Road Administration buckles up for court action

Photo: Liis Treimann

To find out why new sections of roads start to crumble ere the 5-years warranty us up, Road Administration drilled holes and took samples out of 11 sections where warranty end nears.

Not yet willing to disclose all the objects, RA will not disclose one such problem child is the grand «cut» past Mäo, on Tallinn-Tartu Highway. As evidenced in the ETV aired «Pealtnägija» [Eyewitness – edit], the material used was not conformable to requirements, failing to let water through sufficiently. The builder has claimed the section was constructed according to requirements.

RA deputy director-general Kaupo Sirk says the agency hopes to reach agreements with all builders to right the wrongs, but court action isn’t excluded.

How many are the builders whose objects are deteriorating before warranty-time is over?

All in all, it’s five major road-constructing companies with subsidiaries thereof. Our main goal, right now, is to reach agreement with the contractors that they solve the cause of the deterioration, not the outcome. Builders are ever ready to patch up holes, but the cause is someplace else.

We want these causes to be liquidated while the warranty time still runs.

What will happen if the builders still fail to agree with your version?

We must stand for the contractors to keep their contractual requirements. If needed, by the help of courts; but the court action will be complex and costly.

We still do aim at agreements. Firstly, we want all builders to realise that they have to do quality work at once, as rebuilding the roads will be many times more costly, afterwards. 

Why continue cooperation with those who do bad quality work?

If the law provided the option not to let firms with major problems to procurements, that would be a great leaver to pull. As a contractor has liquidated the shortcomings we have no basis to disqualify him further on, as he has kept the contract.

Why has RA accepted objects of poor quality?

At the moment, we are getting our contractual partners by underbidding where all are doing a balancing act at the very verge of requirements. We are planning to make our quality requirements to be more specific, to give less ground (new asphalt surface rules, construction and repairs requirements, technical descriptions, warranty work guidelines, quality requirement regulation etc have been developed – edit). The builder’s price will indeed rise, but correspondingly the quality will be better.

RA staff competency needs to be raised. We are trying to develop and train our people, as well as owner supervision by applying stricter requirements. If we succeed in explaining our expectations to builders before they start a work, their attitude will change.

We know where our mistakes lie, but we will definitely not assume the blame; we will demand that the defective places be repaired.

Why won’t the builder be responsible for repairs of a road throughout its exploitation period?

A good idea, but it’s only succeeded in very wealthy countries. Neither RA nor the contractors know the quality of every square and cubic metre, as it varies. A contractor will never be able to guarantee even quality throughout the entire road. Being responsible for over five years, they will write the risk into price offer, and the think becomes very expensive. Makes no sense to lay too many risks unto the contractor, as the prices will skyrocket and some things will not get done.