Repair or replace: deciding what to do with defective work before anyone proposes a fix
A wash-bay curb is 60 mm below the required position over 18 m. One person proposes a topping; another wants it removed. The project manager needs reviewed options, not a contest between the cheapest price and the strongest opinion.
Decide repair versus replacement through a written comparison of technically viable options. Have qualified reviewers establish whether each can meet the actual requirements before comparing price and programme. Identify effects on surrounding work and the actual warranty review. A low repair price does not make an unverified method acceptable, and a defect does not automatically mean replacement is the only compliant disposition.
Compare options on the same basis
- Define the departure and requirements. Record the location, observed condition, current requirement and relevant measurements through safe competent assessment. Identify what acceptance must establish, including performance, durability and interfaces. Avoid describing a proposed repair as compliant merely because it would restore the visible dimension.
- Obtain viable technical proposals. Ask the appropriate trade, designer and other responsible reviewers for the proposed method, conditions, verification and limits. Keep unreviewed suggestions clearly labelled. The site team should not invent a structural repair, predict bonding performance or select a removal sequence beyond its competence and authority.
- Compare full effects. Put repair and replacement beside the same headings: verified compliance, surrounding removal, access and safety planning, money, timing, later maintenance and warranty review. Record assumptions and uncertain items. Ask the actual issuer or authorized adviser about warranty effects rather than declaring that a patch automatically voids all coverage.
- Obtain and communicate disposition. Submit the comparison through the required approval route, including commercial and regulatory review where applicable. Record the chosen option, reasons, authorized method, conditions and required verification. Update affected trades and documents before corrective work starts; the comparison itself is not an instruction to cut or rebuild.
Use estimated future effects honestly. If a qualified reviewer cannot establish a proposed repair's performance without investigation, put that investigation into the option rather than assign an invented failure probability. Include follow-on work that has already been installed and work that must wait. Keep responsibility and recovery discussions separate from the technical decision so a liability dispute does not become an improvised repair method.
Common mistakes
- Comparing prices before establishing viable methods.
- Inventing failure odds or blanket warranty consequences.
- Starting corrective work from an unapproved option sketch.
Checklist
Prepare the disposition comparison
- Located departure and actual requirements.
- Qualified proposals and unresolved technical questions.
- Full scope, cost, time and surrounding effects.
- Actual warranty and approval review.
- Issued method, conditions and verification.
Check your understanding
The repair estimate is lower, but performance remains unverified. Is it the preferred disposition?
