Conflicts and ethics in construction

You are the QS appointed in a team of professionals selected by the client. You have not worked with the other professionals before, so you do not know them well. Although they have worked with the same client before on other developments. You have heard that the developer appointed you because he thinks the previous QS was too lenient with the contractor on the final account. 

Before the site meeting you notice several areas of concern. Workers are working without PPE. The props supporting a slab seem to slender and there are almost invisible cracks forming in a column. You are reminded of a building that collapsed years ago where the same signs appeared. 

The client attends the site meetings and you are about to hand him a fee account, 

You are worried, but what do you do?

Immediate Site Safety Concerns and Action

As the appointed Quantity Surveyor (QS), your immediate priority must be the serious safety concerns you have observed. The similarities to a previous building collapse where the same signs appeared are deeply alarming and cannot be ignored. Your professional and ethical duty overrides any perceived pressure regarding the final account at this stage.

Here is a course of action you should take:

• Immediately Document Your Observations: Before the site meeting, make a clear and detailed written record of the specific safety issues you have noticed. This should include:
  • Workers working without the required Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
  • A description of the props supporting the slab that appear slender.
  • The location and nature of the almost invisible cracks forming in the column. Note any comparisons you can draw to the previous building collapse you recall
  • Photographic evidence, if possible and safe to obtain without interfering with the site, would be beneficial.
• Raise Your Concerns Proactively and Immediately: Do not wait for the formal site meeting to address these critical safety issues. Your observations suggest an immediate potential for harm, and delaying action could have severe consequences, as tragically demonstrated by the George building collapse where warnings went unheeded
  • Approach the Site Manager/Contractor's Representative Immediately: Express your serious concerns about the lack of PPE, the adequacy of the slab supports, and the cracks in the column. Emphasise the potential danger and request immediate action to rectify these issues
  • Refer to the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, as breaches were a finding in the George collapse investigation
  • Inform the Client Separately and Urgently: Before or at the very start of the site meeting, clearly and unequivocally inform the client of the serious safety concerns you have observed. Explain the specific issues and why they are concerning, referencing your recollection of the previous collapse if you deem it relevant to underscore the potential severity
• Emphasise the Primacy of Safety: Make it clear to both the contractor and the client that safety is paramount and takes precedence over all other considerations, including timelines and financial matters.
  • The NHBRC investigation into the George collapse highlighted failures to address safety concerns as a significant breach
  • Recommend Independent Inspection: Given the severity of your concerns and the potential structural implications of the slender props and cracks, you should strongly recommend that the client immediately engage an independent structural engineer to inspect these elements
  • As a QS, structural integrity is outside your direct area of expertise, and a qualified engineer can provide a professional assessment and advise on necessary remedial actions. The George collapse report highlighted deficiencies in geotechnical and engineering assessments. The NHBRC inspection process itself involves spot checks and relies on the competent person (engineer) for quality control.
• Document Your Communication: Keep a record of when, how, and to whom you raised your safety concerns, as well as any responses you receive
  • This documentation is crucial for demonstrating that you acted responsibly and professionally.
• Address the Fee Account Appropriately: While the fee account is due, the immediate safety risks are more critical. You can still present the fee account at the meeting, but clearly state that your primary concern at this moment is the site safety. You could say something like, "Before we discuss the fee account, I must bring to your attention some very concerning safety issues I have observed on site..."
• Be Mindful of the Developer's Expectations: You have heard the developer wants a stricter approach to the final account. While you should be diligent in your cost management role, this should never compromise safety or quality
  • If the developer's focus on financial leniency seems to be at the expense of necessary safety measures, you must firmly but professionally push back, supported by your professional obligations and potentially the advice of the structural engineer. Conflicts of interest can arise from competing agendas, and it's important to manage these effectively
• Understand Your Role and Limitations: As a QS, your primary expertise is in cost management. Recognise when issues fall outside your competency and recommend the involvement of appropriately qualified professionals (e.g., structural engineers, safety consultants)
  • Providing advice on structural integrity without the necessary expertise could have serious repercussions and potential liability

By taking these steps, you will be fulfilling your professional responsibility to prioritise safety, communicate critical risks effectively, and recommend appropriate action to the client. Your proactive approach may help prevent a potentially catastrophic incident.

What else would you suggest to fellow QS's? Please comment below.

Download the RICS Professional Guidance: Conflict avoidance and dispute resolution in construction

Compiled by Bert van den Heever using AI summaries from the RICS website and news items.

Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and is not necessarily that of the ASAQS