Construction Quality Reviews
Construction Quality Reviews
-
NHBC Construction quality reviews (CQRs) provide a snapshot of construction quality on up to 38 build stages across a site. They highlight whether all work seen within a build stage meets requirements, or whether one or more areas requires improvement. A CQR seeks to identify underlying causes, which often go beyond workmanship e.g., design, materials, procurement, contractual etc. Each build stage within a CQR is scored from 1 (very poor) to 6 (Outstanding), with 4 (good) indicating that observed work meet requirements, e.g., NHBC Standards, Building Regulations. The photos/scores and intelligence collated from CQRs are analysed for trends and shared across the industry to further drive quality and prevent re-occurrence.
-
- Third party, independent, non-bias view of build quality, providing an unrivalled industry/business level quality metric
- Additional layers of quality control e.g., instant warnings of key issues/root causes before a defect manifests
- Ensures issues have been rectified and learning has occurred (via NHBC Inspection observations, and close out reports)
- Provides a communication platform for the site teams to express root causations associated around buildability of designs, suitability of materials etc
- Provides educational opportunities for site staff from a build quality specialist
- Provides clear focus and direction with regards to build quality at a product, build element, site, business, and industry level
- Improves and tracks build and finish quality
-
Blanket/companywide 2nd CQRs at a business level provides additional quality assurance/control and a platform to cover all sites every 6 months. The process enables businesses to track quality on a rolling 6-month basis, providing alignment with half/full year ends/potential city updates. It also provides further support from our build quality specialists.
All visits will be included within our reporting and provide additional quality related intelligence. It will enable you to benchmark site performance against Group performance, completion/industry trends on a rolling 6-month basis.
A focus CQR visit on selected site(s) or specific build stage(s) (Build Quality Inspection) can offer additional support to a site team. Help provide direction on strengths and weaknesses above and beyond the standard/enhanced companywide visits without affecting overall results. It can also be used as a post CQR quality audit and additional reassurance to senior management. Any scores on a focus CQR/BQI are excluded from normal industry/group level reports.
-
No, the CQR reports are recorded at a site level only, plot numbers are stipulated in the free text field on a photo but not recorded in our database, only hyperlinks at a site level. Therefore, any NHBC homeowner system database search requests for a specific plot should not return a CQR report.
-
To protect individuals/companies from any reference to poor workmanship associated around a subcontractor and or product performance, NHBC doesn’t allow sharing of a full CQR report. This is reinforced by the note included on the front cover of all CQR reports We do support use of positive CQR statistics and publishing at a build stage/extract level in social media (assuming all parties included in the extract have agreed to the publication). Such extracts tend to create a positive vibe around the product, a thirst/hunger to improve quality and perpetuates the good. If in doubt, please email ConstructionQuality@nhbc.co.uk for further guidance/approval.
-
We have a CQR consistency strategy comprising various levers -
- Bespoke Construction quality team undertaking CQRs, all members will have the required key competencies and have completed the in-depth 6-month induction program on joining the team. Their annual training includes CPD/training schedule, and a valid annual licence to practice.
- Communication platforms - Bimonthly NHBC Construction Quality Consistency Group/Bi- weekly Construction quality team consistency huddle/live MS Teams consistency coms platform
- Biannual ‘Consistency day’ concentrating on Build Stage structure, Simple build stages (max score of 4), scoring, root causations, and site visit
- Field base Bi-annually Site monitoring days, ‘Pairing’ of extreme reviewers on same sites,
- Peer review of (min 5%) of CQR reports
- Continuous analysis of Intelligent CQR score/build stage allocation reporting by region/builder/reviewer
- Customer escalation/report moderation and reviewer feedback process
-
Yes, please refer to the ‘Escalation process’ protocol for further details.
1. Any enquiries should be discussed and resolved on the day prior to the reviewer leaving the site.
2. If an enquiry is identified post the visit, it should be raised by email within 15 working days of the CQR publication date. Emails should be sent to CQR@nhbc.co.uk. An acknowledgement email will be sent within 3 working days with further details.
3. Enquiries covering several sites, and or a reviewer/Construction Quality Manager should be raised to the Senior Construction Quality Manager (SCQM) – Marc Separovic by email CQR@nhbc.co.uk, as before an acknowledgement email will be sent within 3 working days with further details.
-
No not always, although CQR and PiJ use the same scoring mechanism and logic there are subtle differences that may result in sites with a good CQR score not gaining a PiJ Site Manager nomination/award or vice-versa
- PiJ is a Site manager award based on a review gained over several visits from a BI level to a supreme tour, with an overall view of quality (highs and lows). The award can transfer sites with the Site Manager. CQRs provide a third party non-biased view of quality covering the full build journey, scored as seen on the day of the visit for the given site. CQR is a ‘moment in time’ review whereas PIJ is judged over a much longer period of time.
- PiJ competition starts at a regional level, Quality award numbers are fixed nationally each year (c.450) and distributed across the regions. CQRs are nationally based, with consistency being driven through a central team, irrespective of region.
- The scoring background is slightly different – PiJ Site Manager award takes into consideration - the speed of build, complexity of build, level of support for the site manager, site organisation, H&S, general site set up and control. It’s scored against 39 build stages and 9 build sections over a period of time/visits. CQRs will refer to this within the root causations, but not within the score. The score is purely on build quality and the severity of the issue covering up to 38 build stages and 8 build sections on the given day of the visit.
-
No not always, although CQR and Quality Common Scoring use the same scoring mechanism and logic, the Common Scoring System is against 4-7 Key Stage Inspections (depending on build), the CQR scoring system is against up to 38 build stages. Therefore Common Scoring will typically apply to a group of build stages as part of an inspection, for example pre-plaster Key Stage Inspection covers up to 21 CQR build stages.
-
Yes, there should be minimum 24-hour verbal notice period, in line with our Key Stage Inspection notice period, with a maximum 10 working days’ notice.
-
Yes, extreme scores will be confirmed to the Site Manager prior to submission.
-
Depends on the amount of build in progress, normally around 3 hours, but not more than 4 hours.
-
Reviewers are targeted with publishing a report within 5 working days from the site visit – extended to 10 working days if waiting for further technical info, root causations or moderation.
-
Were possible finalled plots should be avoided, but for second fix, surface finishes and external works, if there is no other option available a final plot may be used. If an error is identified, the reviewer will speak with the Inspection Manager and Building Inspector and make them aware to work with the site to rectify.
-
The inspection team is notified automatically -
- All calendar invites are sent to the Building Inspector and Inspection Manager, both are given the opportunity to attend any work.
- Building Inspectors and Inspection Managers receive copies of the findings.
The construction quality team is notified -
- Through the site record book.
- Attending Building Inspection Team meetings twice per a calendar year.
- Local level communications, the Reviewer and Inspector share local knowledge on a regular basis
-
An item of work is deemed work in progress (WIP) if it has yet to be completed which follows established good practice and normal build sequence. E.g. if the same gang is still working on the subject piece of work, and the build has not proceeded past the subject area or onto the next stage of construction.
WIP should be included in the build stage summary as an observation but excluded from the scoring.
If a Site Manager provides upfront information on issues prior to undertaking the review, suggesting it is work in progress (WIP).
- If it is product defect related – Providing that the work has been clearly marked/damaged at a site level so that it’s impossible to use for the end product. That there is clear evidence (third party) that remedial works are in Page 3 of 4 CQR Site process related FAQs progress the reviewer can deem the issue as WIP for CQR purposes.
- If it is installation, site storage/workmanship related - there is a re-work cost involved (hidden factory cost). This will be scored down within a CQR in accordance with the normal scoring logic.
- If it is design related – Quality assurance processes should be in place to prevent issues/rework occurring. The drawing(s)/detail(s) should have been correct from the outset, the drawing(s)/detail(s) should have been checked prior to commencing the work. There is a re-work cost involved (hidden factory costs). This will be scored down within a CQR in accordance with the normal scoring logic.
-
Yes, it is promoted that the site team shadow the reviewer for educational purposes, however they should not be lead/direct at any point