Identifying Scope Exclusions

#𝐋𝐎𝐆_𝐍𝐎_𝟏𝟓𝟗 🏗️ 𝐌𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 – 𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 & 𝐑𝐢𝐬𝐤 𝐌𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 Technical study of subcontractor scopes of work in construction management, based on the detailed guide by Jason G. Smith and Dr. Jimmie Hinze. This resource addresses one of the most critical, complex, and risk-prone areas in modern construction: the precise definition, coordination, and delegation of subcontractor responsibilities. 📘 𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐓𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐓𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬: 🔹 𝟏. 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 ● The project is divided into modular work packages, aligned with trade-specific subcontractors. Key categories include: ● Demolition & Earthworks ● Structural Steel & Reinforcement ● Masonry, Roofing, Glazing ● Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing (MEP) ● Interiors & Finishes ● Site Utilities & Landscaping 🔹 𝟐. 𝐑𝐢𝐬𝐤 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐃𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 ● Each scope includes explicit inclusions, exclusions, overlaps, and interface details with other trades. ● Special care is taken to identify orphaned tasks, like: ● Cutting and patching ● Site protection ● Coordination with adjacent trades (e.g., between shoring and waterproofing) 🔹 𝟑. 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥-𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐄𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐬 Addressed technical issues like: ● Shoring and underpinning coordination ● Tieback installation, de-tensioning, and spoil removal ● Demolition layout and contamination risks (asbestos/lead) ● Noise control and urban permitting requirements ● Shotcrete vs. wood lagging for excavation walls 🔹 𝟒. 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 ● Estimators must allocate every task clearly to subcontractors or in-house teams ● Continuous quality control, site documentation, and layout coordination are mandatory ● Common missteps include scope gaps, missing cut-off procedures, or unclear schedule impact ownership 🔹 𝟓. 𝐀𝐝𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐈𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝: ● Fireproofing, framing, casework, curtain walls, tile/stone floors ● Specialty installations: elevators, signage, HVAC zones ● Safety items: guardrails, toe boards, containment 🧠 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬: Inaccurate or vague scopes cause: ● Change orders ● Legal disputes ● Delays in handoff ● Unsafe construction conditions 📚 𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞: “Construction Management: Subcontractor Scopes of Work” 📖 Authors: Jason G. Smith & Dr. Jimmie Hinze 🎓 Publisher: CRC Press | EasyEngineering.net #𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 #𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐬 #𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 #𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐑𝐢𝐬𝐤 #𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐂𝐨𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 #𝐂𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 #𝐒𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐀𝐧𝐝𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 #𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 #𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐒𝐚𝐟𝐞𝐭𝐲 #𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐄𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

Demystifying Pillar Two: A 4-Step Strategic Workflow for Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) As we navigate the implementation of the OECD’s GloBE Rules, complexity is the only certainty. I recently reviewed a strategic workflow that distills the 2025 commentary into an actionable framework. Here is the 4-stage journey for MNEs: 1️⃣ Stage 1: The Scope (The Gateway) Everything starts with the €750M revenue threshold based on the Ultimate Parent Entity’s consolidated financial statements. The Filter: Before calculating, identify "Excluded Entities" like governmental bodies, non-profits, and pension funds—their income is carved out completely. 2️⃣ Stage 2: The Calculation (The Engine) The core task is determining the Jurisdictional Effective Tax Rate (ETR). The Formula: Net GloBE Income (financial accounts +/- adjustments) vs. Adjusted Covered Taxes. The Carve-out: Don't overlook the Substance-Based Income Exclusion (SBIE). This reduces the profit base subject to Top-up Tax based on eligible payroll and tangible assets. 3️⃣ Stage 3: The Collection (The Hierarchy) If a Top-up Tax is due, who collects it? The order of operations is critical: QDMTT (Priority 1): The local jurisdiction takes the tax first if a Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax exists. IIR (Priority 2): If no QDMTT, the parent entity pays under the Income Inclusion Rule (top-down). UTPR (Priority 3): The final backstop allocates remaining tax to other jurisdictions. 4️⃣ Stage 4: Efficiency (The Safe Harbours) You may not need the full calculation immediately. Transitional CbCR Safe Harbour: Offers temporary relief through 2026/2028 based on De Minimis, Simplified ETR, or Routine Profits tests. QDMTT Safe Harbour: The "Gold Standard" that eliminates the need for a duplicative GloBE calculation when a robust QDMTT is in place. 💡 Strategic Imperative: The GloBE rules are fundamentally data-intensive. Establishing a "single source of truth" across accounting standards is the foundational compliance challenge for the coming years. #Tax #PillarTwo #OECD #GloBE #InternationalTax #Compliance #Finance

If you get Clause 4 wrong, your QMS becomes paperwork. If you get it right, your QMS becomes unstoppable. Clause 4 looks simple in the standard — but it’s also the most misunderstood. Here’s exactly how to implement it correctly, and where organisations go wrong: 1️⃣ Clause 4.1 — Identify Internal & External Issues ✔ HOW to do it: Conduct a real SWOT session with cross-functional teams Run a PESTLE analysis to capture market, regulatory & competitive factors Convert issues → risks → improvement plans ❌ What companies do wrong Copy-paste SWOT from the internet Create a generic “template” with no connection to operations Do this once during certification and never again No involvement of Production, Maintenance, HR, or Sales 👉 Result: QMS becomes irrelevant to real business challenges. 2️⃣ Clause 4.2 — Identify Interested Parties ✔ HOW to do it: List all stakeholders: customers, employees, suppliers, regulators, community Capture their needs, expectations, and compliance requirements ❌ Common mistakes Only mentioning “customer & supplier” Not recording compliance requirements No monitoring mechanism… so expectations change but QMS doesn’t Not linking this to risks 👉 Result: QMS fails to align with realities of stakeholders. 3️⃣ Clause 4.3 — Define the QMS Scope ✔ HOW to do it: Clearly define: Products & services Locations Processes Exclusions ❌ Where companies go wrong Very long, complicated scope statements Wrong exclusions like “Design” when design still influences the process Scope not matching what’s actually done onsite Not updating scope when business expands 👉 Result: Confusion during audits & customer assessments. 4️⃣ Clause 4.4 — Define Processes, KPIs, Risks & Interactions ✔ HOW to do it: Create Process Maps / Turtle Diagrams Assign owners, KPIs, risks, controls, and interactions Link them to objectives & performance reviews ❌What companies do wrong Listing departments instead of processes No KPIs, or KPIs no one tracks Risks written only to satisfy auditors Process map created once and forgotten No connection between processes → DMS → objectives → reviews 👉 Result: QMS becomes document-driven, not system-driven. Clause 4 is treated like theory — not strategy. People fill templates, but never use the outputs to drive decisions. When Clause 4 is weak: Risks are guessed KPIs are random Objectives lack direction Audits feel disconnected Teams don’t understand the “why” of the system In every ISO 9001 implementation I’ve done, organisations that truly executed Clause 4 built systems that were simple, strategic, and audit-ready all year. Those that rushed it ended up with a QMS that looked good on paper but failed in daily practice. Clause 4 is not documentation. It’s the blueprint of your organisation. #ISO9001 #Clause4 #QMS #QualityManagement #ISOImplementation #ProcessApproach #RiskManagement #OperationalExcellence #ContinuousImprovement #SwadesQMS

SCOPE CREEP. This is one of the most common problems I see when reviewing contracts. I have been guilty of it many times myself. What is it? It is when project tasks expand beyond the agreed scope of the agreement without additional compensation. The solution? A specific SCOPE OF SERVICES provision. A scope of services provision defines the exact work a service provider is expected to perform under a contract. It sets the boundaries of what is included (and excluded), preventing misunderstandings and limiting “scope creep.” 💡 WHY IT MATTERS: Without a clear scope, projects can quickly grow beyond the original agreement (or what you thought was agreed!!), leaving you overworked, underpaid, and frustrated. A strong scope of services provision ensures both parties know EXACTLY what to expect and helps prevent scope creep. ➡️  A SCOPE OF SERVICES PROVISION SHOULD INCLUDE: *The specific services to be delivered *The timeframe or number of hours allocated *Deliverables (reports, meetings, training, etc.) *Explicit exclusions (what’s not covered) *Process for adding new services (e.g., written amendment, additional fee) ✅ EXAMPLES OF THE GOOD AND THE BAD: 👎🏻 Bad: ““Consultant will assist Client with preparing for investor presentations.” ➡️ Why? Sounds narrow, but could balloon into pitch deck creation, financial modeling, or coaching. ✅ Good: “Consultant will review and edit one investor presentation deck (up to 20 slides) and conduct one 90-minute practice session. Financial modeling is excluded. Work beyond this scope will be billed at an hourly rate of $500.” ➡️ Why? It clearly defines the deliverables (one deck, 20 slides, one session), sets exclusions (no financial modeling), and establishes how extra work will be billed. ⭐️ PRO TIP: NEVER ASSUME. Just because you know what a clause means (or you think the other party does) does not make it clear. Contracts are not written just for “you two” to understand. Contracts are written so that a third party (like a judge, mediator, or new business partner) could read them and understand exactly what was intended. If the language is not specific enough for an outsider to interpret without guesswork, it is too vague. And you are opening the door to disputes and scope creep. ⬇️ Have an experience you want to share re scope creep? Drop it in the comments. ⬇️ *********For informational purposes only. Not intended as legal advice.

Among the many ethical challenges CDI professionals face is pressure to make their organizations and/or providers look better on paper, through elimination of diagnoses that might trigger a patient safety indicator (PSI) or other quality measure. In some organizations the pressure to improve quality scores is stronger than CC/MCC/HCC capture. But there is a compliant way to do the work. Review your denominator exclusions, query when appropriate, and get them documented. Doing so removes these patients appropriately from the measure. This work is critical for the new CMS quality measure, Thirty-day Risk-Standardized Death Rate among Surgical Inpatients with Complications (Failure-to-Rescue), recently introduced in the FY 2025 IPPS final rule. The Failure to Rescue measure is defined as the percentage of surgical inpatients who experienced a complication and then died within 30-days from the date of their first OR procedure. Failure-to-rescue is defined as the probability of death given a postoperative complication. This measure is publicly reported, meaning that anyone with access to a computer will see how many surgical inpatients with complications passed away within 30 days of their procedure at a given hospital. Weighty stuff, and not a good look if you’re performing pooly. But the good news is, all the reporting details are freely accessible, down to the very ICD-10-CM codes that move patients out of the denominator. Following are the broad category exclusions: ·     Cardiac Event ·     Congestive Heart Failure ·     Hypotension/Shock/Hypovolemia ·     Pulmonary Embolus/Deep Vein Thrombosis/Phlebitis ·     Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA)/TIA ·     Coma ·     Seizure ·     Delirium/Psychosis ·     Nervous System Complications ·     Pneumonia/Pneumonitis  ·     Pneumothorax/Effusion ·     Respiratory Compromise/Bronchospasm  ·     Internal Organ Damage/Perforation  ·     Peritonitis ·     GI bleed and blood loss ·     Sepsis ·     Deep wound infection or wound complication ·     Renal dysfunction ·     Gangrene/amputation ·     Intestinal obstruction/ischemia ·     Retained foreign body ·     Pressure injury ·     Orthopedic complication ·     Hepatitis or jaundice ·     Pancreatitis ·     Necrosis of bone (thermal or aseptic) ·     Osteomyelitis ·     Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) ·     Pyelonephritis ·     Postprocedural/Transfusion Complication These must be reported as present on admission and match the listed ICD-10-CM exclusion codes. See link below for complete details. Other examples of ICD-10-CM codes resulting in exclusion from the measure include Z66: Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) status, and Z51.5: Encounter for palliative care. This measure is risk adjusted too, with age, comorbidities, or preoperative ‘do not resuscitate’ orders impacting reporting. In general, the accuracy of a patient’s comorbidities with supporting documentation allows appropriate coding of the patient’s complexities.

Every valuation is built for a specific purpose and user. Using it beyond that scope is where exposure begins. A valuation standard tells you what the number is actually for. Whether it follows fair value for financial reporting, investment value for an acquisition decision, or transaction value for a specific deal. Without a stated standard, the same number can be used for M&A pricing, impairment testing, and board presentations, with nobody flagging that it was built for only one of those purposes. A scope limitation tells you what the valuation does not cover. Which segments were excluded, which risks were not quantified, which assumptions rest on management judgment rather than market data. Without that disclosure, the reader has no way to know where the analysis ends and where the gaps begin. When both are missing, auditors have no fixed point from which to test the work. 1. They cannot check whether the methods are consistent with the stated standard because no standard was stated. 2. They cannot assess whether material risks were excluded because no exclusions were listed. The review becomes a conversation instead of a structured audit. For boards and CFOs, the risk is practical. A valuation without a clear standard and scope can be stretched to justify decisions it was never designed to support. That convenience holds until someone asks a direct question and there is no documented answer. Before signing off on any valuation report, confirm two things are explicitly stated. 1. What standard governs this valuation and who is the intended user? 2. What is outside the scope of this analysis and why? Those two disclosures are what separate a defensible valuation from a number on a page. P.S. Have you come across a valuation report that was used beyond what its scope actually covered?

Defining the scope of work is a common practice in work proposals and contracts. But what about specifying tasks that won't be performed? In my proposals and contracts, I usually clarify the work I will undertake and the tasks I will not handle. Why do I do this? Because establishing clear expectations and delivery goals from the first interactions with a client helps to reduce misunderstandings and conflicts. How do I implement this in practice? Take a manuscript writing project, for instance. The exclusion of specific tasks might be articulated as follows: "The service provider will not be responsible for submitting or resubmitting the article, creating images and tables, or performing statistical analyses related to the manuscript." Also, I usually detail the protocol for if the client requires any of these excluded services in the future. This covers the pricing of such services, payment methods, payment schedules, and completion timelines. This approach has evolved with the maturity of my business and a deeper understanding of all tasks associated with a specific service I provide. And, of course, it is always based on a preliminary conversation with the client to fully grasp their needs. ----- 👋 Hey, I'm Morgana Moretti, PhD; I help #LifeSciences companies produce accurate, well-crafted scientific content. Follow me for tips on #MedicalWriting, or contact me to discuss your project.

Does your product actually fall under the ATEX Directive? 🛑 Many engineers and importers assume that any tool used in a hazardous area must be ATEX-certified. This isn't always true. Under Directive 2014/34/EU, equipment is only in scope if it has its "own" potential source of ignition. What is usually OUT of scope? • Simple Mechanical Tools: Items like hammers, spanners, and saws generally do not have an internal ignition source and are excluded. • Hand-Operated Valves: Since these move slowly and are unlikely to form hot surfaces, they are typically outside the scope. • Medical Devices: These are explicitly excluded when intended for use in a medical environment. The Golden Rule: Equipment is only covered if it is intended for use in a potentially explosive atmosphere—defined as a mixture of flammable substances with air under specific atmospheric conditions. Manufacturer Tip: You must conduct an ATEX analysis to conclude if your product is subject to the Directive before placing it on the market. Have you ever struggled with a "borderline" product classification? Share your experience below! #IndustrialSafety #ATEX #ProductDesign #ExplosionProtection #EngineeringLife

Most homeowners don’t get burned because they made a bad decision… they get burned because they were led into one. Unethical contractors don’t sell construction—they sell comfort, speed, and low numbers upfront… then trap you later. Here’s how it usually works: They give you a cheap price with a vague scope → Missing details, no real breakdown, no specifications They rush you to sign → “We can start tomorrow” / “Price is only good today” They avoid documentation → No insurance, no permits, no written scope, no engineering Then the trap is set… Once the job starts: • “We found more issues” • “That wasn’t included” • “This is a change order” Now your cost is higher than the original—and you’re already committed. ⸻ What to look for: • No detailed scope of work • No mention of code, drainage, or structural considerations • No insurance or license verification • Large upfront deposits • Poor communication or evasive answers ⸻ What to ask BEFORE signing: • What exactly is included in writing—line by line? • Are you licensed, insured, and can you provide a COI? • Who is pulling permits and ensuring code compliance? • How are change orders handled and priced? • What is excluded from this scope? • What warranty is provided—and what voids it? ⸻ The reality is simple: Good contractors don’t hide details. They define them. If the scope isn’t clear… the cost won’t be either. Structure is not cosmetic—and neither is your contract. By Justin Curatola #Construction #ContractorTips #Homeowners #BuildSmart #AvoidTheTrap #ConstructionTruth #KnowBeforeYouSign #DueDiligence #LicensedContractor #InsuredContractor #ScopeOfWork #ChangeOrders #ConstructionEducation #QualityOverCheap #BuildItRight #DoneRightTheFirstTime #CuratolaMasonry #EngineeringFirst #ProtectYourInvestment

I just reviewed 47 tenders from 2024. Here's the £50k opportunity hiding in 83% of them: 🔍 𝗠&𝗘 𝗖𝗼𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗚𝗮𝗽𝘀: £𝟯𝟱-𝟲𝟬𝗸 Often the pipes are priced, but the boxing, ceiling drops, and coordination time aren't fully captured. It's an opportunity to clarify scope early. 🔍 𝗧𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴: £𝟮𝟱-𝟰𝟬𝗸 Beautiful permanent structures priced perfectly. But the temporary support systems? Sometimes overlooked. Worth checking together. 🔍 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: £𝟭𝟱-𝟯𝟬𝗸 Acoustic reports, party wall agreements, S278 works. They're in the planning docs but sometimes missed in tender pricing. Easy win when spotted. 🔍 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗺𝗲 𝗙𝗹𝗼𝗮𝘁 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀: £𝟰𝟬-𝟴𝟬𝗸 Optimistic programmes without contingency can lead to prelim extensions. Building in realistic float protects everyone. 🔍 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝘂𝗺 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆: £𝟮𝟬-𝟱𝟬𝗸 PC sums need careful definition. When they're vague, nobody wins. Clear scope = clear pricing. *** **Real example** £4.2m residential scheme. Spread of tenders by £180k. My 30-second check revealed: - Access constraints not fully considered (corner plot) - Acoustic requirements from planning not priced - Temporary works allowance light for basement 𝙋𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙜𝙖𝙥: £265𝙠 We worked with the team to clarify these items before contract. Everyone knew what they were signing up for. *** THE 30-SECOND TENDER CHECK: 1️⃣ 𝘚𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩 "𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭" Multiple hits? Review scope definition 2️⃣ 𝘊𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘴 % Below 12%? Worth a conversation 3️⃣ 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘷𝘴 𝘛𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 Any conditions not priced? Flag them 4️⃣ 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘮𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸 Realistic contingencies included? 5️⃣ 𝘌𝘹𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵 Long list? Time to clarify Takes 30 seconds. Saves months of disputes. *** 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿? 𝗢𝗻𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗲. What tender clarifications have saved your projects? PROJEKT QS 𝘋𝘦-𝘙𝘪𝘴𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘐𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯