The time may come when “similar” is not good enough

At the risk of stating the obvious, most construction projects are usually won or lost on price. It seems that we have reached a situation where cost will frequently succeed over the highest possible quality in a very competitive market place, but you can hardly blame contractors, architects or any other construction professional – it has been that way for years and it's unlikely to change – or could it?

Allegations and unfounded rumours linked to the dreadful Grenfell Tower tragedy have led to speculation that someone chose to save money by agreeing to install inferior cladding. Only a long and detailed investigation will prove if that is true or not but if I was a betting man then I strongly suspect that all the rules and regulations were properly met at the time – so where does it leave us.

Right now wherever you go in the construction market this tragedy is the big elephant in the room and no one, understandably, wants to talk about it until more is known.

But one thing is for sure - there was a time when an architect or specifier would vigorously defend their choice of building material. OK, the specification said material X or similar, but the architect knew exactly what he or she wanted both ascetically and in terms of long term performance and would except no substitutes.

Years of price led competition have gradually eroded that defence giving everyone the opportunity to break specification in the interest of saving money and while there are still many specifiers willing to try very hard to maintain the spec, it seems they are fighting a losing battle.

We should be asking why we have let this happen – after all would you ignore the advice of your doctor and take what he or she perceives to be an inferior form of medication.

Building owners and end clients are always looking for the best value for money but does the cheapest always equate with performance and distinctive good looks.

It is not hard to find examples of what many would perceive to be as evidence of decline. Handmade clay tiles are frequently replaced by hand crafted – significantly less expensive. Mastic asphalt has long put up a rear-guard action against a host of newer and lower cost membranes. Natural stone paving has lost out to concrete blocks.

Many would argue and I would agree with them, that these products are just as good and deliver better value for money but it's not what the architect or specifier originally intended – and that's the whole point – at some level there is a real danger that the alternative product might not be able to deliver and then what price do you put on that.

Who decided that Product Y is similar to Product X and will do the job just as well? The accreditations might say it's good enough but who will be the final judge?

When the inquiry finally sits on the Grenfell tragedy then it could well be that the Government looks at legislation that strengthens the hand of the architect if it is found that someone changed the specification and “similar” was simply not good enough.

By Talk Builder

Talk Builder is a regular columnist on the Talk.Build website. His views are personal and should be considered as such and can always be challenged via Twitter