Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to the newest version of your browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of Construction News, please enable cookies in your browser.

Welcome to the Construction News site. As we have relaunched, you will have to sign in once now and agree for us to use cookies, so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

WEMBLEY CLAIM: Mott’s plan for iconic stadium ‘inadequate’, Multiplex demands

Wembley engineers Mott MacDonald pushed the national stadium’s construction schedule significantly behind schedule by failing to “provide an adequate and representative erection sequence, in particular for the arch and fixed roof”, Multiplex has claimed

It has alleged the international consultancy also issued drawings that failed to show any accurate detail of the connections that would be required between the steelwork for the bowl and the roof.

Construction News revealed yesterday that the Australian developer, bought by Brookfield a year ago, has filed a writ against Mott MacDonald for more than £253 million over the troubled project.

Multiplex was obliged to complete the stadium by the end of January 2006, however would receive an extra payment if it managed to complete the works four months prior to that.

The contractor says the “critical delays and related disruption” on site not only forced it to miss out on its early completion bonus of £7.4 million, but also sustain a loss of profits on other potential work. For this, the company has claimed it is also owed more than £12 million.

In the end, the project missed its must-hit deadline by 58 weeks, and its potential bonus date by 78 weeks.

This was despite, according to the writ, the steelwork on the northern bowl beginning two-and-a-half months earlier than required.

Multiplex said: “The erection of this steelwork was thereafter delayed as a result of changes and delays to the structural design for which Mott is substantially responsible.

“The progress of the… steelwork became dependant on the finalisation of the structural design as opposed to demolition, earthworks and the concrete substructure.

“Despite acceleration measures implemented by Multiplex… steelwork was not complete until 13 months later than planned.”

But Mott MacDonald has strongly denied Multiplex’s allegations.

A spokeswoman said: “We would point out that Brookfield assumed responsibility for designing and building the stadium and MSC [Mott Stadium Consortium] provided structural design consultancy services to Brookfield for the permanent structure.

“MSC was not responsible for project management or construction, which was the clear responsibility of Brookfield.

“We are in no doubt that MSC performed its obligations to Brookfield professionally and diligently. Mott MacDonald emphatically denies any liability for Brookfield’s loss and will vigorously defend the claim.”

She declined to comment in regards to the figures mentioned in the writ, “except to say they are not credible”.

THE BUMPS ALONG THE ROAD TO WEMBLEY

WEMBLEY DELAYS:

Bonus programme refers to the date which needed to be met if Multiplex were to receive their early completion bonus.

Deadline programme refers to the date which the English National Stadium Development Company required Multiplex to have the job done by.

22 September 2003 – 15 February 2004

14 weeks delay on “bonus” programme

4 weeks delay on “deadline” programme

CAUSE: Delays, errors, omissions and changes to structural design, the majority of which were caused by Mott

CLAIM: The losses incurred as a result of this prolongation are claimed from Mott

16 February 2004 – 29 June 2004

12 weeks delay on “bonus” programme

10.5 weeks delay on “deadline” programme

CAUSE: Delays, errors, omissions and changes to structural design, the majority of which were caused by Mott

CLAIM: The losses incurred as a result of this prolongation are claimed from Mott

15 March 2004 – 19 March 2004

1 week delay on “bonus” programme

1 week delay on “deadline” programme

CAUSE: Crane down time across the site due to safety incident involving a tower crane

CLAIM: The losses incurred as a result of this prolongation are not claimed from Mott

30 June 2004 – 28 July 2004

2 weeks delay on “bonus” programme

2 weeks delay on “deadline” programme

CAUSE: Handover of the erection and site works from CBUK to Hollandia and CBUK’s demobilisation

CLAIM: The losses incurred as a result of this prolongation are claimed from Mott

30 June 2004 – 28 July 2004

2 weeks delay on “bonus” programme

2 weeks delay on “deadline” programme

CAUSE: CBUK’s inefficiencies and poor performance following the issue of the 28 day notice to remove site works

CLAIM: The losses incurred as a result of this prolongation are not claimed from Mott

29 July 2004 – 12 August 2004

1.5 weeks delay on “bonus” programme

1.5 weeks delay on “deadline” programme

CAUSE: Hollandia’s mobilisation to site as the new erector following CBUK’s departure

CLAIM: The losses incurred as a result of this prolongation are claimed from Mott

13 August 2004 – 20 August 2004

1 week delay on “bonus” programme

1 week delay on “deadline” programme

CAUSE: Crane down time across the site due to a raker being dropped by one of the tower cranes under Hollandia’s supervision

CLAIM: The losses incurred as a result of this prolongation are not claimed from Mott

21 August 2004 – 26 September 2004

5 weeks delay on “bonus” programme

5 weeks delay on “deadline” programme

CAUSE: Strike by steelworkers’ unions

CLAIM: The losses incurred as a result of this prolongation are not claimed from Mott

27 September 2004 – 3 October 2004

1 week delay on “bonus” programme

1 week delay on “deadline” programme

CAUSE: Re-mobilisation by Hollandia following the end of the steelworkers’ strike

CLAIM: The losses incurred as a result of this prolongation are not claimed from Mott

4 October 2004 – 28 April 2005

17 weeks delay on “bonus” programme

14 weeks delay on “deadline” programme

CAUSE: Delays to completion of the remaining steel frame

CLAIM: The losses incurred as a result of this prolongation are claimed from Mott

11 February 2004 – 31 October 2005

19 weeks recovery on “bonus” programme

21 weeks recovery on “deadline” programme

CAUSE: Recovery of delays to completion of enclosure works

CLAIM: Multiplex gives a credit for this recovery of prolongation, however, the additional costs as a result of this acceleration are claimed from Mott

1 November 2005 – 30 January 2007

5 weeks delay on “bonus” programme

5 weeks delay on “deadline” programme

CAUSE: Delay due to inefficient progress stemming from fragmented release of structure

CLAIM: The losses incurred as a result of this prolongation are claimed from Mott

1 November 2005 – 9 March 2007

35 weeks delay on “bonus” programme

32 weeks delay on “deadline” programme

CAUSE: Delays due to inefficiencies and errors by subcontractors

CLAIM: The losses incurred as a result of this prolongation are not claimed from Mott


TOTAL DELAY

78 weeks delay on “bonus” programme

58 weeks delay on “deadline” programme

CLAIMED FROM MOTT:

36.5 weeks delay on “bonus” programme

21 weeks delay on “deadline” programme

Related Wembley/Multiplex stories:

Multiplex launches £253m Wembley stadium claim

WEMBLEY CLAIM: We want our legal costs back, says Multiplex

BLOG: Multiplex v Mott MacDonald