Last month two QSs and an architect were found guilty of defrauding a charity of £3.5m. Their scams, pulled over a period of 10 years, included charging for a concrete road base that wasn't there and rewarding themselves with excessively high fees.
This is a shocking story, and an uncommon one for UK construction these days.

Or is it?

What is the difference between the above crimes and, say, charging for two labourers working three hours, when they really did two-and-a-half?

What about the client who complains about defects that don't exist in order to get some liquidated damages? Or the main contractor who hangs on to retentions for years because the firm knows it's not viable for the subcontractor to recover it through the courts?

The industry is rife with examples of people being 'economical with the truth' to suit their interests. From the foreman who asks his green trainee "How long did you say the crane was standing for? 20 minutes? Are you sure it wasn't an hour?" to the QS who goes into a claim negotiation demanding more than he thinks he is owed for bargaining purposes.

Perhaps that is why Neill Stansbury, a construction lawyer who is crusading against corruption for a body called Transparency International, has met with some resistance. You see, although Stansbury's goal is to stamp out corruption on an international scale, where multi-million pound bribes blight third world development, he also thinks that any act of deception for the purpose of financial gain is also corrupt.

Corruption is a strong word. You can call it dishonest or unethical if you like. But it's behaviour that construction professionals should not be forced to indulge in. If you work for a firm that relies on claims-conscious QSs and late payment to subcontractors in order to make a profit, maybe you should ask yourself if that's really the sort of firm you want to work for.

Source

Construction Manager