Insurance

Section 2.1 on international comparison describes the systems applied in countries surrounding the Netherlands. The French system strongly relies on the compulsory insurance, is expensive, and insufficiently leads to better quality. In the other countries considered, the emphasis is on the quality of the involved parties, such as the inspectors, the architect, and the builders. The responsibilities are clearly described, which means the consumer knows who to go to when there are complaints.

Naturally, these parties will insure themselves against any mistakes they may make.

Guarantees

In the Netherlands, Woningborg N.V. and Stichting Waarborgfonds Koopwoningen were founded to protect the buyer against bankruptcy of the builder (completion guarantee), and a set of warranty rules has also been developed. In case of conflicts, these organizations can act as mediators. There are different views about the quality of these guarantees. They appear more like exclusions than guarantees. Certain developers and builders therefore provide more extensive guarantees, such as Timpaan, which resolves any faults up to 5 years after completion (Timpaan, 2014).

After introduction of the Wkb the foundation connected to the guarantee institutions, namely

‘Woningborg’, ‘SWK’ and ‘Bouwgarant’, will adjust their procedures. They continue the guarantee that in the situation of bankruptcy of the construction company the construction will be finished and the guarantees are met. Buyers can also submit complaint at the guarantee institutions in case defects are not corrected by the construction company. The new system will be expected to provide better‐performing construction companies. The current methods of Woningborg and SWK

differences (Bouwgarant is especially designed for renovations, while they are broadening their

scope). SWK mainly uses affiliated construction companies for the quality assurance (which are the larger companies in the Netherlands), Woningborg works more with medium and small builders, as they usually do not have a quality management system, Woningborg performs a building plan assessment before a project is insured and then inspects the execution (Aedes, 2015).

Tender

Because the construction company becomes responsible and accountable for the design and

execution that by tenders there will always be a price will be specified based on the documents. The construction company does not have the time to check the documents. This means that afterwards, extra charges (meerwerk) may apply if the documents are incorrect. That will have unpleasant consequences for a client. Possible solutions are to give more time so that the builder can (or let) perform checks or conclude a design and build contract (with conditions UAV GC 2005 instead of the UAV 2012).

2.2.4 Roles in the system

As indicated, the building and housing inspection of the municipality (the BG) will no longer assess the technical quality, but focus on assessing whether the building plan fits the zoning plan (spatial planning), whether the plan meets the aesthetics requirements, and whether the project does not endanger the environment (environmental safety). In addition, the BG will assess whether the instrument proposed by the applicant is included in the register, and the same applies to the KB.

Once construction is ready, the BG will check whether the as‐built statement and the file will be submitted.

The municipality checks whether the file (dossier) they receive is complete, there is no substantive check. It is also not intended that there ‘in use’ permit is issued. However, enforcement by the BG should take place when the building is going to be used without an issued as‐built statement and file.

The Admission Organization (TO) assesses the provided instruments, permits them, and registers the permitted instruments. This register will be public and will serve as a verification option for the BG.

The TO will monitor the operation of the instruments on a periodic and risk basis. This monitoring includes two main activities:

1. office audits of the instrument providers 2. reality checks on the construction site

The instrument provider (Instrument Aanbieder-IA) will need to monitor the operation of the instrument and the way the KB is functioning. This KB first needs to be authorized by the IA before it can use the instrument. The TO assesses this by means of the office audit and checks whether the files at the IA are in order. By means of the reality check on the construction site, the TO checks whether the instrument is being used correctly, and whether there is compliance with the Building Decree. If the IA should be in default or if the reality checks show that an instrument is not working as intended, the TO will impose sanctions. Enforcement shall occur via a so‐called escalation ladder (warning, public warning, suspension, and withdrawal). The consequences of suspension and withdrawal are very intrusive and have financial consequences for both the IA and the KB.

The instrument provider develops an instrument for quality assurance and provides it to the TO. If the TO allows the instrument, the IA will authorize the KBs to use the instruments. The authorized KBs will be registered in a public register by the IA, which should also be consulted by the BG.

The IA should also record its monitoring of the operation of the instrument in order to be offered with an office audit by the TO. The IA checks whether the building file that serves as the basis for the as‐built statement for the KB is complete and transparent. Of course, this verification may result in a lot of ‘paperwork’, but if organized in an efficient and effective way, this additional load should be minimal. Therefore, this research project is aimed at determining what an effective, efficient, and reliable verification could look like.

The quality inspector will register with an instrument provider or will be asked by the IA to be registered to be allowed to apply the instrument. The KB will need to have sufficient knowledge and capacity to apply an instrument. The internal quality assurance of the KB will always need to be in order, as the IA will carry out periodic audits to determine whether the KB is performing its work properly and to see whether the instrument is working in practice. The amount of work the KB needs to carry out depends on the instrument and on what the builder can and wants to do themselves. To keep the costs proportional, it is expected that especially in consequence class 1, the demonstrability will mostly remain with the builder (Sira Consulting, 2015).

Given the fact that they are responsible and accountable, the builder has the primary responsibility to demonstrate that the agreed quality is delivered. Most builders have a quality management system; however, this study has shown that due to lack of time, many of the agreed checks never occur. The need to demonstrate that the 2012 Building Decree is complied with in a disciplined and knowledgeable way only becomes greater with this new system, and this has consequences for the construction process management of the builder. This is described in Chapter 4.

Consequence classes

In consultation with the House of Representatives, it has been decided to introduce the new system in phases. For this purpose, a threefold division has been established based on the risks run by the users of a building. The three classes are referred to as consequence classes. Consequence class 1 refers to the simple utilitarian structures, such as industrial halls with a small office, agricultural buildings, simple construction (such as bike bridges), small offices, as well as ground‐floor single‐

family homes and large‐scale renovation projects (figure 10). Consequence class 3 includes the projects with high social risks if things go wrong, such as stadiums, railway stations, tunnels, hospitals, and similar buildings. Consequence class 2 is somewhere in between; think of residential buildings, schools, offices, stores, and similar structures. Interestingly, politicians have chosen to start with consequence class 1, even though most experience with regard to quality assurance exists in consequence classes 2 and 3 (Instituut voor Bouwkwaliteit, 2015).

Figure 10: Consequence class 1; (Stichting Instituut voor Bouwkwaliteit, 2015) (own processing)

Role of the government

A system in which government and builder are both responsible for part of the supervision is already in place. This will remain, but the roles will change. In terms of technical assessment, the BG will limit itself to determining whether the right instrument is being applied by a suitable KB, and will ensure that the as‐built statement is submitted together with the file the municipality needs. In the yet to be established AMvB, it will be determined what needs to be included in this file. Therefore, this file is a limited part of the total building file that will mainly be compiled by the builder and will need to be transparent to the KB, the IA, and if needed, the TO.

As previously mentioned, the central government will establish a Building Quality ZBO; the role of this TO is defined above and recorded in the Wkb.

The government has commissioned all sorts of studies, such as a Social Costs and Benefits Analysis (SCBA). For this law, the study was performed by the Economisch Instituut voor de Bouw (EIB), led by Mr. Drs. Taco van der Hoek. Among other things, this SCBA revealed that careful benchmarking has a major positive financial impact. Therefore, the Ministry (BZK) supports the establishment of a transparent and effective benchmarking system (for a comparable system, see

www.bouwprestaties.nl) (EIB, 2016).

It has also been studied what information a buyer or tenant needs when a property is delivered (or moved into). Several consumer organizations contributed to this study (MARE Research, 2015).