Rethinking Temporary Protection

The same old ways in construction practices must be altered to bring better buildings, ships and structures to owners and communities. The “I have been doing this for 30 years” language used by project managers and Superintendents at the operations level is a weak refrain as it demonstrates a closed mind in a world that seems to change daily. 

The US construction industry for generations of builders has been slow to adapt to new methods as compared to their European counter parts in many aspects of construction design , building techniques and in Sustainability processes. The window dressing of “Building by Sustainable Means” by many Contractors is great for securing work and contracts but the actual practice falls woefully short on the operations side. 

Let’s look at how most CMs, contractors large and small, commercial shipyards and military view the use of Temporary Protection on site. As long as builders have finish products in place, their trade partners will destroy them . What are the biggest headaches and expenses to the project as the job approaches completion? Punch list scope, damage during construction and rework of said damages is a direct cost mostly to the Contractor of record. 

What if by rethinking Temporary Protection, punch lists are cut by 50%? What and how does that impact the schedule and profitability to all of the work?

What if a Care & Protection Assurance Program became part of the Project approach ? No CM/ GC has done this before. 

A General Superintendent once said, “Temporary Protection in construction is treated as the unwelcome ugly cousin who shows up but nobody pays attention to, has bad breath, speaks to every family member at the party, and gets them pay their heavy portion of his bar bill. “ No one wants to hear, speak or think about it mostly due to its lack of any real budget on the project.

The fundamental issue comes to the Business Development Team eliminates protection to get the price down to secure the project, then estimating / PMs cuts it out of the job, and pushes the problem down to the site Super (with little to no Budget) to execute it in the field. 

Job site superintendents spend money not budgeted to deal with protecting finished trade work. They often use the cheapest materials which don’t protect anything properly, and are disposed of and replaced multiple times on the project. The repeating theme of “I have been doing it this way for 30 years “ is based on an assumption that ”Temporary Protection“ is a Material Cost issue when it is truly a Labor/Rework /Schedule Cost issue. This is not a sustainable practice.

This became a reality when I was on a large Casino project where a Trade Partner cracked a three-million-dollar Italian granite medallion. So ..what did the temporary protection or lack thereof just cost in material and labor as well as schedule?

What if the Business Development team at the time of the pitch to the Owner packaged it differently? You already own the problem and a “Owners Care & Protection Assurance Program” lets the client see the savings in time and damages and provides the budget to do it right. All of these problems repeat themselves on every job site across North America, and we haven’t even addressed the waste stream of plywood, Masonite, construction paper for the Sustainability Concepts we all think we are deploying.

 And then came “Exhibit B” – All Project Managers and Job Superintendents who are delivered a No or low Budget Temporary Protection line item push temporary protection to their Trade Partners/ Subcontractors to dodge this lack of budget bullet. A new way of Rethinking Temporary Protection approaches the problem in a different manner. 

What if the contract is changed to reflect that Trade Partners include the “Labor Only for Temporary Protection “and the Contractor furnishes a desired Level of Protection for a given area of work. Guideline Levels of Protection would become a “Specified Temporary Protection for Walls, Floors, millwork, and fixtures for all trade partners.

Procurement of these Levels of Protection could be done through the General Contractor / CM installed by the Trade Partner / Sub thus altering the outcome of damages using sustainable, reusable, and recyclable high levels of temporary protection.

Under most Exhibit B contracts, subcontractors are responsible for protecting the finished work, with zero guidelines or specification on levels of protection ACTUALLY needed to protect it the first time . Then, when the other Trade Partners/ subs destroy it due to lack of direction from the Project team, and the furnished craft paper, plywood or Masonite failed to do the job, who pays again for the reapplication of the protection? Not included in any budget is the cost, time , additional labor and schedule upset and loss of margin due to this lack of oversight.

 If we could cut the Punch List by 30-50% by actually paying attention to the Temporary Protection by establishing ownership upfront and by incorporating higher Levels of Protection for all substrates requiring protection, this alters the landscape to schedule and profitability for General Contractors, Construction Managers, and Shipbuilders. The overall result is then better buildings and ships for owners that are on schedule with original finishes with reduced damages., hence a better product.