- Thike Soe Tun (Nat Ywa)
Generally speaking, the quality controllers in the construction sector seldom pinpoint faulty sections in the structure. In large cities and towns, there are skillful examiners to look into the erratic portion of the building. However, in smaller towns, the quality control is being carried out by the officials from administrative department and engineering department. Therefore, it is seldom to find the imperfect construction work.
The inspection and quality control could only be made on simple face value such as the height of the foundation, the roofing, the materials in use, and the balance of the structure. Even such simple inspection on ground may have found faulty constructions such as lesser and smaller foundation base; the narrow and shallow drainage; and the shortages use of quality materials. If the structure is found to be erratic with the original construction proposal, then it should be demolished and rebuild in accordance with the approved proposal. That is the way it should be.
Make sure in line with the norm
At the juncture, a series of unreasonable justifications and excuses covering the faults would come up from the part of the construction companies. It is usual and customary errors among the smaller and starting companies. However, established constructions companies are not as bad as them.
Some constructors are not the engineers themselves, and they have no expertise to manage over the engineers and the workers. If and when the main focus is based on gaining heavy profit, then overall construction project is sure to fall into chaos. In fact, the construction business needs heavy investment to operate in the initial period.
The written compliance at the time of tender submission is quite impressive as it may usually mention all the good things about the proposed construction. The officials of the tender selection team may have chosen the best and finest tender submission among the contenders. Moreover, they would surely ask the winning constructor to fulfil in accordance with the norm and standard mentioned in the original proposal.
When the construction actually started, each and every step is usually found to be minor, cheaper and smaller than the original submission and proposal. Beginning from the cement to the brick and to the iron rod, the quality is inferior.
When the quality inspector has seen this, he is sure to point out the faulty portion. Some parts could be rectified, but some may not be able to fix it back unless the structure is being demolished. Nothing could be done, but complaining, fumbling and grumbling.
The situation is in dilemma as it could not order to demolish and rebuild again. A constructor may have undertaken two to three construction sites simultaneously, and that if an erratic site is being ordered to rebuild, then the possible consequence of trouble is unthinkable for that particular site.
With lesser supervision, more faults popped up
One might suggest supervising and watching constantly over the construction process, which is not possible under the circumstances. The inspection team, the engineers, and the work charge might be busy in one way or other due to various reason including their social matters. Therefore, constant observation is not possible. The construction work is in progress only in the hands of the unskilled and unprofessional workers.
In some places, the local people come up with full cooperation in the project. They examined the bricks, sands and materials and demanded for quality substances. They are helpful on their skillful expertise, but not in every step of the construction.
Undertaker has the responsibility
When one could not watch constantly at the construction site, then the faulty portions may grow. It is unclear and confusing to whom it is to be blamed. Based on the accountability and responsibility, the liability lies on the construction company. However, the company usually responded with variety of unacceptable justifications. If it is to be summed up, the actual undertaker has the final responsibility. Perhaps, it is not suppose to be the responsibility of the construction company, but the blame comes upon the quality controlling team. Maybe, it is partly true. The unstable and soft promise given by the undertaker to fix the error has been taken lightly with a feeling of embarrassment or restraint through a sense of delicacy. Things get complicated and mixed up with many people. Some people were sandwiched in the tricky problem, while some got away with profits and benefits.
The guarantee method and system is too bad. The durability of the building is normally given only for two years. If there is damage within two years, necessary repair is to be done free of charge. When the damage is occurred due to natural disaster, it should be excused.
However, the damages were seen over the walls, the ceilings, and the concrete flooring during two years period. The problem should be solved by fixing the wear and tear.
In the cases of worse situations, the concerning companies are black listed. For that matter, the companies in question submitted fresh applications with the new names. Later, it is learnt that the persons are also put up in the black list. In fact, the inspection and examination for the quality of structure only after the completion of the building is not practicable and realistic.
The responsible construction company must undertake from the beginning by telling firmly to the actual people working at the site how to proceed in the construction with standard procedures and norm. If it is not up to the agreed standard, then it is to be compensated by the implementer as agreed in the terms and conditions.
It is better that the construction companies must uphold the dignity, pride and self-respect in their performance of standard work. The construction company must stand tall and able to defend the quality inspection of the examination team. The company must work into a perfect condition to maintain its reputation and status.
In reality, the inspecting team could come to the site only three to four times, where they could have seen or may not have seen the faulty portions. Perhaps, the team may say or point out nothing due to restraint by the bad feeling of offending. The best solution for that case scenario is to carry out to the best of their ability on the part of the actual constructors making the work perfect.
Another important aspect is that the actual constructors must be firm in telling the main company that only the standard and quality materials would be accepted to meet the agreed design and structure. If the main company asked to use inferior quality for profit sake, it should never be accepted. The actual constructors must maintain their prestige and name. If the company insisted to use minor quality, then the actual implementers should advise the main company to find someone else in such inferior business.
Check quality control by oneself
Naturally, the people are engaging in business for making profits. Normally, eight percent is allowed to gain in trade. If someone wanted more than the norm, then it would never be fair. Regarding the inspection and examination, if there is no fault in the work, it would be the best situation. When the building is perfect at all time, then the name of the constructor would be successful forever.
The work progress is to be examined and inspected not by others but by one own self. Perhaps, one may pass the exam or otherwise. The main reality is to pass one owns examination. If one is not satisfied with its own performance, then one has to repeat to meet one’s satisfaction.
Whatever case it may be one owns construction quality is to be examined and inspected by oneself, and embrace greater success and stepped into the aspired destination.
Translated by UMT (Ahlon)