Hello, I'm Kamino, a civil engineer and government employee who writes a blog.
That’s quite a provocative title, isn’t it? 😅 Just to be clear, contractually speaking, the client and the contractor are, of course, equals. However, when it comes to actually getting the work done, I don’t think they’re on equal footing—or rather, I don’t think they should be. In this post, I’d like to talk about the right mindset for this situation.
I'll write this with civil engineering in mind.
The client is in a supervisory role.
First, the client is in a position to supervise the contractor. What does “supervise” mean? The goo dictionary defines it as follows:
・The act of enforcing rules or giving orders; also, a person or organization that does so.
・To monitor, in accordance with the law, whether the actions of individuals or organizations violate their obligations or are appropriate for achieving their objectives, and to issue instructions or orders as necessary.
From the goo Dictionary
It’s just as it says here. As part of the client’s supervisory duties, the client must monitor the contractor. Furthermore, if the contractor is acting improperly, the client has a duty to issue instructions or orders, and has been granted the authority to do so.
"Monitoring" might sound like a big word, but it simply means checking the construction progress and the quality of the work on-site, as well as reviewing the documentation. If there are any errors, we first request corrections verbally or via email; if the issue isn’t resolved, we issue instructions through a construction agreement.
The reason such authority is granted is that you are paying someone to build what you want. For example, when you sign a contract for the construction of a new private home, if the finished product differs from the blueprints, specifications, or on-site explanations, I believe the client can issue correction instructions by saying, “This isn’t right.”
Furthermore, particularly in the case of public works projects carried out by government agencies—which are funded by taxpayers’ money—the contracting authority bears a heavy responsibility and is granted broad authority.
Contractors don't really have that kind of authority, do they?
If we're going to be on as equal a footing as possible,
Under the contract, the client and the contractor are on equal footing. That’s the nature of a contract, but that simply means that both parties can exercise their respective rights and fulfill their obligations—in reality, however, the scope of those rights and obligations differs, doesn’t it?
There’s a growing perception in society that “equality and parity = what’s right,” and that’s precisely why I think this mindset harbors a certain danger.
What would happen if, when carrying out civil engineering projects, the client and the contractor viewed each other as equals?
This makes it impossible for the person in charge to provide proper guidance. In business, relationships are rarely completely equal. Detailed interactions take place solely between the people involved, and the balance of power can easily shift depending on their age, gender, job title, industry experience, professional network, communication skills, and the situation at hand.
The reason I’m taking the time to write this article is that I feel the balance of power is becoming less favorable. I think there are fewer overbearing supervisors and inspectors these days—which is a good thing—but, conversely, I get the sense that supervisors’ authority is waning.
Just as the aging workforce in the construction industry is currently a concern, the site representatives and chief engineers on the contractor side are almost all in their 40s or older, and many are in their 50s or 60s. In contrast, I believe that the representatives on the client side are almost exclusively in their 20s or 30s, ranging from new hires to mid-level staff. Might they not feel intimidated when pressured aggressively by veteran contractors or company presidents in their 50s? Might they find themselves unable to voice requests for corrections?
That must not happen. That is why I believe it is dangerous to blindly assume that “the client and the contractor are on equal footing.” The client must be prepared to take strict action against wrongdoing and, if necessary, issue instructions or orders.
Because our goals are different…
By the way, the reason the client is granted authority in the first place is that the two parties have different objectives. The client’s objective is to have the infrastructure built correctly and handed over. For the contractor, however, profit is just as important as the quality of the infrastructure. Since they need to make a profit to make a living, profit may be the top priority for some contractors. It’s only natural that they wouldn’t take on a job if it meant operating at a loss. Because of this difference in objectives, the system is designed so that the client must supervise the contractor.
I believe that the conscientious contractors who visit my blog or Twitter account are truly committed to quality. However, there are also many contractors who aren’t like that. You might think the term “many” is an exaggeration, but the fact is, there are a lot of them. There are cases of shoddy workmanship, and it’s not uncommon to receive proposals that completely disregard quality.
To Supervise Properly
Although the client must sometimes take a firm stance with the contractor, any statements made in such situations carry weight. If the client issues incorrect instructions, it could cause harm to the contractor. I, too, have seen staff members on several occasions give instructions that were not included in the specifications or were simply incorrect.
The client and the contractor are not on equal footing. However, this difference in status is necessary for proper oversight, and to sit back and do nothing while relying on that power would constitute dereliction of duty.
Daily study is essential for providing guidance and instructions based on accurate knowledge. Understanding the contents of specifications, familiarizing yourself with relevant laws and regulations, and acquiring civil engineering skills—let’s maintain that mindset. I hope my blog will be of help to you in your professional development.
I also think it’s important to maintain a healthy balance of tension with the on-site representatives from the contractor’s side. We shouldn’t get too cozy—we should be on good terms, but when it comes to construction, we should keep things professional. The ideal relationship is one where we can point out issues to each other and make requests.
With that in mind, I’ll likely have a lot of questions for you as well, so I appreciate your cooperation.
