Expert Witness Journal Issue 68 August 2026 - Flipbook - Page 67
With the foundation design delayed, the contractor
submitted a claim for additional time and money.
at a minimum, not increase time or delay project
completion. This might sound like the most obvious
point, however, I 昀椀nd it surprising how often it does
not happen, and the entire team proceed on the
basis of the original programme.
Based on the documentary evidence, the foundation
design was indeed late and caused a delay to the
critical path works. Unfortunately, there were no
records demonstrating how the design change came
about, nor of the ‘agreement’ to issue the design in
phases in accordance with a timetable provided by
the contractor.
Case study 3
This example was a speculative o昀케ce development
in a city centre location. As work progressed, the
developer had several di昀昀erent design ideas. Some
were unusual, some complex, some were simply
aesthetic. One idea that did not fall away was a
conference room with glass walls, several levels up
the building and cantilevered out over the central
atrium.
Ironically, rather than save time and money, the VE
item did the opposite.
Case study 2
A speculative development consisted of a steelframed building wrapped in a mixture of cladding
and curtain walling - nothing remarkable. However,
the main entrance area featured a heritage brick
feature wall to tie it to the existing Victorian
building next door.
This is slightly di昀昀erent and does not immediately
stand out as value engineering, although to the
developer, it was considered to increase the value of
the whole development; therefore, in that sense, it
could be said to be VE.
As part of a VE exercise, the contractor suggested
there could be savings if a modern steel-framing
system (SFS) with brick slips were used rather than
an actual brick wall. “Excellent”, the design team
said, and o昀昀 they all went.
The team made the bold move to temporarily
suspend all work on site. The design team went
away and reworked the entire design to incorporate
the conference room and a few other ideas. Once
complete, the contractor priced the revisions as
However, over the several months that followed,
the contractor presented multiple samples of the
available brick slips and even constructed several
sample panels, all to no avail. The reason being
the available brick slips just did not come close to
matching the existing Victorian brickwork next
door.
Fortunately, the building of the wall in question was
not on the programme critical path; therefore, there
was no delay to the completion date, but it did cause
disruption and certainly increased costs rather than
providing savings.
What is the answer?
The obvious point is to ensure everything is recorded
– who instigated the VE exercise or suggestion.
What was agreed, including the timings for the
provision of information, sign-o昀昀, and so on.
Consider whether it might be appropriate to have a
cut-o昀昀 point. In the case of the brick slips, should
the team have called it a day and reverted to the
original design? A lot of time was spent sourcing
and reviewing the various options, so factor this into
the management process.
Where several VE items are introduced and
implemented – usually at the pre-start of work or
very early in the project, I would suggest taking the
time to revise the programme to fully re昀氀ect the
changes. Include any agreed design release dates.
Demonstrate that the VE change will save time or,
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
65
AUGUST 2026
