When Verification Lacks Authority: Structural Failure of Quality and Risk Governance in Public Road Projects
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54536/ajcec.v2i1.7036Keywords:
Contractor-Executed Quality Control, Evidence-Chain Integrity, Independent Assurance (IA), Institutional Role Convergence, Public-Sector Road Projects, Quality Verification Governance, Risk Governance (Decision Authority)Abstract
Public-sector road projects, including associated infrastructure and maintenance works, are delivered within highly regulated environments characterized by dense specifications, unified contracts, and standardized project management frameworks. In principle, such institutional density should ensure controlled quality, effective risk management, and predictable delivery outcomes. In practice, however, recurring failures persist at the execution stage, particularly in quality control (QC) and risk governance. The analysis is intentionally weighted toward the governance of quality verification (evidence generation, independence, and acceptance authority), with risk treated as a governance extension of the same institutional logic. This paper argues that these failures are not uniform and cannot be explained solely by deficiencies in specifications, contractor capability, or individual engineering performance. Instead, they arise from structurally different governance breakdowns associated with two distinct institutional configurations commonly observed in public-sector projects. The first configuration involves projects delivered without an independent third-party consultant, where the role of “the Engineer” defined in the unified contract is assigned to a single employee of the owner’s organization. In this model, supervision, quality verification, risk management, decision-making, and coordination functions are concentrated within one individual. The absence of institutional role separation results in a complete governance collapse, whereby the engineer effectively becomes the system itself. The second configuration examines projects delivered under the unified contract with an independent consulting firm acting as a third party. While this arrangement introduces multi-disciplinary teams, resident engineers, and formal acceptance and rejection authority, quality control remains contractor-executed. The consultant’s role is primarily limited to reviewing quality control outputs rather than independently governing the verification process. Consequently, governance failure manifests not through role concentration, but through structural hollowing, where verification lacks independence and quality assurance becomes dependent on contractor-generated evidence. By distinguishing between these two configurations, the study demonstrates that improving public-sector road project outcomes requires institutional redesign - rather than procedural reinforcement- that reallocates authority over quality verification and risk acceptance away from delivery-driven structures.
References
Abdul-Rahman, H., Wang, C., & Yap, X. W. (2006). How professional ethics impact construction quality. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 13(3), 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980610671937
Aven, T. (2016). Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 160, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.12.023
Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy, 15(2), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.005
Chapman, C., & Ward, S. (2003). Project risk management: Processes, techniques and insights (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Elvik, R. (2013). Risk compensation theory and road safety research: An overview. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 61, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.09.014
Flyvbjerg, B. (2014). What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview. PM World Journal, 3(2), 1–10.
Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, 33(6–7), 897–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015
Hillson, D. (2009). Managing risk in projects. Gower.
Hoonakker, P., Carayon, P., & Loushine, T. (2010). Barriers and benefits of quality management in the construction industry: An empirical study. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 21(9), 953–969. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2010.487680
Hopkin, P. (2018). Fundamentals of risk management: Understanding, evaluating and implementing effective risk management (4th ed.). Kogan Page.
International Organization for Standardization. (2015). ISO 9001:2015 quality management systems—Requirements. International Organization for Standardization.
International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 31000:2018 risk management—Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization.
Juran, J. M., & Godfrey, A. B. (1999). Juran’s quality handbook (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Love, P. E. D., Edwards, D. J., & Irani, Z. (2016). Moving beyond optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation: An explanation for social infrastructure project cost overruns. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 63(2), 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2015.2506465
Ministry of Transport, Communications and Information Technology. (2019). Unified standard contract for public works (Rev. 01).
Oakland, J. S. (2014). Total quality management and operational excellence (4th ed.). Routledge.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). Public governance of infrastructure investment. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264241800-en
Power, M. (2004). The risk management of everything: Rethinking the politics of uncertainty. Oxford University Press.
Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (7th ed.). Project Management Institute.
Too, E. G., & Weaver, P. (2014). The management of project management: A conceptual framework for project governance. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1382–1394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.07.006
World Bank. (2017). Infrastructure governance for sustainable development. World Bank Group.
Zou, P. X. W., Zhang, G., & Wang, J. (2007). Understanding the key risks in construction projects in China. International Journal of Project Management, 25(6), 601–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.03.001
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mohammad Abdullah Ahmed Saad, Shuaa Al Riyam, Waleed Mansour Barakat, Alaa Ababneh
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
