Case Studies

Decisions that mattered.

All case studies are anonymised. Project values, locations and client details have been changed to protect confidentiality. The decision situations and outcomes are representative of real engagements.

Residential construction project
Proceeded — Successfully Delivered
Project Viability Pack Residential Extension £320,000 project value

Large rear extension & loft conversion — two quotes, significant cost difference.

The Situation

A homeowner in the South East had planning permission for a substantial rear extension and loft conversion. They had received two quotes — £285,000 and £340,000 — and could not understand the £55,000 difference. Their architect had recommended the lower-priced contractor. They were about to sign contracts.

What We Found

The lower quote excluded structural steelwork, party wall works and a provisional sum for drainage that the higher quote had priced explicitly. When normalised, the two were within 4% of each other. The lower-priced contractor also carried insufficient public liability insurance for a project of this scale. The higher quote represented better value.

The Outcome

Client appointed the higher-priced contractor after negotiating three items identified in the review. Project completed on programme. The review prevented an appointment that would likely have generated significant variation claims during construction.

"We were about to appoint the wrong builder for the wrong reasons. The review made it obvious — we just hadn't been asking the right questions."

Homeowner — South East England

Project Viability Pack Residential Conversion £480,000 project value

Bungalow to 4-bedroom family home — budget presented as fixed. Risk assessment revealed it wasn't.

The Situation

A homeowner had engaged an architect and structural engineer to convert a bungalow into a 4-bedroom, 2-storey family home. A main contractor had provided a fixed-price tender of £480,000. With savings and finance in place they were ready to start on site within six weeks. They requested a viability review as a final sense check before committing.

What We Found

The "fixed price" contract contained 14 provisional sums and 6 prime cost items totalling approximately £92,000. The genuinely fixed element was closer to £388,000. Several provisional sums were materially undercosted against current market rates. The contingency was 3% — we recommended a minimum of 12% given the exposure. Realistic outturn: £540,000–£570,000 against a borrowing facility of £510,000.

The Outcome

Recommendation: Do not proceed on current terms.

The clients renegotiated the contract, reduced the specification in two areas and secured an increased facility. They started on site four months later on a financially sound footing — avoiding what would almost certainly have been a funding shortfall mid-build.

"The contractor called it a fixed price. It wasn't. Nobody had told us that. £1,650 was the best money we spent on the entire project."

Self-build client — East Midlands

Self-build construction project
Do Not Proceed — Terms Renegotiated
Mid-build construction review
Risk Flagged — Payment Withheld
Mid-Build Check-In Full Renovation £210,000 project value

Full renovation stalled — contractor requesting large stage payment for incomplete works.

The Situation

Eight weeks into a 20-week renovation of a Victorian terrace, the contractor submitted a stage payment request for £38,000 — approximately 40% above the contracted stage value. The contractor claimed additional works had been instructed verbally and that material costs had increased. Site visits had become increasingly difficult to arrange.

What We Found

Review of the contract, payment schedule and photographic evidence indicated the claimed stage was materially incomplete. No written instruction existed for any alleged verbal variations. The payment request included £12,400 of variation claims with no supporting evidence. The pattern — access difficulties, undocumented variations, inflated payment requests — was consistent with a contractor in financial difficulty.

The Outcome

Recommendation: Withhold payment pending site inspection and written variation account.

The contractor abandoned site two weeks later. Having not overpaid, the client retained sufficient funds to appoint a replacement contractor and complete the project. The £195 review prevented an estimated £38,000 overpayment to an insolvent contractor.

"I was going to pay it. I didn't know what else to do. The review gave me the confidence to say no — and it turned out to be exactly the right call."

Homeowner — North West England

Strategic Oversight New Build Development £750,000 project value

Residential development — first-time developer needed independent oversight throughout delivery.

The Situation

A private investor had purchased land with planning consent for four residential units. As a first-time developer with no construction background, they had a main contractor appointed and funding in place but no independent representation. Their lender required evidence of project oversight as a condition of drawdown. They engaged Strategic Oversight following an initial Viability Pack.

How Oversight Worked

Monthly review cycles over nine months. Written position summaries provided to both client and lender. Three significant variation requests reviewed and challenged — two rejected, one accepted at a reduced value. Programme slippage of six weeks identified and addressed at month four before it became a funding issue.

The Outcome

Project delivered on time and within 3% of contracted sum. Variation claims totalling £47,000 were challenged — £31,000 rejected. Lender drawdowns processed without issue throughout. The client attributed the controlled outturn directly to having structured independent oversight rather than relying on the contractor's own reporting.

"Without the monthly reviews I would have had no idea what was actually happening on site versus what I was being told. That's a dangerous position with £750,000 at stake."

Property investor — Yorkshire

Development project oversight
Delivered On Budget — 9 Months

Independent. Fixed Price. No Upsell.

Facing a decision that carries real consequence?

Tell us where you are. A clear written recommendation, delivered within 5 working days.

Request a Review View Services & Pricing