How many fingers are in this pie?

This image was taken on one of the Project Shed pilot visits in Wollongong late last year. Its of a load bearing precast panel. Readers will see from the image below that these panels form the inter-apartment separations for the balconies on this particular project. We asked the site manager if he could show us a detail of how this was to all assemble given that this joint passes through the window line and into the apartment. He had no idea, and could not point to any specific detail in the engineering documents that we looked at. He put it that the subbie who was contracted would know. This conversation has bothered me since. It is a pretty common occurrence, as is the the answer to, do you have an Australian Standard on site? More on Standards later. And more on shed visits in the pipeline.

Here is a summary of who may have had a finger in this pie;

1. The developer who scoped and commissioned the designs and building contracts for the project
2. Their respective lawyers who massaged what ever contracts were used to spread the risk
3. The Designer who drew this detail - I expect an engineer (most we have come across are registered engineers with Engineers Australia)
4. An architect who prepared the window specifications and reviewed the shop drawings, and who probably made numerous site visits to inspect work
5. The builder who who priced and accepted the design (and risk)
6. The precast detailer who did the precast panel mould
7. The engineer who inspected the structure at various stages before concrete pours and during precast panel erection
8. The subcontractors engaged to pack these joints and subsequently
9. The suppliers of the various products that would make up the final jointing inputs who may have provided technical specifications - especially caulking details by those who felt their job was done as those products left their factory
10. A project manager or quantity surveyor who made assessment of the builder's progress payments for work supposedly done in accordance with the contract (which by would have made mention of Australian Standards)
11. The project financier who has blindly allowed developer draw downs - supposedly for work properly performed
12. The Certifier who was assembling the various certificates that would go on to form the basis of issuing an Occupancy Certificate - the final inducement for purchasers to settle and become owners of these issues

There are probably more to add to the list. Here is the bigger picture of the problem at that time. There are several key aspects of this - what is the expected movement of these joints, has anyone thought of water shedding as a first design step, and then what next?

Below is a list of players who could have their fingers in the pie when these joints break down and challenge the confidence of subsequent owners when, every-one who should have done their job, may now have their finger in the pie of failure. New fingers may include,

1. Members of the Owners Committee who mostly have no basic skills in matters such as these, but all are willing to offer an opinion aimed at minimising the issue
2. Strata Managers who are reluctant to weigh in and will point to independent experts and lawyers as a first course of action
3. Lawyers and independent experts - mostly engineers, as you need qualifications to go to court or a tribunal, some will be defending the indefensible
4. The builder's lawyers and experts - mostly engineers as again, more to defend the indefensible
5. Lawyers and experts that will be engaged by those designers and sub-contractors that the problem will be directed to - because it is always someone else's fault
6. The judges who have to wade through all of this at great expense and apportion blame - often years down the track when owners have spent thousands of dollars on experts and lawyers who will all focus on sticking it to the other.

Again the likely list of fingers in the pie may increase as more line up to defend the indefensible. This situation is common amongst the numerous matters that come across my desk as NSW Building Commissioner. It is why new legislation being introduced into the NSW Parliament will help turn this around. I will not replay all that here. Just read the footnote link at the bottom of this article.

Where to from here?

Its time for everyone whose finger is in this pie to rethink what they will bring to the table from here on. Its time for developers to commission proper designs and its time for builders to know what they are doing and comply with the provided design, specifications and standards. And its time for those offering alternate solutions to make sure that their solutions are appropriate to the proposed use and that those using them understand the technical details.

In the case of this project, we revisited it early in the new year.

We met in the site shed. We looked at drawings and discussed inspections and quality practices. We discussed responsibility and accountability. Field Offices from both the building and safety regulator were present to observe the new game in town - action from the front of the bus in future. There will be many more site shed visits, with consequences.

We met with the Engineer, Project Manager, Site Manager and the Certifier. We explained the impact of the new legislation and the anticipated Commissioner's powers (should the legislation be passed by the parliament). Powers to call in documents, powers to open up work and powers to direct rectification - on projects under construction and those finished. Most imp-actively powers to use new data analytics to suggest the riskiest players and projects. And, powers to conduct Occupancy Certificate audits on completing projects with the power to hold them back until they can demonstrate their authenticity. There will be a few problem ones, but that will be necessary to make sure the new line in the sand is drawn.

We discussed how the industry got into the crisis we are now seeing. We went through the project's safety practices. We looked at short comings of the designs. We agreed that everyone in the room had the skills and experience to do a proper job. We sort of agreed that the main problem was a loss of consciousness that better standards were essential. We emphasised that from the time the new legislation passes that minimum standards would need to lift to best practice. Everyone in the shed agreed that they all had a finger in the pie. After 2-hours of solid discussion, no-one was in any doubt as to what next. We will be back.

There was no need to go back on site that day - message received.

The Site Manager forlornly told us that the non-compliant fire rated block-work pointed out at our earlier visit was now fixed. He did not raise his earlier defence that it was the block-layers fault. He had accepted that he was the supervisor, he had authorised payment for the work and that it was his problem. (See image below). He no longer pointed to the cost of Australian Standards, as the cost of attending to all of the issues, and many more not raised in this article made their cost pale into insignificance. He was unable to point to parts of the project that may have deployed alternate designs to those in the standards. He could not point to having any of the technical specifications or testing data in his possession. He even had Coates hire come and fix the water supply to the site's temporary toilets. At our last visit Coates had just signed their inspection QA sheet on the door of the toilet the day before. There was no running water to wash our hands - imagine that today.

Sadly it is not just projects like this one that are in our focus. Built projects are also on the agenda. We will start by unpacking the Occupancy Certificates and examine how ordinary apartment purchasers were induced into moving from depositor to owner. We will probably not make a lot of difference, but we will develop intel into who the most risky players are. Some will attend to issues out of shear embarrassment - as they will get called out. We will be looking at some of the matters clogging up our courts as owners are given little alternative but to litigate to try and get a better deal. We will look at the the expert advice being used on both sides to point to the ethical and unethical. We will produce case studies.

There are several projects under construction and recently completed. One is a 3-year old north shore block of apartments where the engineer and certifier have signed off on exposed reinforcement (see below). These sorts of examples are sent to me almost daily. We can't attend to them all, but on those we do we will point to the professionals in our industry needing to lift their game. We will be looking at these case studies to test progress as professional bodies modernise their organisations in NSW over the next few years - we are pointing to the Professional Standards Council for guidance. We will be looking for far greater clarity in the processes of professional standards accreditation, CPD, governance and accountability. Accountability when its clear that there are some lousy players out there, who shouldn't be. We will be looking for some co-regulatory engagement that does not leave the public regulator as the only party with intervention options long after the damage is done. We will be testing what we find with the relevant professional associations and we will report on outcomes. We will be changing the game.

Summary

These are the first steps in restoring customer confidence in 'off-the plan apartment' sales in NSW. All agree that the most risky are a relatively small bunch, but they have done the most brand damage to the industry. But all agree that there is room for all the players, to lift their consciousness and the attention they should be giving their projects. And finally all agree that the problem is no longer 'just over there'. The blame game has shifted to all acknowledging that there are many fingers in the pie - who need to do better.

Our immediate goal is to demonstrate to the public that the most risky players are getting the most attention and that it is safe to go back into the market with those who can demonstrate their track record, their capabilities and point to projects with satisfied customers. We feel there are many choices of good developer and builder. A little homework is needed by intending purchasers as we advance this transformation.

For any submissions related to this article please note the link below. Submissions to my Linkedin page will not be considered as submissions to the Building Commissioner.