Social relevance (risks)

It is important to prevent the new law from becoming a bureaucracy. In interviews with planners and executors it has become clear that there is a concerns about that. The role of the KB must be clear for all parties, the KB is only responsible for the correct use of an instrument, the builder stays responsible and liable to the consumer. Especially in the beginning the expectation is that the BWT will look for errors made by the KB (and constructor) and seek publicity on these mistakes. The KB will have to mind that they are not going to fulfill an advisory (consulting) role, because then roles will become unclear again, the KB should just perform checks. Another point of concern is that commonly used general terms (UAV 2012) no longer fit. Towards to the consumer, only the builder responsible (including design defects), what this will mean for procurements is not clear not yet clear, perhaps it will result in more use of the UAV GC 2005.

6.8.1 Liability

The construction company can never hide itself from the consumer, the construction company will off course try to recover damages at the designers and subcontractors. In the contracts with these parties, agreements will have to be made on this subject. The KB is required to properly apply the instrument, when he fails to do this it, is likely when any damaged is observed, that a claim will follow. The correct use of a tool means that it is likely that there is compliance with the building regulations. An instrument will in practice have a broader scope than just the Building Decree, also securing contractual agreements and good‐ and sound work will be assessed by the KB. A KB cannot give advice, otherwise he will be assessing his own advice. This will be difficult in practice, because it is easy to for the KB to say ‘If you do it this way, then it is fine’. The KB has to stay away from giving such hints and tips and should refer back to the designers or the construction company. The culture in the construction sector is such that hide behind or pointing is commonplace, this law attempts (to break or culture) this attitude, the idea is that you are proud of your work. It is common culture to hide behind or point to the municipality. The new law must change this culture. Employees have to be proud of their work

6.8.2 Insurance institutes

The insurance institutes will continue to exist and are for the consumer of high value (source:

Mulder, 2015). In case of bankruptcy the construction of the houses will be finished and any

complaint will be resolved. Developing an instrument is costly and will only be developed by larger parties (IKOB / BKB, KIWA, TIS organization Woningborg, BouwGarant, SWK), a private party will not be able to develop an instrument, both in terms of required knowledge and budget. Of course, it is also possible to build without a guarantee, however, it will be become mandatory for the

construction company to provide information what the (financial) risks will be for the consumer.

There is a concern with some parties that the insurance institutes are going to achieve a kind of monopoly position, for example, the situation in which the Woningborg and SWK will insure 80% of the new building together and are both going to use their own instrument. This causes other

instruments to be excluded from the market. The question is whether this is a healthy development, or if it would be better if the guarantee institutions do not own instruments, but only require to use an approved instrument. The danger is then that the guarantee institutes are going to perform a second check, regarding a risk analyses on their risks. The quality will then become very expensive.

6.8.3 Finance

Woningborg (Klaver, 2016) has calculated that if the current fees will decrease by 20%, the new quality management will not lead to additional costs. The share of the Building Decree checks in the work of the BWT ranges from 30‐45%. The new system does not have to lead to higher costs provided that the fees are reduced. Both the construction companies and the Second Chamber expect that the fees will be reduced substantially, however, municipalities are autonomous. One solution that several parties proposed the is the abolishment of fees, as it is the question of whether the fees are still attributable to the project, what remains as a task for the BWT is in fact setting environmental security and prosperity. Instead of fees the cost of BWT should be paid from the general funds (municipal funds). These funds are then made available by the government. It is expected that the cost of the new system will be higher (the KB will check 100% of the Building Decree, because he has to declare that the Building Decree requirements are met, the BWT now primarily checks the constructive‐ and fire safety), on the other hand, the authorization process will go faster and that the costs of failure will reduce. In the Social cost‐benefit analysis,

((Maatschappelijke kosten en baten analyse‐ MKBA)(EIB, 2015)) it has been estimated that each year there will be significant savings. These savings will also increase substantially if a benchmark system is introduced. In the developed flanking policies, the market and government are working on a transparent, buyers focused, benchmark system (for examples of current benchmark system see:

bouwnu.nl en bouwprestaties.nl). Van Wijnen (De Jager, 2016) anticipates that the competitive position of the larger construction companies in relation to the smaller construction companies will improve, because the smaller construction companies are now required to enable a quality inspector will need to use a quality management system.