The Wkb improves construction quality, particularly in smaller municipalities and among smaller contractors. Among larger contractors with internal quality systems and in larger municipalities, the effect is less pronounced, as they already conducted intensive inspections under the old system. The costs are also manageable. These are the main conclusions of the EIB, which evaluated the Quality Assurance Act.
The EIB used three criteria to assess how the Wkb compares to the old system, in which quality assessment was the responsibility of the municipalities. First is the number of construction site visits. Next, the number of identified non-conformities; and finally, the training and experience requirements for quality assurance officers. The EIB reports that the general sentiment among quality assurance officers, contractors, and insurers was already positive. Among them, there is “a widely held view that the majority of construction projects have been assessed more systematically and intensively since the introduction of the Wkb.” However, the perceived difference in quality already varies considerably among large municipalities and larger contractors.
Inspections and non-compliance
The figures also reflect this. On average, construction projects have been inspected 2.4 times on-site since the Wkb took effect, which is more than before. However, this increase is primarily attributable to smaller municipalities, where inspections were previously less frequent. In larger municipalities, which have sufficient administrative capacity, there was much less of a difference.
In addition, many deviations were identified in the design phase (85 percent), and deviations were also observed during construction in 75 percent of the projects. However, here too, very few of these deviations relate to construction projects by contractors who already had a sound internal quality assurance system in place prior to the Wkb.
However, the EIB’s conclusion regarding the training requirements for guarantors is unequivocal: they have simply become more stringent.
The costs
Before the law was enacted, there were concerns that it would lead to higher costs. However, the study actually shows that costs have decreased in the majority of homes. This applies, however, to somewhat larger projects, where there are more than five homes per reference home. For smaller projects, costs can be higher—and even significantly higher. For a single home, costs can reach 10,000 euros, while the average is half that amount. For this latter category, it would be advisable to limit oversight to essential risks with high potential for consequential damage.
Proactive Oversight
The TloKB’s supervisory role was also examined. The idea is that oversight of the guarantors of instrument providers and the TloKB serves as a strong incentive for the guarantors to maintain high quality. Therefore, sufficient sanctions must be imposed if quality declines. And so far, the TloKB has imposed a penalty payment on an instrument provider only once. Especially in the early stages, the TloKB was cautious about this, because everyone still had to become familiar with the system. But those kid gloves must now come off to maintain public support for the Wkb.
See also: Judge overturns guarantor’s suspension: 1,200 projects can proceed
