Rudd’s education devolution V
You couldn’t make this stuff up. Via my mole on the ground.
Eight months ago, his building company tried to explain to Rudd’s architects that a door in two types of buildings being built, according the plans specified, would have a steel cross-beam running through it, thus making it, er, not a door. Rudd’s architects told my mole’s company to just build it as they had specified (which if you can’t be bothered clicking and/or reading the link, was a few barely-detailed notes scribbled on some paper, half a page at best, when normally, specifications would run at least 10 pages long and be detailed down to the letter).
So now they’re having to compromise and “turn” these “doors” into windows.
A building without doors. Eek!
Nah. There’s another bigger door in each building.
So no biggie, right?
Wrong. Fire saftey regulations require a building to have at least two doors. So now the contractors will have to rip out a piece of wall, put in support beams, and chuck in another door. And all this could have been avoided if Rudd’s architects had simply listened eight months ago and changed the plans back then.
Remember, a builder has to build exactly what’s on the plan. There’s no guess work involved. In the private sector, if a builder doesn’t build exactly what was specified, the corporate client “would a**e f**k us with the plans, then cancel the contract, and bankrupt us for fun.”
Whack another $20,000 or so of taxpayer dollars onto the cost of each of Rudd’s buildings.
And yes, that’s a lot, but any building company charges a premium for any extras. That’s just how the industry works and has worked for years, and why clients get their specifications down to the letter before building starts. It’s called professionalism. And both parties are expected to adhere to it. We are, after all, in a first world nation.