Most MEP projects do not fail on installation. They fail on coordination: a long lead item ordered late, a variation nobody priced, a drawing revision that reached site after the work was done.
We run our projects through an ERP system rather than through spreadsheets and inboxes. Every project has one record, and the budget, the purchase orders, the deliveries, the manpower and the documents all hang off it.
That matters to a client for one reason. When you ask where something stands, the answer comes from the same place the site team is working from, not from someone reconstructing it the night before the meeting.
Committed cost is recorded when the order is placed, not when the invoice arrives. That is the difference between knowing a package is overrunning in week six and finding out in week twenty.
Chillers, switchgear, pumps and fire alarm panels carry long lead times. Each one is tied to the date it is needed on site, so a slipping delivery shows up as a programme risk while there is still time to act.
A variation is logged when it is instructed, with what changed and what it costs. Unlogged variations are the most common reason an MEP account closes badly for both sides.
Drawings, submittals, method statements and test records sit against the project with a revision history, so site is never working from a superseded drawing.
Percentage complete by system and by area, measured against the baseline rather than against optimism. You see where the job actually is.
What is ordered, what has shipped, what has landed and what is still open, with the dates each one is needed. No separate chase required.
Non-conformances, outstanding approvals, pending information and snags, each with an owner and a date, carried through to close out rather than quietly dropped.
Because test records and as built drawings are filed against the project as the work happens, the handover documentation is assembled, not reconstructed at the end.
On a single villa, coordination can live in somebody’s head. On the SAMREF refinery buildings in Yanbu, where we worked inside a main contractor’s programme and permit system, or on the Rabigh power plant fire protection, it cannot.
The same applies to phased work. Three separate packages for the same aerospace client at AACC in Jeddah only stayed straight because each had its own record, its own budget and its own procurement schedule.
We do not publish the product, because it is not what affects your project. What matters is that one system holds the budget, the procurement, the programme and the documents for your job, and that the reporting you receive comes out of it.
Yes. Most clients and main contractors have a reporting template they want used. We populate it from our own records rather than asking you to adopt ours.
Weekly as standard, with a monthly cost and procurement review. On fast track work we report more often, and we agree the cycle before the project starts.
Yes. On projects where the main contractor runs a common data environment or a permit to work system, we work inside it and keep our own records in step.
Tell us the scope and the programme. We will set out how the work would be packaged, what the long lead items are, and what reporting you would receive and when.
All Rights Reserved © Designed by Green Flash
