"the mere presence of a supervisor on site promotes higher standards "Many clients are dispensing with resident site engineers, but this has serious implications for quality

Resident engineers should be an integral part of the construction process. Increasingly, though, they are not. This has grave implications for the quality of construction.

The resident engineer is an independent supervisor and checker.

They are the sticklers for detail who want to check concrete strength and compaction, who inspect the shuttering to make sure it’s been cleaned before a pour, who make the contractor reposition spacers to ensure there is enough cover on rebar. They’re always looking over your shoulder.

Of course no contractor is going to admit that they cut corners to get a job done, but on many projects the RE is seen as someone who gets in the way of progress. The blunt truth is that to uphold quality a good RE has to be a bit of a jobsworth – no surprise that they often aren’t the best loved guys on site.

Therefore nobody much minds that REs are becoming less and less common on UK construction projects.

A lot of clients don’t want to pay the £6,000-£8,000 a month it costs to have someone on site supervising construction.

First time clients perhaps don’t understand the purpose of a RE. More experienced clients may have had construction supervision on previous jobs and be thinking: ‘Nothing went wrong on the last project – hiring a RE was a waste of money’.

On design and build schemes, many contractors choose to effectively self-certify the accuracy and quality of their work – and hand that responsibility down the supply chain to their subcontractors.

But without a competent construction supervisor on site the risk that quality will suffer grows.

Contractors are looking to save money and win time against the programme. Inevitably shortcuts are taken - time isn’t invested in setting things up properly or materials are skimped.

A guarantee of quality

Set against the overall cost, having an RE on site is not that expensive. The RE cannot spot every defect, but the mere presence of a supervisor on site promotes higher standards of workmanship.

Without site supervision it is impossible to gauge the true quality of the product being delivered. Documentation provided by contractors as evidence of work done can be very misleading. You have no handle on the extent of defects.

Construction supervision should be used sensibly. On a straightforward project the level of supervision required can be achieved by well timed visits to site.

Even on more complex projects an RE doesn’t have to be on site all the time. You need to look at the construction schedule, identify the main activities and map out an inspection programme.

However, the more tiers involved in the supply chain, the more crucial supervision becomes. Main contractors ought to have the necessary skills and interest in carrying out checks on their subcontractors but in reality they offload responsibility.

Reassurance about the quality of construction is not the only advantage in having a RE on site. They can deal promptly with problems requiring an engineering answer. And on projects employing a RE insurance cover is often cheaper.

Return to archive

This article first appeared in Construction News on 13 December 2007