They compare with France, specifically Notre Dame. If I recall correctly, the fire that destroyed much of the building happened due to lax procedures during repair work on the roof. That could likely have been prevented with… you guessed it, better regulation. The same kind of regulations that slow down German projects.
They only mention that contracts have to go to the cheapest bidder. They don’t mention that contracts allow for unexpected work to be charged extra.
As a consequence, companies have specialized in making a cheap offer at first and then add to that much unexpected work. It’s not only the insolvency of the cheapest bidder that is a problem.
Anyway, it is known that the regulation to use the cheapest bidder and many other regulations are the problem. So why does the article stop there and does not keep digging?
This is an excuse, paired with hope that the project finishes in autumn. But the problems remain and there is no hope that anything will change. The origin of the problem is not named and also not the people who can change the problem.
Interesting, in Australia it’s always because if you don’t go over your budget, you won’t get as much the next year, which means you can’t plan for things to get funded. So we purposely spend all of it and then some, plus run jobs over the EOFY (July-June) so we get enough for the next year. If a job is most likely to finish in April, it suddenly isn’t until October.
Source: Government employee
Wouldn’t it then be better if;
• It was looked at how often a company stays within the initially allocated budget
• How often flaws are discovered
• Whether its labour rights are satisfactoryto decide to which company to allocate?
That certainly happens here in Germany as well. Not sure if it‘s the case in construction as well, but I heard of it happening in mutliple different sectors before
Tradition!
Ist doch was tolles
I would imagine it is the same situation everywhere. Does anybody know of a nation that builds on time? Failing that, a big project that didn’t overrun? The only example I can think of is soviet rearmament during Barbarossa. You could argue they produced the t34 tank in time to save Moscow. There must be more recent examples that our governments could learn from.
Unless the government is directly managing the project and they are also sufficiently competent to do so, we will always be at the mercy of shady contractors.
