Hold points that drift and who owns the quality of what the Principal supplied

A hold point exists because something downstream depends on it. The pavement depends on the settlement. The pour depends on the reinforcement inspection. The next lift depends on the last one being accepted. And there is always pressure to release it because the programme needs it released. That pressure is where most of the arguments about hold points come from. It is also where most of the defects come from.

Hold points move on evidence, not on programme

I released a preload removal hold point on the strength of the settlement monitoring, not on the day the programme said the preload came off. The finished pavement depended on the settlement meeting the criteria set for it. The criteria were met, so it was released. If they hadn’t been, the programme would have had to wait. That sounds obvious written down. On site, with a contractor’s machines standing and a client asking why, it is the whole job.

The hold point that starts to drift

This is the tricky one. Everyone agrees the criterion written into the contract has been met. But a new criterion has appeared. The designer wants more data. The client’s reviewer has a threshold from another job. Someone is uneasy and the unease has turned into a number. Meanwhile the contractor is being held to something that isn’t in the contract and can’t price or programme against it.

When that happens I separate the 2 in writing. The hold point in the contract on one side, with its clause, its criterion and the evidence that it has been met. On the other side, the new criterion, with its source, its threshold, the current value and what data comes next. Then the question can be answered. Either the new criterion becomes an instruction, with the cost and time consequences that carries, or it doesn’t and the hold point is released on the contract. What can’t happen is the contractor being held on an undefined test while everyone hopes it resolves itself.

The specifications don’t agree with each other

On a contract with a lot of specifications, the notice period for a hold point is often stated more than one way. I have seen it stated 5 different ways across about 30 specifications on 1 contract. 24 hours here, 2 working days there, “reasonable notice” somewhere else. The contractor will pick the shortest and the surveillance team will pick the longest. Both will be reading a document that is part of the contract. Work out the order of precedence in the contract documents before there is a dispute, put the answer in writing to both sides and apply it consistently. Don’t leave it to be argued over the first hold point that gets missed.

A pass on 1 test doesn’t settle a question it wasn’t designed to answer

On a council roundabout the core results showed the structural asphalt was a mix the pavement designer hadn’t approved. It had passed fatigue testing. Fatigue is 1 of the properties the binder affects, so the pass didn’t settle it. I went through the core results and the validation data, then instructed the testing the council’s independent reviewer wanted. 2 more 200 mm cores taken away from the wheel paths and joints, witnessed, independently tested for air voids and deformation resistance, at the contractor’s cost. The contractor’s QA records are where the check starts, not where it finishes.

Supplying a material doesn’t move the responsibility

Principals sometimes buy long lead items themselves. Pile casings, bearings, specialist steel. The contractor then installs, welds and certifies them. The instinct on site is that because the Principal bought it, the Principal owns the quality. It doesn’t, unless the contract says so. The QA for the installed item is still the contractor’s, including the welding and the certification. What the Principal owns is the item as delivered, so the inspection on delivery matters more than usual. It needs to be recorded, because that is where the line is.

How I approach it

Every hold point I release has the evidence it was released on recorded against it, the same way on a small job as a large one. When a criterion starts to drift, the 2 get separated in writing that day, not at the next meeting. And when the specifications disagree, the precedence question gets settled once, in writing, before it costs anyone anything. MSQA and quality on site →