Client note: Opening up and testing the works

There are a number of reasons why such action could be necessary. Most of them will relate to a suspicion by your architect that the work may not have been performed correctly or to an appropriate standard, or that work has been deliberately covered up by the contractor before the architect has inspected it. Some hidden defects could be life threatening or potentially endanger the occupants, neighbours or general public. In these cases the architect (and related consultants) would need to exercise their duty of care. The duty of the architect to exercise due care, skill and diligence may extend not only to you as the client, but also to a person who, after a building is finished, enters it and by reason of faults in design or construction comes to harm.

It must be remembered that architects are not on site all the time and therefore cannot monitor everything that happens.

It is best to correct any problems as soon as possible as the longer they are left the greater the disruption to the job and potentially the greater the expense that will be incurred.

Who pays for it?

The contractor will have to pay if:

• the opening and testing shows that the work is not in accordance with the contract, or
• a provision for testing or inspection hold point hold point Usually defined as an opportunity to witness an activity or item for which the contractor is required to give notice. The contractor must not proceed further without the approval of the architect. View full glossary has already been allowed for in the price of the building.

If the work is found to be defective the contractor will also suffer any consequences of the delay caused. If no fault is found, the cost will be added to the contract sum, and the client pays.

Will it delay completion of the project?

Opening up, testing and restoring will all take time. If the defective work is the contractor's fault then the contractor will have to cope with the delay. If no defective work is found then the contractor is entitled to an extension of time in accordance with the contract.

Are there any alternatives?

You can choose not to open up and test the works, however, if there is a serious fault it might be much more expensive to repair later on when the building is complete.

Even if the building is almost complete when the potential fault is discovered, it is usually worth insisting that the matter be dealt with immediately, rather than waiting to see what will eventuate. Contractors who are on site and awaiting final payment may be more willing to cooperate than those who have been paid and moved on to other projects. Further, if you are aware of a potential fault, in most cases you will only have a limited time to claim on guarantees or commence legal proceedings, if that becomes necessary.

You could also accept a bank guarantee from the contractor for the likely cost of repair if there proves to be a defect. This may be a useful solution if the problem is not particularly serious and checking for it would be expensive, provided there is no short time limit that might deprive you of your rights.

Where there is a possibility of enormous cost in the future to correct something relatively simple now, it is recommended that the matter be investigated as soon as any suspicion is raised.

Conclusion

If your architect advises opening up and testing the works it would be sensible to accept that advice. You should take into account the seriousness of the potential problem, the ease or difficulty of later repair and the likely cost and delay if the work is found to be acceptable after all.