Selected case studies

The client didn't trust the draft design-build agreement. It wasn't clear which risks the contract actually carried — making it hard to sign with peace of mind.

We reviewed the entire contract basis so every risk was disclosed, and then had the contract adjusted. The building owner could confidently make the right decision and sign — the project is now going through authority approval.

The project material kept changing over a long period, and without a structured record of the version changes it was unclear what the carpenter was actually entitled to under AB 18 — a far from insignificant claim was at risk of being lost.

With the new structure and consolidated documentation of every version change, the claim could be substantiated under AB 18 — and it was carried through and approved.

After the design-build contractor's bankruptcy there was no prospect of payment for the DS1140 material already produced. The value of the work risked being lost in the bankruptcy estate.

Kvalitetssikring Danmark helped secure the completed DS1140 material after the bankruptcy. The material was capitalised, and through negotiation in the run-up to the occupancy permit a fair amount was released.

When a DS1140 case is already under way, it is important first to get a clear overview of the existing documentation. What has already been dealt with? Which comments are still open? And what is missing before the remaining documentation can be completed? For the steel contractor, the need was therefore not to start the whole process again, but to identify and deal with the specific outstanding items.

KS Danmark reviewed the available material and created an overview of the remaining issues. The engineer’s comments were then followed up, and the necessary documentation was handled and structured. On this basis, the A5 material was completed so the documentation could be taken forward in the agreed DS1140 flow.

When a contractor becomes aware of a possible problem in the project basis, it can be crucial to respond. The contractor should not take over the designer’s responsibility or start redesigning a structure that others are responsible for designing. But that does not mean you should carry on working without responding to an issue you have become aware of. KS Danmark therefore recommended that the contractor bring the issue to the consultant’s attention and make sure the enquiry was documented.

The contractor responded and brought the issue to the consultant’s attention. The problem was thereby placed with the relevant designing party, who could carry out the necessary technical assessment. The issue was subsequently dealt with, and it turned out that the structure had to be changed. The contractor had thus raised the problem before work continued on a basis that subsequently turned out to need changing.

On a larger construction project, the project material can contain technical, contractual and execution-related issues that may later affect the project’s finances, quality and delivery. The client therefore wanted to shed light on potential risks, unclear issues or issues requiring particular attention, interfaces, matters needing clarification, possible pitfalls and relevant suggestions for adjustments or clarifications. The goal was not to remove every risk from the project, but to give the client a better basis for decisions and greater peace of mind about the upcoming construction project.

KS Danmark was asked to review the project material from a technical construction and practical execution perspective. The review is to create a structured overview of identified risks and points requiring attention, as well as the issues where the client would benefit from seeking clarification or considering adjustments before the project goes further. This gives the client the opportunity to make decisions on a better-informed basis, rather than discovering the problems only during execution.

A structural section is not just a heading in the project material. The division affects how control and documentation are structured throughout the project. If the project is divided into more structural sections than necessary, it can lead to an unnecessarily heavy documentation process with more separate reports and repetition in the control work. KS Danmark therefore assessed whether some of the structural sections described could, from a technical point of view, be handled in a more appropriate way.

KS Danmark took up the structure with the relevant engineer. The review showed that some of the items set up as separate structural sections could be structured as control sections under a relevant structural section, where this was technically possible and could be accepted within the project’s control basis. This did not change the fact that the relevant checks still had to be carried out and documented. What it did change was the way the documentation was organised. The result was a simpler structure with fewer separate documentation processes.