CEO LETTER
While there was strong support for the Quantity Surveyor to have an adjunct certifying role with many respondents noting that they already undertook similar independent verifier roles, it was felt by some that this was not a traditional Quantity Surveyor role or skill set and questioned the increased risk and professional indemnity (P.I.) insurance costs. Should this be left to the building surveyor? SHOULD THERE BE A MANDATORY MINIMUM LEVEL OF P.I. INSURANCE FOR QUANTITY SURVEYORS ENGAGED ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS?
Yes - 51% No – 49%
The commentary reflected the closeness of the survey results with the difference principally being between the views of larger firms and smaller firms/sole practitioners. It was noted that as Quantity Surveyors were providing an advisory professional service, which should be insured to an adequate level, a mandatory minimum level would help define this and should be adjusted depending on the projects value, complexity, and risk. Conversely, while a $10 million cover is held by most firms (usually $20 million) it's not appropriate to mandate this for small firms or one-man practices who only work on small projects. Some projects may only be for $1 million or $2 million and the (P.I) insurance premiums for a $10 million cover would be too high to allow smaller companies firms and sole practitioners to operate. DO YOU ACCEPT THAT THE QUANTITY SURVEYOR IS BEST POSITIONED TO DETERMINE RISK LEVELS IN PROJECT DOCUMENTATION AND DELIVERY?
Yes = 66% No = 34%
The general view was that a senior Quantity Surveyor, who ideally has worked for a builder/developer, has the requisite skills, knowledge, and experience to value risk and identify instances where works are not fully detailed to a level where the works could be accurately costed or constructed. While the Quantity Surveyor should be the leader in this role, it should be in collaboration with the project management and design team. The Quantity Surveyor is not a designer and, whilst they can point out common and obvious issues, they cannot show where a design calculation is wrong - that must remain with the appropriate consultant. Commentary noted that while Quantity Surveyors can add information to the Risk Manager/team, risk is a bigger picture than just project documentation and delivery. In many cases, Quantity Surveyors don't understand the documentation process from a consultant contract aspect. They would need access to information including the individual contracts for each consultant and this may be a step too far. They would also require a full understanding of each service provider’s business.
contract out? That doesn't make sense. Furthermore, the importance of the net contribution clause should be enforced. Any liability of one party is always a project team effort. It would be unfair for one party to absorb all losses especially if the fault is caused by the project team. Conversely, any contracting out of proportionate liability should be considered depending on the typical construction risks and nature of the market. SHOULD REPLACEMENT COST ASSESSMENTS ONLY BE UNDERTAKEN BY A CERTIFIED QUANTITY SURVEYOR?
Yes = 75% No = 25%
Commentary reflected that a Quantity Surveyor is the only qualified professional to undertake these works. There is significant risk in the undervaluing of reinstatement costs where a Quantity Surveyor has not been engaged. Whether this is a Certified Quantity Surveyor or a qualified Quantity Surveyor who is a registered Building Practitioner with appropriate P.I. insurance should undertake the assessment, and certainly not a Valuer.
SHOULD THERE BE A REQUIREMENT FOR ALL GOVERNMENTS TO REMOVE THE ABILITY TO CONTRACT OUT OF PROPORTIONATE LIABILITY?
Yes = 66% No = 34%
Not surprisingly, commentary reflected why enact proportionate liability legislation only to allow provisions to
04: DECEMBER 2020 - FEBRUARY 2021: BUILT ENVIRONMENT ECONOMIST
GRANT WARNER CEO Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors
