Quality can be first to suffer when time and costs bite in PPP building projects

I have been following the issue of Edinburgh schools construction and PPP for some time now as a construction professional dealing with quality day-to-day. It is no surprise that builders and consortiums can let quality assurance slide on a percentage of projects due to constraints on time (programme) and cost, often due to stiff competition and small margins.

It will usually be highlight- ed as being planned and resourced, on paper, prior to the project, but can swiftly become a discipline seen as non-essential/less important or one that can be caught up on at a later date (this is rarely satisfactory).

It is often delegated too far down the chain of command, as senior staff do not have time to put their stamp on it or do not like engaging with it – the priority is nearly always cost and programme (which is basically another cost if it overruns).

There is a well-known triangle of cost, quality and programme which should be considered right from the start of the design and before the project commences, including at tender stage and contractor(s) appraisal.

Safety should, of course, be paramount at all times and the first consideration. Safety can easily be adversely affected by poor quality – whether affecting the construction phase, putting operatives at unnecessary risk or once the inhabited building is in use putting staff and public at risk.

The particular issue with PPP/PFI is that the oversight facility can be diluted and given to a lead or main contractor or developer or consortium or whatever model is used. The client (a council or health board or whatever) believe they have bought, in the contract, an excellent deal and can confidently rely on their contractor, with minimal inspection or monitoring by themselves.

The lead contractor then often sends QA inspection and monitoring down to subcontractors with minimal oversight by the lead contractor and client.

This is obviously not endemic, but will happen at times and the main issue is not knowing when quality has been achieved – even when it is.

This is not to try and tar all builders with the same brush, and generally quality is good. Of course, budgets are tighter in the public sector than private sector, so quality will be a place where some may try to save money.

NIALL MCTEAGUE Erdington, Birmingham