of the demo guys who visited the site said the tender requires the harcore to be crushed and remain on site, which is news to me as I have no idea where they expect to put all that material.   In the tender documents I have seen there is no demo spec that specifies hardcore crushed and retained.  Odd.  I must ask the QS if I have all the documents.  And if not why not.

 

The tender documents I do have do highlight concerns over cables running over the corner of the site.  This was queried by demo contractors onsite because, FFS, I had openreach insall a new pole and transfer those cables over a year ago and told my architect at the time. 🙄  Whatever the QS has put in the tender for the demo, it looks like its wrong and the QS, for whatever reason, doesn't want me to see it.

 

Edited May 30, 2022 by Mr Blobby

[joth]

1 hour ago, Mr Blobby said:

 

 

One of the demo guys who visited the site said the tender requires the harcore to be crushed and remain on site, which is news to me as I have no idea where they expect to put all that material

If the quote was requested by the MC then they could have added this to their demo spec, if they have some intention to use it in the build? That's really the point of the MC isn't it - so they can sub exactly what they want and dove tail it in with the rest of their programme. 

The subs don't quote against the main tender, they work to the MC's instructions.

 

[bmj1]

I have literally just been through this.

• London based property, very close to our two neighbours (1 meter on each side)
• Went out to tender, QS included demolition. 4 main contractors bid on the tender. Demolition price ~£35k.
• I then tendered the demolition myself as got impatient and wanted to get on with it (while I re-tendered our project without the QS), done for £16k direct to the demo company of my choice, they were excellent

Notes:

• I organised the utilities (gas/elec/water) moves myself, but this was a good thing as it took some time (in particular electric)
• It also forced me to figure out the locations to move gas/elec supplies to
• Had to put the hoardings up (£1700), and our subsequent main contractor redid these, so burned that £1700
• Also ended up investing some additional time on coordination, but it wasn't that much
• Demo guys didn't completely finish the demolition, they left a little of the foundations by the boundary wall (to avoid collapsing the next house.) Expecting £1k - £2k of extra demo charges from our main contractor in due course (to manually break up the concrete)

Conclusion:

• Given the high cost + time saving for us, was a no-brainer, and no regrets
• Just keep in mind that anything the main contractor isn't happy with after the demo job, you have to take responsibility for

Edited May 30, 2022 by bmj1

[Temp]

If you are building in the same position I can see it makes sense to use the one contractor. Then he can't argue the site prep wasn't adequate. If you are building in a different place on the site it should be less of sn issue.

[Conor]

One thing to bear in mind is that demolition works requires specific insurance.. your contractors may not have this and your own site insurance won't cover it either. So I ended up doing it myself.

[Bitpipe]

We did not use a MC but had a large contract with a single groundworks contractor to do demo, site prep, new services and basement excavation,  construction & backfill etc. We took care of telco, electric and gas re-routing / termination. Water was fine as stop was at site boundary.

 

The timber frame company then followed on from the completed groundworks and we PMd the other trades.

 

My experience was that, to win the bigger job, the GW firm put a notional amount in for the demo (£5k) as it was pretty straightforward  - a few days to strip, pull down & remove a 1950's detached brick house - site access was good which always helps keep GW costs down. We would not allow burning of timbers on site, per the LA demo notice.

 

We looked into crushing the brick but was cheaper to cart it away and buy in what type 1 we needed vs hire a large crusher and pay for the labour to process (and manage storage on site), suspect we probably bought back some of our old house!

 

Standalone demo contracts were more than double what the GW quoted as there were mobilisation costs to factor in and there had to be enough margin in the job itself, GW probably lost money on that bit but more than made it back on the whole job which was £120k!

[saveasteading]

1 hour ago, Bitpipe said:

we probably bought back some of our old house!

Yes but with some added filth from an adjacent pile.

 

 

[Bitpipe]

1 hour ago, saveasteading said:

Yes but with some added filth from an adjacent pile.

 

 

For sure, I had 120m2 to 150mm depth and filled a wheel barrow with bits of metal, wood, plastic, cable etc from the surface before it was blinded. God knows what was further down.

[saveasteading]

All those bigger bits should be filtered out automatically.

 

I once ordered 20t of crushed concrete from a well known local supplier. It came off the lorry looking moderately robust  but handled like the mud it was supposed to be covering. Mud with a lot of wood in it.

So I took a sample and swirled it in a jar of water and showed up the fines and topsoil, and a lot floating as it should not.

I complained by email and they cancelled the bill without any argument or excuse or apology at all, but we still had 20t of **** in the way.

 

And another time I wandered onto a crusher site, and saw the 2 piles...one of hardcore for crushing and the other of muck, basically topsoil. Owner of the company observing it all. Blatant selling of junk, and presumably getting away with it.

Not all suppliers are like this of course. Some will even certificate it.

 

Best surprises? Toilet seat (whole), squash ball, thousands of tiny springs.