Under-strength beam reinforcement discovered before a slab pour
Your practice is AP and RSE for a 10-storey residential building of 32 flats in Sha Tin, founded on bored piles with a transfer plate at 1/F. The contract is HK$186M over 20 months, and the client has pre-sold 40% of units under the Lands Department Consent Scheme, with sale completions tied to occupation. At the RSC's Level 6 inspection the site engineer records that 26 of 64 beam stirrups in grid C/3 to C/5 are at 250 mm centres instead of 150 mm, and that the TCP (T1) signed off the reinforcement two days earlier. The contractor has already fixed one side of formwork, plans to pour the 7/F slab in 48 hours, and the project manager says the bars can be justified by calculation afterwards. He also offers a HK$50,000 ex gratia payment to your firm to cover the cost of additional checking. The contractor's programme shows two weeks of float. You are due on site tomorrow.
1. Set out your immediate actions and statutory obligations as AP/RSC.
Read the worked answer
Stop the work and secure the record.
- Issue a written instruction immediately to suspend the affected beam and the slab pour, and to keep the formwork open for inspection. Do not rely on a phone call or a site meeting note.
- Attend site with the RSE and the TCPs. Photograph and measure actual stirrup spacing, record gridlines, bar diameters, cover and lap lengths, and identify the TCP who signed off. Check whether the error is isolated or systemic; if the same detail repeats, the risk is far wider.
- Notify the client in writing the same day, with the facts and the possible programme effect. Do not accept the 'justify it by calculation' line before an RSE has assessed it.
- Report to the Building Authority as required by the supervision plan and the Code of Practice for Site Supervision 2009. A known departure from approved plans is not something the AP/RSC can keep in-house; the BA will expect a report and a remedial proposal.
- Do not certify and do not allow covering up. The beam cannot be covered until the RSE accepts a remedial scheme.
Options for the beam. (a) Expose and re-fix the stirrups to the approved detail, breaking out concrete if already placed; (b) if not yet poured, re-fix before the pour; (c) only if re-fixing is impractical, an RSE-designed strengthening or a revised design submitted to the BA. A calculation afterwards is a change to the approved design and needs approval, not a site diary note.
Also review why the TCP signed off - the supervision plan, inspection frequency and whether the T1 was competent for that check. Consider notifying your professional indemnity insurer and record the notification.
Conclusion: suspend, inspect, notify the BA and client, do not pour, and sign nothing until the RSE and the BA accept a remedial scheme.
2. How do you deal with the contractor's HK$50,000 ex gratia offer?
Read the worked answer
Refuse it in writing and treat it as a red flag.
Why it is wrong. The offer comes from the party whose work is non-compliant and is linked to your firm's checking of that work. It creates an obvious conflict: your independent judgement on the beam is exactly what the contractor is seeking to influence. A payment of this kind to a professional firm in connection with its statutory duties may amount to an advantage under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap 201); at the very least it is conduct the Architects Registration Board would criticise.
What to do. (1) Reply in writing that the firm does not accept payments from contractors and that checking is covered by the appointment fee. (2) Tell the client immediately, with the facts. (3) Record the offer in the site file and the practice's risk register. (4) Brief staff that inspection outcomes are not to be discussed with the contractor outside minuted meetings. (5) Establish whether the offer was made to an individual or to the firm; if an individual, follow the anti-bribery policy and consider reporting.
Also consider whether the contractor's conduct affects its suitability to continue, and whether the client should issue a formal warning under the contract.
Do not treat the offer as a harmless gesture to be quietly declined at the next site meeting. Silence can later be mischaracterised, and the record protects both the firm and the client.
3. The client wants the slab poured on programme and the contractor says the two-week float absorbs the problem. How do you handle programme and certification?
Read the worked answer
The float belongs to the contractor's programme, not to you. The question is whether the beam can be made compliant without delaying completion.
Programme. Re-fixing 26 stirrups in a 5 m span, plus inspection, may take days rather than months; with two weeks of float and a 48-hour pour window there may be no critical delay if the contractor re-sequences. Ask for a revised short-interval programme and the RSE's inspection dates. If the works are on the critical path, the contractor may claim an extension of time only if the delay is caused by a relevant event under the contract. Your instruction to suspend in order to comply with the Ordinance is not a variation and is generally the contractor's own risk - but check the wording and do not assume.
Certification. Your duty is to certify what is true, and the works are not in accordance with the approved plans until remedied. Do not sign the completion certificate for the affected floors. BD will not accept a completion certificate that conceals a known departure, and doing so exposes you to prosecution and ARB discipline.
Communication. Put the position to the client: the prudent course is to accept a short delay, certify correctly and preserve the pre-sale completions as far as possible. The alternative - a concealed defect - risks a much longer delay, enforcement action and a defective building. Record the client's decision and your advice.
Do not let the pre-sale timetable become the reason for a false certificate; that is precisely the pressure the examination is testing.