Risky Business - the hidden agenda

When we have works carried out on our own properties - be it painting a wall, fitting a new sink, or a full-width two-storey extension - we are obliged to pay for the "when we exposed the.... we found that the... needs replacing. So the cost is now ￡x". We may grumble a bit, but this is just because of the extra cost. We very rarely say "Well you came round and looked at the job before you priced it - that's tough!". And why not? After all, these people are professionals; experts in their field who have years of experience on a multitude of different projects. Surely they should have known that there could be an issue? It must be down to them to fix it at their cost? The fact is, we accept that some things just can't be seen or predicted to happen.

So why is the construction industry so different when it comes to assessing the risk of ground conditions? We have the same hidden issues - more, in fact. I won't list them all, as it would take too long, and you'd probably think of something I have missed.

I have been involved with the earthworks element of the construction industry for over 25 years - of which all of them have been involved with assessing soils for the potential to improve or stabilise them to be kept on site and used in the construction of the facility. So I have seen a fair few SI/GI, and have walked many a site, looking into trial pit holes, and therefore would consider myself 'learned' in the art of sucking air through my teeth and shaking my head slowly in a mournful way, when some black (or other coloured) ooze appears through the sidewall of a trench! Only for someone to utter the immortal words "What do you reckon? Can this be stabilised?". The honest answer should always be "Possibly - but I really don't know until I've tested it to the nth degree". But you are expected, as an 'expert', to offer an answer that not only satisfies the questioner but offers some form of commitment to pricing the project. Most of the time I haven't been far out...

Now let's look at it from the perspective of receiving a tender without the opportunity to access the site to even walk the surface, let alone dig holes to see, feel and smell the exposed arisings! Yes, SI/GI are, for the most part, extremely detailed documents that inform one of how the ground is at that point. Well, I say 'that point', but this could mean 5, 10 or more years ago. And pits and boreholes and window samples are great but could have been taken from areas that may have no relevance to the project layout one is pricing. They are an overview of what is there at the time, and the laboratory trials carried out are the same. (I know - it's highly unlikely that there will have been such tectonic or glacial activity as to change the geology in the years since the investigation, but you know where I'm coming from). Even with the structural or geotechnical engineers hard work in the document; it can still remain subjective.

The estimating team can make assessments on what is likely to happen where, but they can only be based on the info that has been given - go back to the start of this article and the comment "...you came round to have a look at the job...!". Where is this different? What changes the game? This.

"You have received and are deemed to have read and understood the project and the conditions....therefore take on the risk...liability...punishable by death..."

Those words, or words to that effect. That sentence holds the key to winning or losing the job. But it's also the key to the project winning or losing. I'll explain my theory.

Having to allow for all eventualities (risk), without having a chance to look for them, is a game of 'who has the biggest cahoonas'. Experience is a player in the game, but at the end of it, you have to put a monetary figure to it that is enough to get you the contract and give you something to use in an emergency. That's pretty much how it goes. You then have your insurances to fall back on if it goes horribly wrong (if they agree to it!).

But why risk it in the first place? Why should it boil down to a monetary settlement to cover the remediation of a failed foundation or floor slab? To me, the job has been 'lost' already by the failure in the construction phase. Regardless of who is at fault and who has to pay out, the facility is likely to have been delayed in its opening; or has had to shut down to allow repairs.

Surely the best approach is to de-risk the project as much as is possible before a machine turns up on site? At the end of it all, it's about the real economic cost. If you load up the risk and don't use it, the client pays. If that risk doesn't cover the cost, the contractor pays, or the insurance company pays. And these are big costs. Not just the remediation, but the LADs as well. People may well suffer. Businesses may cease trading. But the job has still been lost, from the perspective of it being a failed contract. One that will live long in the memory of those involved.

How about we try something different? How about all parties working together to have the comfort of knowing that the collaborative pre-contract work has mitigated the risk of delays to the construction and running of the facility? Yes, there may be more cost involved with getting this right, but ECI with the 'experts' really can open up the project to being developed with little risk; and maybe the opportunity to offer an alternative solution to bring real value to the Client. It does require more time to achieve this, as a selection process needs to take place to get all the partners in. But this could be achieved by a PQQ system, that looks at things like experience and structure ahead of just price.

Maybe my rose-tinted spectacles cause me to see it this way, but I sure do prefer to be talking about the potential risk and how to mitigate it.....