Civil Engineering July 2022 | Vol 30 No 6

16 July 2022 Civil Engineering F requent sources of frustration for both clients and service providers are misalignments between client expectations and service provider delivery. The result may be souring relationships, often worsened by project pressure on both parties. The client does not get what he re- quires/expects, while the service provider ends up “losing face,” may give up income, or even suffer monetary loss by providing services not allowed for. In the end the casualty is the project and its quality. If a client, prior to agreement, clearly and concisely describes the services needed and engages with the service provider to review the scope, the misalignment can be avoided or at least minimised. However, at the outset of a project, the client is often not clear what services are needed and, to cover all scenarios, the scope description becomes a mystifying narrative in an extensive stack of procurement documents. During project implementation it often becomes apparent to the client what the real needs are. In some cases, thanks to the wide narrative, it may be possible to motivate that the expec- tations were always indicated. In turn, the service provider may, either due to excessive documentation and limited time, or because of “student syn- drome,” give the scope description a cur- sory glance and submit a proposal without a proper clarification of the requirements. MY EXPERIENCE Having recently provided an Owner’s Engineer (OE) service as part of a broader project management appointment, my colleagues and I were challenged by some misalignment between ourselves and the client on the specifics of this role. Some OE role descriptions include the word “essen- tially,” which led me to believe that there was still a degree of flexibility/uncertainty in the understanding of the role. The construction contracting approach was turnkey (detail design, procurement and construction responsibility rested with the supplier), but the client needed an independent, experienced representative in technical matters (an OE team). This service fits well with the project management role, as it is dedicated to ensuring that the project adheres to its specifications and meets the deliverables. However, there were different expectations from different client representatives, and the scope narrative was not clear on all aspects. Opposing expectations from client team members were noticeable and an ex- ample of “contradictory” questions levelled at us is: “Why are you and your team checking designs in so much detail when the turnkey designer takes professional responsibility anyway? You should spend less time and only make high level comments!” versus: “Did you sign off on the design? Are you sure the detail is correct? Sign off on the roof design, as it is delaying the supplier!” (No doubt the latter originated in the supplier playing us off against our client, as final respon- sibility for design sign-off rested with him and his team anyway, but so did his meeting the agreed construction timelines). We were fortunate to be able to assemble a team that was not only experienced in their fields of expertise, but also (at least in part) in the client’s specific structural, mechanical, electrical and instrumenta- tion needs. Members were also insistently independent, which led to several intense (if not heated), debates about what was acceptable in the interest of the project, even if it did not meet the strict technical expectations of individual team members. A challenge for architects and engineers is often to accept that an approach can meet the required quality and deliverables, even if it is not the way he/she would have solved the matter himself. KEY THEMES We should be agile and prepared to adjust as interpretations change, but an accepted baseline understanding of the service not only provides a degree of comfort to both parties but can also reduce paperwork and establish common ground for negotiations and agreement. Frommy experience, there are a few key items to be considered in reaching an agreed scope between client and consultant for the role of OE. This is not an exhaustive list, and specific situations may require alterations and additions. These are: Q Q Professional accountability Q Q OE team experience Q Q Review expectations Q Q Review method Q Q Appointment. In the paragraphs below, I propose ques- tions that can guide towards a mutual understanding, and I elaborate briefly on our experience and approach. Construc t i on and proj ec t management Reniel Engelbrecht Pr Eng, PMP Projects Director ProjectWay reniel@projectway.co.za The Owner’s Engineer role: suggestions from a practitioner’s experience A collective understanding between client and supplier, of any scope of service, is always important to project success. The expectations for the role of Owner’s Engineer can often be different for the contracting parties and should be clarified in advance. The upfront consideration of key topics may aid client and service providers to limit time consuming discussions and possible confrontational situations later in the project.