Quality Is a Process, and Processes Leave Records
Construction quality is not just a property of the finished work. It is the result of a process: reviewing the documents, checking work at the right stages, recording what was found, correcting deficiencies and verifying the corrections. When that process works, problems are caught before they are covered. When it fails, the same problem can be repeated throughout a building.
Disputes about quality therefore often turn on the process and its records as much as on the work itself. What inspections were required? Were they performed? What did they find? What happened next? Paul evaluates those questions from the perspective of someone who runs quality checks every working day, as a General Foreman for the City of Chicago Department of Aviation at O'Hare International Airport.
What Paul Evaluates
- Contractor quality control programs, checks and hold points
- Quality assurance responsibilities of owners, designers and inspectors
- Inspection omissions and what an inspection did or did not establish
- Quality control documentation: checklists, reports and logs
- Workmanship quality compared with project requirements in the field
- Deficiency logs and punch lists, open, corrected and unfinished work
- Corrective action and reinspection
When an Inspection Establishes Compliance, and When It Does Not
One of the most common questions in quality disputes is what a passed inspection proves. The honest answer is: it depends on what was inspected, by whom, at what stage, and against what requirement. A municipal inspection checks specific code items at a defined point. A design professional's site observation is usually limited by contract. A contractor's own checklist may cover only what the checklist lists.
An inspection can establish that a specific item met a specific requirement at a specific time. It does not establish that everything met every requirement. Where an inspection did not cover the condition in dispute, or the condition developed later, additional investigation is required. Paul explains exactly what each inspection covered so that its weight can be judged correctly.
Who Retains Paul
Paul is retained by attorneys for owners, general contractors, subcontractors, construction managers and insurers, on both the plaintiff and defense side. Insurance professionals use his reviews to understand whether quality controls were in place when a loss occurred. Property owners can contact him for an initial conversation about a quality concern.
He is not an engineer, architect, special inspector or testing laboratory, and he does not offer engineering opinions or materials testing. His opinions concern how contractors and others checked, documented and corrected construction work.
Practical Experience With Quality Control
Paul's quality experience comes from the field. As a union journeyman carpenter since 1989 and a lead carpenter and foreman, he checked his crews' work. As a superintendent and City of Chicago construction supervisor, he was responsible for adherence to construction, safety and accessibility requirements. At O'Hare he oversees inspection and maintenance schedules and directs trades whose work must be right before an operating airport space is returned to public use.
Quality disputes can begin with a conflict check; Paul's CV and engagement fees are available now.
A Typical Inspection Workflow
Most construction quality disputes can be understood by comparing the inspection sequence that should have happened with the one that did. In simplified form, a sound workflow runs from document review, to checking the first installations, to inspection at hold points before work is covered, to recording deficiencies, to correction and reinspection, and finally to a completion inspection before turnover. Paul reconstructs the actual sequence from the records and shows where it matched or departed from the required one. The quality control page sets out this workflow step by step.
That comparison often explains why a deficiency spread through a project: the first installations were never checked, or hold point inspections happened after the work was already covered.
Owners, Contractors and Insurers
For owners, a quality review can show whether a contractor's quality program actually functioned and whether known deficiencies were left uncorrected. For contractors, it can show that required checks were made and that deficiencies were identified and resolved, or that a condition was outside the scope of any inspection the contractor was responsible for. For insurers, it can show whether quality controls were in place when a loss occurred. The method is the same for each.