“Tropus did not consider … that the Multiplex construction cost offer had been properly interrogated.” So said a report by the former project manager of the £435m new Wembley stadium back in 2001. The Tropus report questioned the way the project was let out to Multiplex in late 2000 and claimed it could have been retendered in 2001. How depressingly accurate a judgement, given the current travails of the Australian contractor, which declared on Monday that it was set to lose £45m on the project.

It’s depressing not only to see a major project mired in dispute and delay, but to hear yet again that advice and judgement offered to clients from experienced consultants has been ignored. Tropus’ contract with client Wembley National Stadium Limited was not renewed after the firm submitted its report and the firm was subsequently branded a “disenfranchised consultant” by the client. Perhaps the powers that be now have a little more appreciation for the firm’s work.

The similarities between Wembley and another troubled high-profile scheme, the Scottish parliament building, do not just extend to the project costs. In the latter instance, advice from QS Davis Langdon was also regularly ignored by the client. One hopes that these two highly publicised examples can put an end to this familiar pattern, where uncomfortable truths offered are not acted on. Maybe then the continuing public perception of the industry, as one that rarely delivers what it promises, will change.

Source

QS News

Postscript

Editor’s note: Some eagle-eyed readers were quick to spot the, ahem, deliberate mistake made in last week’s quiz testing your basic knowledge of quantity surveying (page 14). Yup, the answer to question 8 was wrong. For full righteous indignation from readers (deserved, I hasten to add) see next week’s letters.