More inspections will not build better homes, contractor argues

Contractor Agnar Sigurjónsson argues that preventing building defects requires better preparation, not simply more inspections. In an opinion article published by Morgunblaðið, he sets out his views on proposed amendments to Iceland’s Construction Act.

Sigurjónsson, who runs the contracting company Sjamma ehf., says he has worked in construction since around the turn of the century, including on building sites and in design and project management in Iceland and abroad. He says problems on projects rarely stem solely from a lack of on-site oversight; they often begin much earlier.

The draft legislation would abolish the statutory role of construction manager, clarify the project owner’s responsibility and introduce external inspections by inspection bodies for buildings in the highest risk category. Sigurjónsson says he supports ending the construction manager system, despite holding qualifications as a construction manager in categories I, II and III.

He says public bodies and other clients have for years appointed the contractor as construction manager on their own projects. In practice, that means the builder oversees its own work on behalf of the client. Although independent construction managers are now more common, he argues that the system has not ensured genuine independence. Clear responsibility for the project owner would be a better foundation.

One argument against abolishing the system is that construction managers’ insurance cover would be lost. Sigurjónsson says the answer is not to preserve the system, but for authorities and insurers to find a way to ensure that the liability insurance of companies hired by project owners remains valid, including if a company becomes insolvent.

Problems often start before construction

Inadequate needs assessments, unclear assumptions and inconsistent design documents can lead to mistakes, redesigns and delays, Sigurjónsson writes. Such problems often emerge during construction, when changes are most expensive. An inspector may identify a discrepancy, he says, but cannot fix its underlying cause. Time pressure can also make problems difficult to spot while those involved are pushing to keep work moving.

He argues that the causes should be addressed before construction begins by clearly defining what is to be built and for whom, and by having designers and builders review proposed solutions together before they are approved for construction.

The draft legislation places considerable emphasis on inspections after work is under way. External oversight would increase, with the project owner paying for it. But the inspection plan drawn up by HMS for each project would not be prepared until after a building permit had been issued, while the project owner would have to contract an inspection body before receiving the permit. Sigurjónsson says owners would therefore agree to a service without knowing its scope, timing or cost. The plan could also change during construction, and the body carrying out inspections would have an incentive to expand them.

Sigurjónsson says he took part in an HMS workshop during preparations for the changes. Increased inspections received considerable attention, particularly from representatives of consultants and inspection bodies, while costs, collaboration during the preparation stage and ways to prevent defects received little discussion. He says contractors and groups representing buyers and the public were largely absent from the discussion.

He says the same pattern is evident in the government’s consultation portal, where few contractors have commented despite being directly affected by the proposed changes. He also says there is no indication that insurers were consulted about their role in the new system.