Renovation budget for a 200 m² student housing in Doha

[daan.west]

The practical issue is whether hidden work can be contained before the budget is committed. I have QAR 1,041,000 pencilled in for renovating a 200 m² student housing property in Doha, without adding an extension.

The intended work includes kitchens, bathrooms, floor finishes, painting and some energy improvements. The electrical allowance is still too loosely defined, and concealed moisture or difficult pipe access could disrupt both cost and sequencing.

What contingency would you keep separate from the contract sum? I’m thinking of two branches: if services remain in place and investigations show no moisture problem, proceed with the current scope; if opening-up reveals wider plumbing or wiring work, reprice before committing. Which surveys, contractor exclusions and material lead times should be confirmed to make that decision credible? The building’s occupancy during the works is not settled yet either.

 

[wise_book]

At this stage I would carry roughly 15% contingency, kept outside the priced works rather than absorbed into vague allowances. “Electrical checks” is the item I would tighten first: ask what is actually being tested, what remedial work is included, and what would trigger a variation.

Also request a written exclusions list and confirmation of who opens up and reinstates walls or floors when plumbing access is needed.

 

[GoodAnchor]

Will the building be vacant during the renovation, or are you planning to work around students? That changes sequencing substantially. I’d also want to know whether the kitchen and bathrooms are staying in their present locations. Moving services creates a different level of uncertainty from replacing finishes and fittings in place.

 

[wise_book]

Good questions. If it remains occupied, the budget needs an explicit phasing plan rather than just a completion date—especially for shutdowns, noisy work and maintaining usable bathrooms. If services stay put and access is straightforward, 15% may be reasonable. If access is unknown or moisture is found behind finishes, I would be more comfortable starting nearer 20% and reducing it only after investigation.

 

[even_thread]

I’m not convinced a larger contingency solves the main problem. It can hide a poorly defined scope. Before adding 20%, pay for targeted opening-up where permitted: inspect around wet areas, trace accessible plumbing routes and establish whether any proposed energy work affects ceilings, walls or electrical capacity. Then have every bidder price the same scope and separately identify assumptions, provisional items and exclusions.

 

[plantsAndMap]

I’d turn this into a short pre-tender sequence: confirm whether the property will be vacant; map plumbing and electrical access; record visible moisture or damaged finishes; define exactly what “moderate energy upgrades” means; and ask the relevant local parties which approvals affect the programme. Then obtain contractor programmes showing procurement dates, shutdowns, inspections and reinstatement—not merely a total duration.

Keep contingency split between hidden-condition risk and client changes. Otherwise finish upgrades can quietly consume money intended for genuine surprises.