How the BMP works

If you are submitting a Tender or Proposal- Or receiving a tender or proposal. Our processes define the costs linked to best practice and benchmarked costs. We can review (workshop) your organizations baseline of costs and  compare the same against similar projects, whilst still maintaining a baseline of costs.

We can also cater for independent reviews (IPR) for tenders of proposals. Or help you put together your proposal or tender, linked to BMP . Benchmarked costs.

Most Fiscal and Engineering Models have been formed to review the engineering and not always the Costs and Cost implications. Costs requirements are sometimes left as secondary items by our competitors, here at the BMP ensure these are fundamental to our Model and protocols.

AWG took his experience as a large shareholder, director of a World Wide Banking and Funding Institution together with his Engineering knowledge and Directorship of a large EPCM and integrated the needs of any banking-funding institution into the development of the BMP, that clearly has the fiscal requirements of any Study or Review-Verification outputs that any Banking –Funding Institution would require in any review or presentation. This is now a fundamental part of the BMP. No matter your needs it’s inherent within the Model. We know of no one else that can offer this inherent built in feature.

Plus we are able to carry out a Viability Cost Study of any Partner or Business Purchase.

Not only does the Wedge Model offer this feature that no one else can offer, AWG also reviews every part of the engineering on behalf of his- the client if they choose this option: Namely –problem- review-to arrive at the best outcome for both Engineering and Fiscal matters alike.

We work from the BMP Fundamentals in all cases to ensure that nothing is missed and all is integrated into the model before the next task is commenced.

These fundamentals form the backbone of the BMP, in that we only carry out one item at a time for both engineering and fiscal activities, this can be as the example (a separate discipline entry) thereby ensuring that any changes are checked and worked into the model. This ensures that time is not wasted searching to correct any mistake that the Model will not accept at a later date.

  • Proforma data-books that we adapt to suit your regular needs- that allow costs and items to be adjusted on similar projects, whilst still maintaining the integrity of (comparing apples with apples)
  • Data-books are designed to meet and be consistent with the SMM to retain integrity of the tender in line with standards. Easily adjusted Data-books that keep the baseline costs integrity.
  • Reduce Risk and define this via every line of the B of Q data-book. To stop the end of tender (Thumb Suck) on Risk and have a schedule of items that can be presented to any review of the tender. Knowing it has integrity. Plus do not forget the (thumb Suck method) can mean winning or the loss of any project.
  • Do away with using past costs or estimates-
  • Do away with using old Vendor Data
  • Do away with using out dated data or any form- or that dreaded word –estimate.
  • An SDS, it defines the Contact details and deliverables of the commercial side linked to the Data-book costs.
  • Work Packages that are linked to Data-book costs and SDS deliverables- no need to go searching for these work package costs- they are easily found within the WM. No loss of integrity are they are in the model and do not get reproduced- plus time savings.
  • ROI. Return on investment can easily be predicted using the WM methodology and process. This would be the same process we use for our commercial banking reviews. So you are getting the best.
  • Remember if you cannot repeat the costs on any item, : you have not established your own baseline costs:
  • To compete on a basis of being the best, you must establish baseline costs and these are updated regularly – Then you can view these against best practice costs, which the WM holds as part of its extensive database. Knowledge is detail and detail = costs. Broad SOW equals none of these.

Our activites.

  • It is clear that schedule over runs are a major and costly issue when delivering projects. At BMP we interrogate the schedule of the Client/ EPC / EPCM or Contractor organization against our latest trends. This ensures the integrity of the schedule against every risk likely to affect delivery.
  • Client, would supply to us (BMP) all documentation allied to your tender or estimate, the like of, example, SOW/Deliverables / Schedule / Vendors-Processes/ Method Statements, known as Data; every item allied to your tender estimate/ operational verification, to enable us to view and compare our Trend values / costs for best practice with your estimate documentation.
  • We can show very clearly every aspect of the schedule to determine whether it is realistic or unrealistic against our bench marked trends. These aspects can be vendor, off shore or local labour related etc. depending on requirements. Utilizing our expert project delivery experience and benchmarked trends we can dig into the detail to highlight matters of concern through the schedule and show how these will affect the overall cost and progress through delivery.

Other than our trends, the BMP has a unique quality that differentiates it from our competitors. We are able to view every cost comparison discussed, via our P6 Model and demonstrate it in a clear and concise overview table. This allows us to directly overlay differing views of the affect the schedule and cost changes would have on the overall schedule, as a viewable table or chart. This, rather than looking / viewing a confusing list of figures or values. Its, your choice as to which of these