Wico Ankersmit: "Building and Housing Supervision can work just fine with KiK"
"Departments of Building and Housing Supervision could work perfectly well with a system like the KOMO instrument Quality Assurance (KiK). Just like construction companies that are willing to show that they deliver demonstrable quality. Because what it is primarily about when renewing the building system is the joint application, by both construction column and government, of confidence about the actual construction quality achieved."
Wico Ankersmit, director of the Building & Housing Supervision Association, expects that it may be some time before an amended Building Quality Assurance Bill appears on the table. "At least until then, municipal Building and Housing Supervision departments will have to run the gauntlet. In which the vBWTN's approach is that supervision is and will remain necessary, but that the emphasis must shift from granting permits to delivered quality. That's what it's all about. Although you can't put an inspector behind every carpenter, as a competent authority you do need to have a leg up. Testing after the fact is better than just testing beforehand."
Key quality lies with construction company
"This also brings us to a flaw in the original bill. It reduces the role of the government to the area of observation and assessment, but the 'enforcement' would remain with the municipality. A bit of privatization, but not quite. That is, irreverently put, the same as being a little pregnant. We are good in that kind of solution in the Netherlands. But the question is whether it also leads to good results. We say: the essential key to quality construction lies with the construction companies. If they are sufficiently convinced of the need for demonstrable quality, for example through more liability, then the delivery quality we all wish for will certainly come about."
Column must embrace actual quality assurance
Ankersmit: "Construction companies should embrace a system like KiK, which leads to actual quality assurance. That's good for construction consumers and therefore for the industry. I understand that the AFNL, for example, does so wholeheartedly. Of course, quality assurance and its supervision come at a price. But that price tag, which goes to the client, will certainly never be higher than the average failure costs of a project under the current system. From this perspective, we can achieve a lot with a new building system: actual guaranteed quality, supported by the construction column itself. And a supervisory structure in which the competent authority takes its responsibility - and thus not only focuses on the permit, but also on delivered quality and tests it against the Building Code and other building regulations."
