Construction for dummies in Russia: save money and mind
Шрифт:
So, there are two types of estimated or contractual prices:
1. Prices without the cost of materials;
2. Prices including the cost of materials.
Most often, prices that include the cost of materials are used in state estimates, these are the so-called FER (federal) or TER (territorial) unit prices. They facilitate the accounting of expenses of budgetary organizations, budget planning, and are also adjusted for inflation, etc.
Let's compare two types of rates:
Prices without the cost of materials:
FER15-01-090-03 (approved by the Order of the Ministry of Construction of Russia dated December 30, 2016 No. 1039 / pr ) – “Arrangement of ventilated facades with porcelain tile cladding: with a heat-insulating layer”.
FER11-01-027-02 – “Installation of cement mortar coatings from ceramic tiles for multi-color floors”.
Prices including the cost of materials:
FER15-04-012-02 – "Painting of facades from scaffolding with surface preparation: organosilicon".
FER12-01-010-01 – “Installation of small coverings (firewalls, parapets, overhangs, etc.) from galvanized sheet steel (adjoining the profiled sheet to the wall)”.
As you can see, it is impossible to determine visually only by the name of the price what exactly it may include: only work or work and materials. Therefore, if materials are not indicated in the estimate, contact the estimator for help so that he “unfolds” the price and shows what exactly it includes – there is such a technical possibility in the “Grand Estimate”, etc. programs, or look for their decoding on the Internet or in specialized directories.
4. Errors in the number of materials
Example:
The project provides for the insulation of the facade with a 140 mm thick insulation: an inner layer of 100 mm and an outer layer of 40 mm. The total scope of works is about 2000 sq.m. Those. the total amount of insulation will be: 2000 sq.m. x 0.14 m = 280 cubic meters . The estimate turned out to indicate the volume of insulation 380 cubic meters , i.e. with an area of 2000 sq.m. its thickness should be 190 mm, which is 50 mm. more than design thickness. At the same time , from 2000 sq.m. the volume of excess insulation amounted to 100 cubic meters . So someone's mistake reduced the cost of work and materials by about 100 cubic meters . x 8000 rub. = 800,000 rubles, and zeroed out the profit.
Provided that the brackets of the ventilated facade have already been mounted according to the project with a projection of 200 mm. from the wall, it was no longer possible to mount an extra insulation, so the customer terminated the contract for the cost of the insulation mistakenly included in the estimate.
Recommendations:
Absolutely always compare the design data with the estimate before deciding to conclude a contract.
3.2. Errors in project documentation – again losses
The attachment points of any structures have not been worked out
Next, we will talk about the most revealing errors in projects. An error of such a plan may be made in the project: the attachment points of any structures are not worked out, or they are made with an error.
Example:
Once we made a hinged ventilated facade on a two-story building, lined with hollow bricks of the “boar” type. But the designers did not notice this …
For fastening the brackets of the ventilated facade, they provided for the use of chemical anchors. According to the project, a chemical anchor was laid, 100 mm long. The technical supervision of the customer warned that we should use only such an anchor – and nothing else, because. the project has passed the state examination, and a step away from this requirement for us is execution.
But in fact, it was impossible to use such fasteners, because the wall of the brick is very thin (10-15 mm) and practically the anchor only holds on to it, because the brick inside is completely empty, as in the figure – this is the old Soviet brick “Kabanchik”, which is already have not been produced for a long time.
Yes, this project passed the state examination , it was accompanied by acts of testing chemical anchors for pull-out, which supposedly had to securely fix the brackets on this particular building, but nevertheless, this is what happened.
When performing facade work, it is always necessary to test specific anchors for pull-out from a particular wall or object, which must be confirmed by test reports. Accordingly, we called a testing laboratory to the site, which is very common with manufacturers or suppliers of fasteners. Tested chemical anchors. None of the 5 or 6 attempts to confirm their suitability was successful – the brick walls broke under the most minimal (up to 150-200 kg.) Loads.
When asked how the same laboratory (by the way, a world-famous manufacturer, I’ll regret their reputation …) gave the designers a conclusion that chemical anchors of such a length can be used on this object, the answer was something like this : “We don’t know, a person who we have this act issued, it no longer works for us … ”. I repeat, the project with this fastener passed the state examination .
At the same time, we also tested conventional facade anchors with a longer length – 250 mm, which successfully passed the tests, because. they were fixed in ordinary masonry, which followed the facing hollow brick. Having received new test reports, we refuted the design solution, for the third time I repeat, which passed the state examination , and received permission from the customer to use extended length conventional anchors. Question substitutions one anchor to another was also affected by an increase in the cost of fasteners, but with respect to other aspects, nevertheless, this allowed us to get out of the situation at relatively low costs.
However, there were some consequences:
1. Due to carrying out all the tests and agreeing to replace the anchors, a week of time was spent, which led to a delay in the completion of work for this period.
2. For the delay in obligations for this week, the customer (and the contract was state-owned) first presented us with a penalty, although in fact he was to blame. In such situations, government customers never accepted the argument that the time it took to correct the documentation was not our fault, but their own. It is not customary for them, otherwise the performers (technical supervision, department heads, etc.) will then receive a cap for violating the deadlines for carrying out work and failing to take action against contractors. After refusing to pay the penalty, the customer sued us and sued her.