Early Involvement and the Cost of Lost Momentum

On a recent office relocation project, the client approached us in December with the ambition of moving into their new space by March.

‍

Even with a complete design, that timeline would have been tight. If it had gone down the traditional route, the finish date would likely have shifted before we ever set foot on site.

‍

We’ve seen similar situations before on commercial projects where the initial programme simply didn’t reflect the reality of the work involved. In those cases, being involved early meant we could condense what would normally have been a full design-and-tender cycle into a shorter, workable window.

‍

When we’re involved from the outset, we’re sitting in the design workshops while the layouts are still being worked through. We can price what’s actually being proposed at that point, not months later. If something has a long lead time, we flag it straight away. If the programme isn’t realistic, we say it early and adjust it before site.

‍

“We managed expectations around the programme at the outset, and then delivered against the revised timeline once we were on site.” — Alan McCormack

‍

That approach doesn’t replace traditional procurement in every case. It depends on the project. If the timeline is tight, it lets you deal with the pressure early instead of trying to recover it later.

‍

Long lead items are a practical example. Walking onto site with a fifteen-week programme and mechanical plant sitting on a ten or twelve-week lead time immediately puts pressure on sequencing. If engagement happens weeks earlier, those orders can be placed before site mobilisation. It’s a small shift in timing, but it makes a material difference to delivery.

‍

Live buildings add another layer.

Noise restrictions, mixed occupancy patterns across different time zones, shared service yards, lift limitations, fire strategy constraints - these rarely show up clearly in drawings. They become real when walking the site.

Even when works are scheduled within agreed windows, operational realities can differ from assumptions. A tenant operating extended hours, restricted lift access during peak times, or limited delivery slots can quickly slow progress if those constraints haven’t been identified early.

‍

Where we tend to see money being lost is in the grey areas - things that fall through the cracks.

When M&E pricing is agreed before we’re involved, there can be practical items that aren’t clearly included anywhere. 

• The supports that plant needs to sit on. 
• Openings that have to be formed. 
• Fire stopping around new services. 
• Adjustments to suit what’s actually on site.

“They have items excluded from their contract which are also excluded from ours.” — Alan McCormack

‍

Those gaps only become visible once construction is underway. If the main contractor is part of scope and allowance discussions earlier, many of these issues are addressed before contracts are signed.

‍

Physical validation is another consistent theme.

There have been projects where drawings were detailed and coordinated, yet once on site it became clear that services were routed through areas where installation was physically impossible. A site walk with drawings in hand would have exposed that immediately.

‍

“The first thing we would do is go to site. That’s the logical starting point.” — Adrian Smith

‍

Redesign during construction slows momentum.

On the phased refurbishment of a 42,000 sq ft project operating with more than 7,000 building occupants, the facility remained live throughout the works. The UK-based design team had developed the scheme to UK regulations. Once construction began, it became clear that key elements did not align with Irish building regulations. Wall build-ups, fire compliance and technical guidance requirements required revision.

‍

Construction was in motion, but the design wasn’t buildable, so we were forced to slow down while it was corrected.

‍

“We were designing as we went because the design wouldn’t work when we got to site.” — Adrian Smith

‍

The variation account ultimately reached approximately €1.3 million over the original contract sum. That level of impact is unusual, but it shows how momentum can be lost when buildability and compliance are not fully interrogated early.

‍

Clients tend to feel risk most clearly in programme commitments.

If a tenant is due to move 200 staff into a space on a fixed date, delay extends beyond construction. Programme certainty becomes a commercial issue very quickly.

‍

“Programme is probably the biggest risk item for clients.” — Adrian Smith

‍

Early contractor involvement doesn’t eliminate uncertainty. It changes when it is surfaced. Conversations that might otherwise happen under pressure on site take place earlier, when scope, sequencing and allowances can still be adjusted.

‍

Once the job has started, you don’t have the same room to manoeuvre. Tenants are in place. Deadlines are fixed. That’s not the moment to discover something doesn’t fit. The earlier the tough conversations happen, the cheaper they are to resolve.

About the authors

Alan McCormack is a Senior Quantity Surveyor at Built Interiors with nearly 20 years’ experience in the construction industry. He leads the financial management of projects from tender through to final account, overseeing budgets, negotiating contracts and variations, and managing subcontractor accounts to maintain commercial clarity throughout delivery.

‍

Adrian Smith is Commercial Manager at Built Interiors with over 20 years’ experience across both operational and commercial roles. He works from early engagement through to completion, focusing on cost control, contract negotiation and compliance under BCAR and TGD. Adrian is closely involved in sequencing and coordination on live projects, ensuring programme, quality and regulatory requirements are aligned from the outset.