6 Staveley Road

This is how the job was priced set against where it is now forecast to land, taken from the priced versus actual cost model. The work was priced to return £195,075 of gross profit at 30.2%. On current costs it is forecast to deliver £219,065 at 34.0%, a favourable movement of £23,990. Most of that comes from cost landing under budget on the heating ventilation and electrical trades, with a smaller part, about £6,000, still resting on preliminaries, which carries no forecast cost. The chart shows where the movement comes from across the three costed trades.

The client has applied and paid £343,089 against the contract, or 56.1% of the £611,618 value, while the value of completed work is £236,116, or 38.6%. The result is £106,973 received ahead of valuation. There is no retention mechanism on this contract, so every pound applied has been banked in full and nothing is held back for later release.

The main contract is 68.0% applied at £239,774, and the signed off variations are 36.7% applied at £103,315. The position is healthy for cash, but it carries a watch item. Several variation lines have been applied ahead of the work behind them, most notably Oldfield, the single largest line at £107,309, now applied and complete at 10%, so the application and the work have come back into step since April. The design package noted alongside this report sits outside these figures and has already been settled separately.

The cost model splits into three costed trades, plumbing and heating, the heating ventilation package, and electrical, with the remaining scope held as lump sum lines that are either priced as a unit or not yet costed. The table sets the priced cost and margin for each costed trade against the forecast. The charts split cost incurred from cost to complete and compare the priced cost against the forecast cost. Because the contract is largely let on lump sums, the analysis is held at trade level rather than the line by line view used on larger jobs.

This is the position the two workbooks unlock together. Work certified to the client stands at 38.6% of the contract, while cost incurred is 39.5% of the forecast final cost, so cost has edged just ahead of value as the latest actuals have come in. The indicative gross profit earned is £67,677. Because the contract lines and the cost lines are structured differently, this is a summary comparison rather than a line by line reconciliation.

The cash story sits on top of this. The client has paid 56.1% of the contract while 38.6% has been certified and 39.5% of forecast cost has been spent, so the project still holds a large funding surplus over both. That is a comfortable position, but it is partly a timing one. As the remaining applications are submitted they will carry the cost heavy back end of the job, so the surplus of cash over value is expected to narrow. The plumbing and heating margin and the last uncosted line, preliminaries, are the things that could move the earned position from here.

The chart compares priced margin against forecast margin for each costed trade. Plumbing and heating is the one trade eroding, down from 20.2% to 7.3% as cost runs ahead of the priced budget on that package. The heating ventilation works and electrical are both forecasting ahead of price, at 58.0% and 46.4%, which is what pulls the costed trade subtotal up. The lump sum and uncosted lines are excluded here so that the comparison reflects real cost movement rather than placeholder margin.

Signed off variations add £281,507 to the contract and agreed savings reduce it by £22,270, for a net addition of £259,237 over the main contract. The savings are price reductions the client has taken on the intruder, fire and gate access scope, and are already reflected in the contract value. There are no variations pending at this date.