Blog 029 - Why America has got it right...

Hello and sorry for the clickbait title! Needless to say, this blog isn’t discussing the occupation of the US Capitol by the lovechild of Hagar the Horrible and Chewbacca, no. I want to discuss the importance of allowing Specialist Contractors to contribute meaningfully in their Specialist capacity.

A few years ago, I worked for a global Specialist Contractor and was fortunate enough to be seconded to a project of theirs in the United States. When I arrived, the Project Director inducted me and handed me the contract to get acquainted with. What I quickly learned was despite being the Project Director for the Specialist, to the Client he was just another team member. In the eyes of the paying client, the most important person appointed by the Specialist Contractor was the Quality Manager. The Client’s (US Govt.) primary objective was procuring a high quality asset for the US Tax Payer and to their credit, this sentiment was embodied in their daily actions and management of the project.

Fast forward to the present day, I see Specialist after Specialist on site after site, provide specialist advice and knowledge, obtained only through years of experience in that particular section of industry, be ignored and overruled. The Specialist has studied the technical data sheets, attended the installation courses and learned the lessons of a seasoned professional, however, if their recommendation conflicts with the interests of the Employing Contractor, they can often be forced to act in contradiction of their advice.

The pre-cursor to acting against their own advice is typically a Site Manager, Project Manager or Construction Manager offering a thinly veiled “instruction” to proceed otherwise, most commonly never arriving in our inbox. Over the years, Specialist’s have tried to adapt to capture this with CVI’s (confirmation of verbal instruction), Site Instructions or even emails, however without even getting into the legalities of these “waivers”, they often don’t provide much remedy to the Specialist down the line when a defect does occur despite the Site Manager at the time stating that they would be “taking the risk”.

With regularity I will hear a Site Manager from a Main Contractor / Developer, say they have “done this before and it’s fine” or to “get on and do it or I will instruct someone else to”, however, they aren’t the experienced specialist and often are unaware of the long term effects of the decisions they have made in the past.

Whilst the companies I may be referring to are not those procuring public works, they are companies constructing homes, offices and assets that people will purchase as one of the largest commitments of their personal or professional lives. I therefore wonder what separates the two employers in this example? The only logical answer to me is commercial gain. How do we build cheaper and / or finish faster?

I want to work in an industry where the lifetime of a product or asset is at the heart of the decisions made by the site team. What I learned from the US Quality Manager is that no corner cutting can be justified in the name of price or programme. Imagine a situation where whilst people were being shown their prospective home, the salesman said to them “this home has been built following 98% of the guidance provided by the material manufacturers and Specialist Contractors”. It wouldn’t happen, nor would the sale price be appropriately adjusted to account for the 2% (see Abatement). Instead, the customer will pay the same for what a 100% compliant home was priced at and never know the decisions made by a Site Manager about their asset in order to avoid late completion or cost over spend.

Whilst this concept will take this to the extreme, the disaster the nation witnessed at Grenfell Tower should stand symbolically over everyone’s conscience of what the disastrous effect of not following manufacturers and Specialist Contractors guidance can have. There can be no justification based on “its not going to happen here” or “it’s not like this is a life safety system”, things either meet the specification, or they do not. So, why has America got it right? Because when an element of the works didn’t meet the specification, it was to be remediated until it did or until the Employer (who was rightly the asset owner at the end of the project) had accepted a Non-Conformance into the works.

Next time you are challenged as a Specialist to paint the wet plaster, lay the floor on the humid screed or lay blocks in the freezing temperatures, ask the Site Manager if he will be letting the end purchaser know this fact in their purchase agreement.

If you are having issues with being pressured to install non-conforming works or need help with matters of defects, insurance claims or quality procedures, get in contact and drop me an email.