Problems Arising from the Procurement Process  119

many designers err on the conservative side when sizing elements. This has
come about from past experience when it became common for architect
clients to make changes late on in the job, leading to increased loading or
changes in structure (moving column positions, adding large holes, etc.).
During the construction phase, a contractor may see ways to reduce his
costs and often this is possible because of the conservatism of the design.
For a standard form of structure (e.g., office or residential block), this con-
servatism can be considered inefficient and wasteful.
At the other extreme, for some design–build contracts, the workmanship
is considered to be of low quality. Occasionally methods adopted for a par-
ticular type of construction (e.g., hybrid car parks) are extrapolated for lon-
ger spans and are ill thought out, sometimes producing an unsafe structure.
It is not uncommon for a design–build contract to use hybrid concrete
construction (in situ and precast concrete). This may well lead to the design
of the individual elements by designers working for different companies. In
such situations it is essential that there should be a single responsibility of
one engineer for the stability of the structure, and the compatibility of the
design and details of the parts and components, even where some or all of
the design, including the details of those parts and components, are not
carried out by this engineer.
The lack of systematic or third party checking has led to poor and in
some cases unsafe construction (e.g., ungrouted prestressing ducts). Third
party checking should be carried out where considered necessary by the
engineer and, in the author’s opinion, should be incorporated more fre-
quently in all forms of contract.

12.3 CHECKING CONSTRUCTION

On one major project, in situ post-tensioning was required for the floor
slabs. An independent resident engineer was not included in the contract
and it was assumed that the contractor would provide sufficient supervision
of the work.
After construction, water was discovered dripping from the soffit of the
slab. Investigation revealed that the prestressing duct just above the leak
had not been grouted. A further investigation required that all the ducts
in the building had to be checked and this revealed that many other ducts
had not been grouted. The possibility of stress corrosion and failure of
prestressing tendons can be greatly increased by the presence of water as
was the case with these ungrouted ducts. The remedial work to resolve this
mistake was costly and time consuming.

Comment — In a prestressed floor, the amount of reinforcement is negli-

gible compared to a floor with reinforcement only. The spacing of tendons