Is the new system of quality assurance for construction (Wkb) a success, or is it still a work in progress? In an interview with chairman Yvonne van Mastrigt of the Building Quality Assurance Authorization Organization (TloKB), we take stock, two years after implementation.
Since the introduction of the Wkb in 2024, construction supervision has changed dramatically. Municipalities no longer inspect all construction projects themselves; that task largely lies with private quality assurance companies. But what exactly is the role of the TloKB within that system? According to Van Mastrigt, the organization acts as the public "lock on the door.
"We authorize the quality systems that quality assurance companies work with and supervise the functioning of the entire system," says Van Mastrigt. "You can't just get started as a quality assurance company. You have to do so with a recognized instrument (quality assurance system, ed.). The TloKB allows those instruments and monitors compliance." Currently, there are six such instruments authorized.
Graduated supervision
The TloKB emphatically does not operate as a direct enforcer on the construction site. That is still up to the Municipality, which is the competent authority. Supervision is organised in steps. The quality assurance officer is responsible for the assessment of a project, the instrument provider for the operation of the system and for its quality assurance officers, and only then does the TloKB come into the picture.
"The misconception is that we are the policeman of quality assurance," says Van Mastrigt. "That's not true. We look to see if the whole thing is working well. If we see chinks in the cable, we intervene. We are the policeman of the instrument provider and he in turn is the policeman of the quality assurance provider."
The 'teeth' of the TloKB
This restrained role fits in with the structure of the Wkb, in which the responsibility lies emphatically with the market. At the same time, it raises questions: does the system have enough 'teeth'? What can the TloKB actually do when a quality assurance agency fails to meet the standards?
According to Van Mastrigt, there are resources that can be seized. "As TloKB, we can withdraw an instrument if the instrument provider does not intervene with a quality assurance provider. This is done carefully. We have intervened once so far. The instrument provider was imposed an order under penalty for being too slow to enforce at a quality assurance agency."
Skepticism and criticism of the Wkb are regularly heard from the field, especially from municipalities and builders. They wonder whether the new system actually leads to better construction quality. The central question remains: does the system work? Van Mastrigt is clear about this: "We see in the figures that quality is demonstrably improving through the deployment of quality assurance officers. At least a third of the quality improvement is directly attributable to them."
She also notices change in practice. "Builders indicate that they are more often pointed out mistakes that can be avoided on subsequent projects. The process is becoming more careful and less ad hoc." Still, she nuances her own optimism. "People looking for 100 percent proof should be patient for a while. We have only been fully engaged for a year. But the first effects are definitely there."
Concerns among municipalities
Not everyone shares that confidence. Municipalities in particular are struggling with their new role. They have to let go of some of the supervision and rely on private parties. "That's complicated for some municipalities," acknowledges Van Mastrigt, who in addition to her role as president is also mayor of the municipality of Middelburg. "They feel responsible for building quality in their municipality."
The transition phase of the past year makes it extra complex. Municipalities are now working with two systems simultaneously: the old supervision, for more complex projects, and the Wkb for simple construction. "That causes unfamiliarity and lack of clarity, for example about information exchange and responsibilities."
System with learning element
Another point of discussion is that about one in ten completed projects has not received a quality assurance certificate. Is that a problem? "That is both a concern and a sign that the system is working," says Van Mastrigt. "Sometimes it's because projects are still ongoing, sometimes because of practical issues such as shell homes that don't meet all the requirements at the moment."
According to her, it mainly shows that quality assurance organizations do not automatically give approval. "There is also a learning element in the system. We still have to figure out how to deal with these kinds of situations."
Year of truth
2026 is seen by many as the year when the Wkb should really prove itself. The number of projects is growing and the first complete data sets are becoming available. For Van Mastrigt, the focus is on better cooperation and information exchange. "We want to work more data-driven, so we see where risks are earlier. We need to close that information circle."
Expansion of the system to more complex construction, such as apartments, is uncertain for now. "That requires political decision-making. The first results are positive, but it is still early for that step." The Wkb is thus not yet a finished story, according to her. "We are well on the way, but there is still plenty of room for improvement."
Also read
