The mechanism that verifies work against the specification before it gets covered up — or leaves you arguing about it two years later.
Last updated
Zepth Core module
10–25%
of project cost — the TOTAL cost of avoidable error, once indirect and latent effects are counted
Get It Right Initiative (UK)
Counts indirect and latent effects. NOT comparable with — and not additive to — the directly-reported rework figure alongside it. The two measure different things.
~5%
of contract value — what shows up as DIRECTLY REPORTED rework
Navigant Construction Forum
A narrower measure than the GIRI figure alongside it: it captures only rework that gets reported as rework. The two are not two ends of one range.
1 : 10 : 100
the cost of a defect fixed at source, once built in, and after delivery
The quality profession’s 1-10-100 rule
>95%
first-time pass rate on good projects — approved WIRs ÷ total WIRs, tracked by trade and zone
Industry KPI references
A self-tracked KPI, not an external benchmark. No authoritative benchmark for WIR rejection rates exists — track your own trend by trade and crew; the aggregate hides the problem.
A work inspection request (WIR) is how a contractor formally invites the consultant to verify completed work against the specification before it gets covered up or built on. The inspection points come from the Inspection & Test Plan (ITP) — the quality roadmap agreed for every activity. Together they decide whether quality is verified in sequence, or discovered in disputes.
Zepth keeps ITPs in the system with their hold and witness points. WIRs are raised from the ITP line with prerequisites enforced automatically, notices go out on the contractual clock, photo evidence attaches to the record, and every verdict updates the pass-rate picture by trade, zone and subcontractor in real time.
Concrete gets poured over rebar. Blockwork goes up over waterproofing. Ceilings close over ductwork. Construction is a sequence of concealments, and the inspection regime is the only mechanism that verifies work before it disappears.
Skip or fail that verification and the economics turn brutal. The quality profession’s 1-10-100 rule holds that a defect costing $1 to fix at source costs $10 once built in and $100 after delivery. The UK’s Get It Right Initiative puts the total cost of avoidable error at 10–25% of project cost once indirect and latent effects are counted — against the roughly 5% of contract value that shows up as directly reported rework. Those two figures measure different things and should not be read as a range.
The ITP is the contract for quality verification. Each activity’s ITP line specifies what gets checked, against which standard, by whom, and at what intervention level. A hold point means work stops until the consultant releases it in writing — proceeding past one is itself a non-conformance, and can end in demolition or opening-up orders at the contractor’s cost. A witness point means the consultant is notified and may attend; if they don’t show within the notice window, work may proceed, with the no-show recorded. Surveillance is ongoing monitoring. Document review covers mill certs and test reports.
First-time pass rate is the KPI that predicts everything else. Approved WIRs ÷ total WIRs, tracked by trade and zone. Good projects run above 95%. A falling pass rate in one trade is the earliest cheap warning of rework, programme slip, and a bloated snag list at handover. A low WIR count with thin inspection coverage is worse than a higher count that passes — it means nobody is looking.
Inspection discipline is dispute insurance. Timestamped, geotagged photos attached to each WIR; the consultant’s verdict on the record; the sequence proven — you can’t inspect blockwork if the DPC inspection is still open. When a defect argument surfaces two years into the DLP, the WIR record, or its absence, decides who pays.
The failure chain runs the same way on every project. A WIR is raised late or with missing prerequisites, so it is rejected — or the consultant can’t attend. The pour is tomorrow and the follow-on trade is already mobilised. Work proceeds uninspected. An opening-up order or an NCR lands later, and the rework costs ten times what it would have at source. The extension-of-time argument is then lost, because quality delay is contractor-culpable.
Meanwhile paper checklists produce inspector-dependent outcomes, un-photographed inspections produce he-said-she-said disputes, and nobody can say what the actual pass rate is.
Work is verified before it is concealed — the only point at which a defect costs $1 rather than $10 or $100.
Out-of-sequence WIRs stop happening — prerequisites are enforced when the request is raised, not discovered when the consultant rejects it.
The pass rate is visible by trade, zone and subcontractor as it moves, not at the monthly quality meeting.
The record stands up — timestamped photos, the consultant’s verdict, and the proven sequence, ready for a DLP defect argument two years later.
ITPs live in the system with their hold points, witness points, surveillance and document-review lines; every WIR is raised from an ITP line.
A WIR cannot be raised against an open prerequisite — no more out-of-sequence requests bounced by the consultant.
The 24- or 48-hour notice runs automatically, and a consultant no-show on a witness point is recorded rather than argued about.
Timestamped, geotagged photos attach to the WIR — the difference between a defensible record and a he-said-she-said dispute.
First-time pass rate by trade, zone, crew and spec clause, moving in real time as verdicts land.
Contractor QC submits the WIR referencing the ITP line, the approved shop drawings, the approved material (MIR) and the preceding closed WIR — with the customary 24-hour notice (24–48h is the GCC contractual convention).
The consultant attends, the checklist is executed, and photos are captured against the record.
Approved (Code A), approved with comments (B), or rejected (C) — in which case the work is rectified and a NEW WIR is raised.
Repeated failures of the same item, a deviation that can’t simply be redone, or work carried out past a hold point → NCR, with root cause and corrective action. A failed inspection is NOT automatically an NCR; the escalation logic matters, and most teams get it wrong in both directions.
Pass rates by trade, consultant response times against the contractual window, and rejection patterns by spec clause and subcontractor.
The same checklist item failing across three floors, one subcontractor’s pass rate sliding, one spec clause generating disproportionate rejections — surfaced as it develops, not at the monthly quality meeting.
Flags WIRs raised against open prerequisites or missing references before the consultant sees them — protecting the pass rate and the relationship.
Open and failed inspections mapped against the programme: “these 9 items stand between you and closing Zone 3.”
“Show me this month’s first-time pass rate by subcontractor” — answered with charts from live data, with your team making every judgment call.
The engineer’s judgment stays in charge; the AI removes the latency and the blind spots.
First-time pass rate by trade, zone, crew and spec clause; consultant response times against the contractual notice window; open and overdue WIRs; and rejection patterns — all live, and exportable for the client and the quality audit.
A hold point is mandatory: work stops until the designated authority inspects and releases it in writing. A witness point is an invitation — the authority is notified and may attend, but if they don’t appear within the agreed notice window, work proceeds and the no-show is recorded. Proceeding past an unreleased hold point is itself a non-conformance.
Read the full answerPer the contract — 24 hours is the standard GCC convention, sometimes 48 for specialist or off-site inspections. The WIR is the formal notice instrument.
Rectify the work and raise a new (or revised) WIR. Repeated failures of the same item, or defects that can’t simply be redone, escalate to an NCR with root-cause and corrective-action requirements.
Read the full answerA MIR (material inspection request) approves materials on delivery against the approved submittal, and typically underpins claiming materials-on-site in payment certificates. A WIR approves installed work. The chain runs: material submittal → MIR → installation → WIR.
Above 95% is the commonly used benchmark. Track it by trade and crew rather than in aggregate — the aggregate hides the problem. Note that this is a KPI you track against yourself: there is no authoritative external benchmark for WIR rejection rates.
For a witness point, yes — once the notice window lapses, with the no-show documented. For a hold point, no: it must be formally released, whoever is late.
Read the full answerRelated modules
Related answers
Terms defined here
Zepth is the construction project delivery platform — it runs construction, procurement and asset management on one record, and does the work: reading the drawings, reviewing the submittals, matching the invoices and flagging the risks, with a human sign-off on anything consequential.
A short, tailored walkthrough on your real workflow — no generic demo.