Expert Witness Journal Issue 68 August 2026 - Flipbook - Page 66
It is true to say that there will almost certainly be a
record of some sort of change in price, however, the
basics are often missing, including:
is likely to lessen as the project progresses. Figure
1 illustrates the pattern of decreasing impact and
increasing cost as the project increases1.
•
What? What was the change?
•
Who? Who instigated the change?
•
E昀昀ect? What was the expected e昀昀ect in terms of
time (programme) and money?
•
Outcome?
Were the proposed VE items
implemented or declined?
The Irony
The purpose of the VE exercise is usually to save
money or time or both2, so it is ironic that the same
VE items are often the cause of project delays and,
therefore, additional costs.
Figure 1
There can be many reasons for this, it is all very much
dependent on the speci昀椀c circumstances, but below
are some real-life examples taken from disputes that
I have been involved with.
Introducing value engineering early in the process
should lead to e昀케ciencies in the project delivery and
cost bene昀椀ts to all. Well, that might be the theory,
but it is not always the reality.
Case study 1
What is the reality?
The project was a large steel-framed development
constructed o昀昀 a reinforced concrete (RC) slab,
which in turn was supported by concrete piles. The
contractor suggested that by changing from the
intended RC slab to individual pile caps, there would
be programme savings and therefore, cost savings.
First, I will provide the caveat that my day job is
working on distressed projects. I appreciate that
there are many projects that run very smoothly
and are delivered on time and on budget. I know
this because my previous day job was a contractor’s
project manager.
Back to my current day job. I have seen many
examples where VE exercises did not quite develop
as intended. Actually, when I use the word ‘seen’,
I actually mean ‘heard of’, that is because often
the only available ‘records’ are in fact people’s
recollection of what happened.
The rationale being that the pile caps could
commence sooner, as unlike the RC slab they did
not require all the piling to be completed 昀椀rst. In
turn, this meant the steel frame erection could
commence sooner, and once the 昀椀rst-昀氀oor metal
deck was installed, the revised ground-昀氀oor RC slab
could proceed.
Yes, there may be an obvious change from one
drawing revision to the next. But what instigated
that change? The drawing is often (but not always)
issued under the cover of an Architect’s Instruction
(AI), meaning that the change appears to be an
Employer change, especially since the only record is
the AI, which introduced the revision. Then, when
the project is delayed, well, you can imagine.
This all sounds reasonable and not controversial.
However, timing was the key, the proposed VE
change and its acceptance came very close to the
start of on-site works, and, of course, the foundations
were among the 昀椀rst activities to be constructed and
were on the programme critical path. The second
key point was that the structural engineer now
needed to completely redesign the foundations.
All too often, as I set out to investigate the cause of
a project delay, the evidence indicates that the delay
was due to late design information. The designer
will often state that the late design was due to the
contractor’s VE exercise, which then involved a
complete redesign of ‘abc’, and all parties were
aware of this and agreed to it at the time.
What went wrong?
•
There was no documentary record of the VE
exercise.
•
The redesign required the engineering
resources to be taken from other design work.
•
The revised drawings and schedules were
‘late’ in being issued compared to the original
baseline programme.
•
Moving design resources caused delays to other
elements of the building.
‘Records, Records, Records’
Many of you will be familiar with the expression
‘Records, Records, Records’. This mantra also
applies to VE exercises.
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
64
AUGUST 2026
