Cost Assurance

COST ASSURANCE AND AUDITS ON INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND CONTRACTS

Multidisciplinary Steering Group 

 

Part 15: The value of audit and assurance and supply chain challenges

In this output, the group emphasises the value of audit and assurance on major infrastructure projects in ensuring transparency, accountability and providing independent assurance to funders, investors and taxpayers in a landscape that is increasingly complex and heavily scrutinised. Key considerations are issues faced by smaller Tier 2 and Tier 3 suppliers.

In addition, the importance of using audit and assurance on the most appropriate contracts or large complex projects and for the right reasons not punitively by clients or Tier 1s on Tier 2 and 3 suppliers is highlighted.

The value of audit and assurance

Independent audit and assurance are not merely a regulatory necessity but also a strategic asset for continuous improvements for organisations seeking to maintain transparency, optimise costs and make moreinformed cost and financial decisions. The absence of this third line of defence poses significant risks that could undermine a projects future financial viability and investment funding. Audit and assurance are crucial for ensuring the accuracy, reliability and transparency of cost-related financial data on infrastructure projects. They are key for verifying that cost systems, cost data and reports are compliant with accounting standards and contract requirements. Beyond compliance, they provide stakeholders – funders, investors, regulators and clients with confidence that cost information presented is free from material misstatements, errors and fraud.

This trust is essential for making future informed investment decisions. Audits provide evidencebased insight into the effectiveness of current controls, risks and cost management practices in the project environment. They are invaluable in identifying areas where costs can be optimised and supporting management with improving financial performance. Audits improve the transparency of cost reporting, which is critical for building and maintaining stakeholder trust. This transparency ensures that cost and related financial information are credible and can withstand scrutiny. Without the oversight provided by independent audits, organisations are more vulnerable to inaccuracies in their cost-related financial data. The absence of rigorous review increases the likelihood of misstatements going undetected, which can result in financial mismanagement and potential losses.

Stakeholders, including funders, investors and clients, may lose confidence in the integrity of the organisation’s cost data without the independent assurance that audits provide. This can make it more challenging to secure future investment funding or win new contracts. Without the assurance offered by audits, organisations are at a greater risk of noncompliance, resulting in significant disallowances, legal repercussions and long-term reputational damage. From my experience, the value of audit and assurance is during the early phases of a project, when cost outcomes can be influenced in real-time. Audits should be used for the right reasons as intended by openbook agreements and on the most appropriate contracts. Typically on large £million projects and must not be used punitively by clients or Tier 1s on smaller suppliers.

Cecelia Fadipe, Forvis Mazars

 

Implementing a robust system of assurance across major programmes and projects is vital to help provide cost certainty, identify and remedy contractual non-compliance, enhance ways of working and provide confidence to stakeholders that the aims, outputs and objectives are going to be met.

A robust assurance process helps all parties, especially when delivered in an intelligent, efficient and collaborative way, with the benefits typically significantly outweighing the cost of implementation.

A robust assurance process helps all parties, especially when delivered in an intelligent, efficient and collaborative way, with the benefits typically significantly outweighing the cost of implementation.

The risks of going without assurance are generally understood but often not given enough emphasis when setting up a programme or project for success:

Imran Akhtar, Turner & Townsend

 

Why is it important? In all industries and in particular regulated sectors such as the UK utilities, thorough audit and assurance approaches provide reassurance to stakeholders. As an example, a cost reimbursable assurance check for a construction project reaching completion will give the client stakeholder valuable peace of mind that what is paid for at the end of the day is what is due in line with the contract agreed between the parties.

Who does it help? All stakeholders benefit from established audit and assurance practices. As an example, a process and controls audit at the start of a construction project could provide valuable lessons and compliance improvements early in the project lifecycle. Client and contractor could then benefit from future additional efficiencies via this proactive approach. If the contractual obligations allow for shared cost incentivisation all parties will mutually benefit commercially.

What are the benefits?

What are the risks of going without it?

Tom Leach, Southern Water

 

Audits are often seen as a way to identify errors or unjustified payments and as a process that takes place after the event and looking backwards at what has happened on a project. This is a useful and sometimes necessary exercise, but undertaking it on this basis and with the benefit of hindsight, suggests that it does not help to avoid or resolve the underlying issues that affect delivery but may have come up towards the end of a project. Similarly, identifying such issues at a later stage is more likely to be disputed and to make recovery of such amounts more difficult.

An alternative approach is to see auditing as part of the process of monitoring performance from the commencement of the project, with the aim of identifying any issues early on and taking the necessary steps to address them. This avoids an issue persisting from early days not being identified until much later and possibly too late. This also means that the audit is not limited to pure financial issues, but can also look into wider issues to do with the quality of cost records and commercial management of the supply chain, as well as the validity of any cost claims and the operation of contractual processes.

That should give the employer confidence that costs claimed are valid, which will improve trust and help to reduce disputes. 

If the audit demonstrates that all the necessary steps are being taken and that cost records are maintained as required, that should give the employer confidence that costs claimed are valid, which will improve trust and help to reduce disputes. If the audit does identify issues, for example that certain records are not kept or do not include all the required information, the contractor can be notified of such issues and take the necessary steps to address them. That is better than identifying issues around completion, by which time there is little that can be done to address them.

In addition, the audit can also look at what actions are being taken by the employer’s representative or project manager in terms of their role and obligations in managing the contractual processes that govern assessment and payment. As with the contractor, compliance can be highlighted and encouraged as positive steps, and if non-compliance is identified then the necessary corrective steps can be taken. For example, a persistent failure to respond on time is an issue that will affect delivery and it is better to identify it early and take the necessary action to prevent it. The contractor’s input may well be part of such process and that will help address any arguments by the contractor that its contractual entitlement is not being recognised. That will also give the employer comfort that all parties are operating the contract as required, which is a basic steps towards ensuring a successful project.

Overall, audits can be used in a proactive way from an early start to help identify any matters that affect delivery and ensure that steps are being taken to address them so that they do not become a bigger problem. That has clear benefits against an audit that takes place at the end on a retrospective basis, by which time it can identify problems but no steps can be taken to mitigate their impact.

Shy Jackson, BCLP

 

Audit and assurance provides important independent checks to ensure requirements (outlined in processes, procedures, contracts, legal, etc.) are suitable, sustainable and adhered to across companies. Assurance can assist in identifying areas for improvement which could indicate training requirements or in efficiencies in a proactive fashion which can improve performance, relationships and smooth practices for all stakeholders. They can assist in monitoring improvements and identifying blockers. Whilst some audits may result in financial consequences (disallowed costs in relation to option C contracts), the key objective is providing clarity of requirements and entitlement which audit can assist in clarifying and communicating. Without this support, companies can leave themselves open to inefficiencies, poor practices, poor culture, costly mistakes, legal challenges and potential fines.

Kathleen Hannon, Scottish Water

 

Audit and assurance are key activities necessary to underpin the financial and accounting reporting of a business, part of a business or a discreet project/projects and hence its value if targeted in the right areas is immense in providing confidence in the published reports. These audits are reporting on the financial well-being of a business or project for a particular period in time, which could be for a six-monthly or annual reporting period or for a month-end report. It helps the various stakeholders understand the reported financial position and have a better understanding of any issues which could affect the reported position. The risks of not doing it can have consequences in the quality and robustness of reported data.

Jim McCluskey, Kier Group

 

In defined cost contracts, the benefit of audit and assurance in contracts is to give confidence to the clients that the costs are incurred properly, and control processes are being managed correctly. It is widely used in government-backed organisations, such as Network Rail and Highways England, and this helps to support them offering good value to taxpayers for the infrastructure work. When performed well, it supports both client and contractor in tightening processes and ensuring a fair and reasonable outcome for both parties. Without the audit process, there is no independent view of the project and validation of costs incurred.

In my experience, it is important that the audit and assurance process has a clearly defined scope (in line with the contract), otherwise it has the potential to result in unnecessary time and costs to both parties, increasing the costs of the project. Auditors have a challenge of remaining independent as their goal is to show value for money to the organisation that has employed them. Overall, it is a key tool in the assessment of defined cost contracts and will remain an ongoing tool for government-backed organisations. When managed correctly, audit and assurance can offer value to all parties involved, showing value for money for taxpayers, help to bring contractual grey areas to a head and to settle ongoing interpretations within the contract.

Chris Leech, Balfour Beatty

 

Audit is the examination of data, records and operation performance of a construction project. The audit scope is detailed within the contract, but the interpretation of the requirements can vary massively. In my experience, this is a conventional approach that is stifling our industry. All too commonly, auditors appear to use an audit as a mechanism for identifying disallowed costs. They may measure the success of that audit on how much they have recovered for the client. I feel that as an industry we would benefit from utilising individuals who have more project-based construction experience and can apply their knowledge in a more pragmatic and value-adding way.

I feel that as an industry we would benefit from utilising individuals who have more project-based construction experience and can apply their knowledge in a more pragmatic and value-adding way.

The audit process seems to frequently result in a critical report detailing minor errors such as excel formula issues which when corrected provide a deduction in cost. This approach does not benefit continuous improvement or help in an advisory capacity to target areas of concern in project processes. The definition of audit success requires recalibration such that it is not premeditated on big financial wins for the client.

Assurance, I feel, is more beneficial and useful during the start and middle of a project or where staff turnover is high. An assurance review is to ensure quality and compliance with processes and procedures relating to every facet of the project. This would include safety, quality, construction and commercial assurance. Audit plays a significant role in this process. I have found that establishing robust and well-understood processes and procedures early in the project lifecycle improves compliance significantly. Early engagement with the audit and assurance system allows project teams to understand the criticality of following governance and start the process of learning and continuous improvement.

Early engagement with the audit and assurance system allows project teams to understand the criticality of following governance and start the process of learning and continuous improvement.

Audit and assurance is fundamental to ensuring a client has satisfaction they have achieved value for money and the project is being delivered in line with their expectations. In my opinion, the ultimate success of any project would benefit from a blend of systems compliance and cost validation throughout the project lifecycle. Rather than the typical scenario of systems focus during delivery and cost focus as a retrospective exercise. Clients have a big part to play in defining assurance scope to support this but the industry needs to provide this guidance to support their desired outcomes.

Above all, all parties need to adopt a positive attitude to the assurance process in order that there is openness and trust. This is a keystone to ensuring a client has confidence that the contractor is carrying out their obligations correctly and allows them to acknowledge unverified costs, safe in the knowledge that actual costs are administered in a structured and robust way.

Charlotte Edwards, AtkinsRealis

 

Construction projects are funded by private and public bodies that are both under increasing pressure to demonstrate transparency, accountability and value for money. Cost assurance and audits are some of the effective tools that can be employed to address these three objectives. On construction projects, cost audits can be described as the independent inspection of cost records to ascertain their accuracy and ensure they are being reported as permitted under the overarching delivery contract. It involves the verification of cost accounting records to ensure the exactitude of the cost accounts, cost reports and cost statements.

Audit and assurance can be carried out by:

Depending on the size and complexity of the project, each audit team will require the following competencies and skill sets:

  1.  Accounting
  2.  Commercial/cost management
  3.  Financial systems
  4.  Data management (If there are large data sets).

The key benefits of cost and assurance audits on construction projects are:

The financial systems review should be led by an accounting audit specialist. Their targeted expertise will be necessary to examine the contractor’s finance systems and identify any anomalies in the system which may result in potential accounting deficiencies that lead to inappropriate cost allocations. Typically, audits are undertaken on a time-driven basis (quarterly or yearly) but projects should consider aligning audits with the delivery programme so that lessons and improvements can be implemented at the most appropriate time to benefit the organisation and the project.

Audits should not be seen as a tick box exercise or burden and rather as a key part of improvement and lessons learnt. Passing audits is also not a definitive indication that project’s management, operations and controls are running optimally – further continuous improvements should be sought and be an integral part of delivery and assurance processes.

Cost assurance audits are an important part of any strategy to deliver high-quality projects as they assist in identifying potential risks in the delivery company’s systems and processes. Audits produce reports that contain recommendations for the delivery team to take appropriate actions that mitigate delivery risk and prevents adverse reputational damage.

Elliot Patsanza, Ridge & Partners

 

Construction contracts for major infrastructure delivery have evolved to be complicated and wide-ranging. Not all members of integrated teams act in accordance with these contracts. In our experience, focus in contract assurance has been on the supplier side to improve compliance.

After a recent series of assurance reviews, feedback to the client body from the reviews revealed that not enough attention had been applied to contract management of multiple internal stakeholder groups within our complex large-asset owning client body. In fact, 80% of the opportunities for contract performance improvement of 10-20 % rested with improvement to client’s activity. No need for contract amendments, or difficult conversations with contractors, but more a realisation that the client needs to perform in line with its own contract obligations nad commitments.

Without audit and assurance review analysis of detailed non-compliance findings, this opportunity for improved project performance would not have been realised.

Martin Perks, National Highways

 

Audit and assurance provides confidence to both the customer and the contractor that services and works being undertaken are being provided in accordance with the expected quality, controls and processes. This forms an additional line of defence for the customer, ensuring that things are being done properly. It helps both parties in that the customer gets the assurance and confidence that processes and outputs that have been contracted to be undertaken are being undertaken in accordance with the agreed criteria in the contract.

The risks of going without this process are that contracted services and work may be delivered and paid for laden with defects and other elements that should not have been paid for had the audit been done. 

It helps the contractor as well, in that any findings coming out of the audit process if taken positively can be learning points for improving their processes, systems and procedures which may lead to efficiency in the long term adding further opportunity to grow their margins. The risks of going without this process are that contracted services and work may be delivered and paid for laden with defects and other elements that should not have been paid for had the audit been done.

Dr Anywhere Muriro, BAM Nuttall

 

Tier 2 and 3 supply chain challenges

Smaller suppliers although more agile, typically operate with tighter budgets and resources which restrict their immediate ability to invest in advanced systems and controls that fully address modern supply-chain risks. Strengthening control systems within Tier 2 and Tier 3 supply chain members is a multifaceted challenge that involves a culture shift from lump-sum fixed price contracts to open-book cost based arrangements. This is particularly true for smaller suppliers that operate with limited resources, making the implementation of robust processes, systems and controls needed to be compliant on audits challenging. The investment sometimes required for these systems can be significant, in terms of initial capital outlay and continuous improvement to systems and processes.

The requirements for robust systems and controls are typically set with the overarching goal of ensuring the integrity, security and reliability of the supply chain. These standards can however impose an unfair burden on smaller suppliers, who may struggle to meet client expectations. The stringent controls and compliance standards often mandated can place smaller suppliers under significant pressure, sometimes to the point of jeopardising their continued participation in procurement or the supply chain. These requirements may lead to consolidation within the supply chain, where only the most well-resourced and capable suppliers can survive. This reduces competition, diminishing the diversity and innovation that smaller SME suppliers bring to projects.

Cecelia Fadipe, Forvis Mazars

 

Typically, we see a significant proportion of cost filtering through to the supply chain (subcontractors and even sub-sub arrangements). These arrangements tend to be lump sum contracts to help drive cost certainty through the main contractor and to also help reduce administration burden across both parties (main contractor to subcontractor or subcontractor to sub-sub ). The challenge with these arrangements however is when those organisations then have to work in an open book environment and demonstrate a new level of transparency, audit trail and control of their cost position. Whilst these suppliers may have less investment and resources available to strengthen their systems they are also often more specialised to the sector or client and so can more effectively hone their controls for specific purposes, unlike main contractors who serve a wide range of client requirements across multiple sectors.

This could also be accompanied by collaborative knowledge sharing and training sessions to share ‘what good looks like’ and ultimately making clear the importance of ‘right first time’ and how the data and information produced are going to be used. 

Ultimately whilst improving systems may be limited due to funding constraints there should be a collaborative effort by all parties, including the client, to engage with a robust assurance process to strengthen controls, particularly preventative controls to help strengthen the overall outputs produced by the Tier 2s/3s and a clear strategy on how commercial terms and data and information requirements should be passed down through the supply chain such that these processes and requirements are not significantly onerous or excessive to the size and outputs from these organisations.

This could also be accompanied by collaborative knowledge sharing and training sessions to share ‘what good looks like’ and ultimately making clear the importance of ‘right first time’ and how the data and information produced are going to be used. It could be argued that more needs to be done in this space, especially as the scale and complexity of projects increases.

Imran Akhtar, Turner & Townsend

 

Having recently been involved in a major infrastructure project where a large subcontractor was engaged, for the first time ever, on a target cost contract with enhanced cost audit contract amendments, I have seen first-hand the challenges (and opportunities) it creates.

Traditionally the subcontractor undertakes work on a lump sum fixed price basis. Therefore, its cost system was built to suit the reporting requirements of the business. Its costs are labour, internal and external plant and materials, plus some low-value subcontractors. It has a method of recharging payroll and office overheads which accords with both local financial laws/rules as well as the requirements of the group of businesses it is part of. For a major subcontract project, there will be hundreds of thousands of transactions but as a lump sum business the equation is simple: Contract value + change – total costs ‘charged’ to the project = profit/loss. As long as total costs are dealt with correctly internally, it does not really matter how it is presented.

But now, in order to secure the work, it was subject to the rules of the contract. If the cost was not presented, transparent and granular enough, it was subject to the risk of having certain costs disallowed and therefore not paid. In order to mitigate against disallowed costs, it had to adapt its cost systems and processes to the requirements of the contract. There is a cost which goes with that sort of change.

Although it was a major project, it was not the subcontractor’s only project. So, another option was to calculate how much cost could be disallowed and to add it to the contract sum, allow costs to be disallowed and maintain the existing systems and processes. In the end, this was seen as an opportunity to become more adaptable and be able to deal with cost-reimbursable contract audits in the future. This would allow the business to tender for this work and not add disallowed cost risk to the contract sum.

However, this subcontractor had the resources to be able to adapt. It was mature with highly qualified people in positions to be able to implement the change quickly and professionally. My concern would be that smaller, less established businesses would struggle to adapt in the same circumstances. The implication could be that a smaller subcontractor could sleepwalk into an arrangement where costs are disallowed and they make a loss in an already challenging climate, or lead to claims/disputes. Or they add risk to the contract sum and either do not secure the work, or they still secure the work but the client ends up potentially paying more than they should.

Gary Bone, Blake Newport

 

There is a lack of hegemony in systems and approaches in this area. From the client’s perspective, one area of challenge is in the systems themselves where multiple approaches are common throughout the whole supply chain. In turn, the standards applicable to behaviours and capabilities is uneven, particularly when it comes to the information required to satisfy bona fide audits.

The barriers could be the industry itself not promoting common approaches often enough. In addition, the investment into state of the art systems may not be at the level of Tier 1 suppliers who are more able to plan long-term investment in these systems and the capabilities required to drive them. If the project control requirements are clear within the tender information and passed down the supply chain properly, then the requirements are fair as the client should pay for what has been passed down as an obligation. However, the key is in asking if the investment in these requirements are efficient and proportional.

Tom Leach, Southern Water

 

It can be difficult for smaller members of the supply chain to strengthen their systems and controls due to the costs involved in core costs and administration. There are some requirements which are core to any company (time-sheeting, accounting, anti-bribery and modern slavery requirements) which cannot be compromised.

However, in regards to the contractual requirements placed on smaller companies, this should be addressed during the tender and contract initiation stages. For example, it may not be appropriate for a small company carrying out low-risk, low-value works to be held to option C’s requirements for full ledger and payroll audits. However, the root cause of this is the choice of contract. In some instances this is dictated further up the supply chain therefore the contract strategy employed should be thought through and the consequences throughout the supply chain considered.

Kathleen Hannon, Scottish Water

 

There are challenges for SMEs in being able to strengthen their systems and controls which in many cases can be cost prohibitive, which is why the contractual arrangements being considered for utilising SMEs need careful consideration, particularly in the use of open book arrangements. Many SMEs are not resourced to service these arrangements to satisfy the head contract’s requirements.

Jim McCluskey, Kier Group

 

Typically, Tier 2/3 suppliers have lean overheads, less advanced accounting systems and fewer resources to develop processes, although this is not true in all cases; you can have Tier 2/3 supply chains part of a bigger organisation. In terms of defined costs contracts and audit process, for Tier 2/3 suppliers it can be challenging supporting, identifying and demonstrating the costs incurred, a key part of being paid. Due to company size and systems used, allocation of costs to specific areas can be challenging, therefore there is a tendency to seek fixed price contracts where this is not required and the rewards can be greater. In my experience when the client and Tier 1 contractor demand further information from the Tier 2/3 suppliers, they struggle, and all parties spend a lot of time and resource building information to demonstrate what they have spent. Therefore, generally a defined cost contract is not used between client/Tier 1 to Tier 2/3 supply chain to ensure an efficient operating model for all parties.

Chris Leech, Balfour Beatty

 

How easy is it for smaller members of the supply chain to strengthen their systems and controls to align with the increasingly stringent expectation of main contractors and their customers? I believe SMEs are progressing well and are surprisingly responsive to the requirements and mandatory systems or processes etc. imposed upon them. I very rarely get any objections and SMEs always seam keen and enthusiastic. My team and I do support SMEs and assist them wherever we can. Maintaining clear communication channels, providing more detailed support for the commercial process and providing early engagement throughout the project. We find it essential to explain what we are doing upfront and the reasons for it. It is inevitable that increasing requirements for reporting and additional obligations in our SME contracts has required lots of intervention on the part of the main contractor and we have seen increases in costs as a result.

The increased direct cost is largely due to works associated with new requirements such as zero non-recyclable waste on site and chapter 6 requirements or the 12-hour door-to-door policies. Requirements like this do have predictable direct cost increases but there is also growth in subcontractor overhead to administer and deliver new scope items. Examples would include staff costs to provide data such as carbon monitoring, headcount reports, payment time reporting etc. Some of these obligations do feel onerous and difficult for some of the SME supply-chain to embrace efficiently.

Other than the ever-evolving contract obligations we place on our SMEs, the major challenge for most smaller suppliers is pre-qualifying to get onto main contractor supply chain approved lists. The differing requirements of Tier 1 contractors for various memberships and accreditations make it very onerous on SMEs to position their business to serve multiple major customers.

Clients have a part to play in this debate. To achieve greater value for money, we must highlight the cost impact of requiring some of the additional items discussed previously. This would involve having a greater understanding of client requirements, particularly where projects are state-funded and additional controls are bound by legislation.

Charlotte Edwards, AtkinsRealis

 

What are the barriers? Are the requirements fair for them? There is a wide variety of supply chain parties, which makes it difficult to generalise, but some lower-Tier suppliers are agile enough to be able to adapt and adopt easily their controls and systems. However, for some, this may take time, cost and resource to adopt as some of the systems are relatively costly to purchase and use.

The barriers are mainly to do with cost, resource and lack of understanding/ knowledge of both the contracts in place and the systems out there that may be able to work for them. The other reason is that some contractors do not flow down main contract Ts & Cs that they have with their customers and some requirements are lost in the process including opportunity to adopt different ways of working. At the same time, it is suggested that they are brought along gradually rather than to just impose the additional requirements before they are ready to adapt/adopt.

Dr Anywhere Muriro, BAM Nuttall

 

Future outlook

A key value of audit and assurance for all parties in the supply chain including Tier 2 and 3s is the culture of continuous improvements and the ability to identify and mitigate risks early. There however needs to be a more tailored approach to setting compliance requirements that take into account the unique capabilities of smaller suppliers. This could involve tiered requirements based on the size and resources of the supplier, ringfenced revenue and collaboration between Tier 1 supply chain members to protect SMEs. Clients and Tier 1s could offer training, and shared technology to help smaller suppliers meet necessary standards without compromising their viability.

In conclusion, while the integrity of the supply chain is paramount, current and emerging threats faced by smaller Tier 2 and Tier 3 suppliers necessitate a more nuanced approach. By clients acknowledging these challenges and providing the necessary support, the supply chain can benefit from a more resilient, diverse and sustainable network of suppliers that drive increased innovation and value for taxpayers. As technology, data and AI advancements reshape the project environment, integrating these into business-as-usual practices will be vital in helping Tier 2 and 3s better compete and enhance their control environment, systems and readiness for the future of audit and assurance which will continue to be driven by the need for cost efficiency and increased sustainable value.

Cecelia Fadipe, Forvis Mazars

 

Multidisciplinary Steering Group for cost assurance and audits on infrastructure projects and contracts
cfbusinesslinks.com/multi-disciplinary-steering-group

 

 


The Steering Group on Cost Assurance and Audits on Infrastructure Projects and Contracts:

Cecelia Fadipe (chair), CFBL Consulting; Imran Akhtar, Turner & Townsend; Claire Randall-Smith, Eversheds Sutherland; Ian Heaphy, INCC, NEC Board; Gary Bone, Blake Newport; Darren Ward, The Orange Partnership; Tom Leach, Southern Water; Kathleen Hannon, Scottish Water; Shy Jackson, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner; Jennifer Varley, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner; Charlotte Edwards, Atkins – SNC Lavalin; Jim McCluskey (CICES representative), Kier Group; David Worsley, Transport for the North; Elliot Patsanza, Ridge & Partners; David Sharp, Mott Macdonald; Michael Bamber, WSP; Justice Sechele, Currie & Brown; Chris Leach, Balfour Beatty; Victoria HillStanford, Network Rail; Lisa O’Toole, Network Rail; Martin Perks, National Highways; Chris Richardson, Colas; Charlotte Hughes, DLA Piper; Tony Cave, Croftstone Management; Dr Anywhere Muriro, BAM Nuttall.

 

 

 

 

 

Skills Training Ad | The Richard Carter Prize 2025 Planning and Infrastructure Ad | Nature Restorataion Levy Utility Assets Ad | CICES Professional Registration Lean Construction Ad | Why join CICES? Construction Law GEO Business Ad | GEO Business June 2025 Letter from America