Value engineering

The problem

When a project comes in over budget, the standard response is a list of substitutions. Cheaper cladding, cheaper fixtures, a specification downgrade. Some of that is real saving. Much of it is cost moved somewhere less visible — into maintenance, into programme, into a variation six months later when the substitute does not do what the original did.

The honest version separates the two and says which is which. That is less comfortable than a list of numbers, and it is the only version worth paying for.

How this works

The largest savings are almost never in the specification. They are in buildability, sequencing, temporary works, and in scope that was drawn without anyone asking how it would be built. Reviewing those requires reading drawings and understanding construction methodology, not scanning a bill of quantities for expensive line items.

Each option is presented with what it costs, what it saves, and what it gives up. Where an option is a deferral rather than a saving, it is labelled as one.

Timing

This work is worth the most before design is documented and worth progressively less after. Once construction has started, the options narrow to substitution, which is the least valuable version. If the project is already on site, that constraint gets stated up front rather than discovered halfway through.

What you get

• Buildability and constructability review
• Sequencing and temporary works options
• Specification and materials review with lifecycle implications stated
• Options register — cost, saving, and what each option gives up
• Independent review of a value engineering exercise someone else has run

Call when

• Your project is over budget and the only proposal on the table is a substitution list.
• You want a second opinion on savings a contractor has proposed.
• You are still in design and want the cost question asked while it is still cheap to answer.