How Main Contractors Use Site Engineering to Protect Programme on Highway Works

Main contractors protect programme on highway works through competent site engineering — verifying survey control early, establishing clear ownership of setting-out across packages, and capturing as-builts progressively rather than at the end. Most avoidable programme delays don't come from complex design problems. They come from assumptions about coordinates, drawings, and responsibility between packages. On Section 278 and Section 38 and highway schemes, getting the site engineering fundamentals right keeps your programme on track and protects your commercial position.

Behind every on-time highways scheme is solid site engineering: control networks, verification surveys and proactive problem-spotting before it becomes delay. That’s how main contractors protect programme, cost and reputation.

What We See Working With Main Contractors on Highway Works

From our experience providing site engineering support on Section 278 and Section 38 highway works across Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, Essex, Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, Norfolk, (and the surrounding counties) programme delays from rework usually appear when coordination breaks down between packages.

Real example: On a recent junction improvement in Essex, the drainage subcontractor extended the survey network incorrectly from the primary control. The result was a 50mm level discrepancy across six chambers – all had to be adjusted after kerbing was laid. Two weeks lost on programme, variation claim to manage, prelims extension to absorb.

None of it was a technical failure. It was a site engineering coordination gap that could have been closed with one control verification check before excavation started.

We see the same pattern whether you're running Section 278 highway improvements, Section 38 estate roads for adoption, or wider civils frameworks — piling packages, retaining structures, basement enabling works. The sector doesn't matter. The site engineering coordination gap between your packages does.

Where Programme Delays Actually Start on Highway Works

1. Unverified Survey Control

If you inherit control from the designer without site engineering verification:

• Kerb lines drift from design intent

• Drainage packages don't tie to earthworks levels

• As-builts contradict design drawings

• Your QS faces measurement challenges during final account

• Adoption surveys reveal discrepancies that delay handover to the highway authority

Everything downstream becomes unreliable and puts your programme at risk. Highway works delivered under DMRB standards and local highway authority specifications require survey tolerances that generic construction guidance doesn't address — and those tolerances depend on verified control from day one of your programme.

2. Unclear Ownership of Setting-Out Between Your Packages

Main contractors running highway works typically operate one of three site engineering models:

• Package-based: each of your subcontractors sets out their own works (drainage, kerbing, surfacing handled separately)

• Hybrid: you establish primary control through your site engineering team, your packages execute from that baseline

• Centralised: you handle all setting-out across the scheme in-house or through a site engineering provider

None are wrong — but you must be explicit which model you're operating. On Section 38 estate roads where drainage, services, kerbs and surfacing all overlap, blurred ownership creates coordination gaps that turn into rework when Hertfordshire Highways, Essex Highways or Cambridgeshire County Council adoption surveys reveal the problems.

3. Outdated Drawings

Building from superseded information leads to clashes, abortive works and programme delays. Highway schemes often run with multiple design revisions during construction — if your site team is working from Rev C while the designer issued Rev E, your drainage runs will be in the wrong place before you start digging. Effective site engineering catches this before mobilisation.

4. Poor Documentation

The HSE construction guidance makes clear that traceable records are essential for safe delivery. Without them, your team ends up arguing about memories instead of evidence when disputes arise over tolerances, levels or alignment during highway authority adoption inspections or defects liability periods.

Practical Site Engineering Steps That Protect Programme

✔ Verify control on arrival — Highway works often inherit Ordnance Survey control from designers who haven't been on site. If that control is disturbed or was never verified to begin with, your kerb lines will be wrong before you start.

✔ Agree coordinate system with the designer — OS National Grid, site grid, TBM vs. OS datum. Get it in writing before mobilisation.

✔ Protect control physically — Fencing, signage, exclusion zones. Control markers get destroyed by plant, materials deliveries, temporary works.

✔ Define who establishes vs. extends control — Does your site engineering team set primary network and subbies extend? Or does each package own their own? Write it down in your subcontract.

✔ Use simple setting-out checklists — Tolerance, benchmark, datum, coordinate system, design revision. Five questions, signed off before work starts.

✔ Capture as-builts progressively — Don't wait until handover. Survey drainage before backfill, kerbs before surfacing, structures before cladding. Highway authority adoption depends on accurate records.

✔ Include survey checks in ITRs — Make control verification a hold point, not an afterthought.

✔ Hold weekly design/site coordination — Designer, your PM, site engineering lead, package coordinators. Fifteen minutes to confirm what's being built and from which revision.

These are low-cost site engineering actions with high programme protection impact across Section 278, Section 38 and civils framework delivery.

Limitations & Honesty

• No amount of paperwork fixes bad control — if your network is wrong, your checklists just document the wrong coordinates

• Utility surveys don't remove the need for verification — GPR and EML tell you where services are, not whether your control is correct

• As-builts produced at the end rarely recover lost accuracy — you can't survey what's already buried or covered

• Responsibility must be agreed in your subcontracts, not assumed — "I thought you were doing it" doesn't hold up in adjudication

Programme and Commercial Impact on Highway Works

For main contractor PMs and QSs running highway works, programme delays from rework show up as:

• Extended prelims (cabins, welfare, traffic management on S278 works)

• Delayed interim payments (waiting for rectification before you can value)

• Subcontractor claims (standing time, abortive works)

• Design variations (retrospective approvals eating your margin)

• Retention disputes (defects vs. design changes during adoption)

• Delayed highway authority sign-off and practical completion

Reviews from bodies such as the National Audit Office highlight how avoidable rework erodes productivity and margins across UK infrastructure delivery — and Section 278 highway works carry the added burden of lane rental costs and traffic management extensions when your programme slips.

Where This Applies

We provide site engineering support to main contractors on Section 278 highway improvements, Section 38 estate roads for adoption, and National Highways framework projects across Hertfordshire, Essex and Cambridgeshire — junction improvements, link roads, estate adoptions, major scheme enabling works.

The coordination challenges we describe here apply equally to wider civils frameworks you're running: piling packages on mixed-use developments, retaining wall structures, basement enabling works, industrial groundworks.

The common thread isn't the sector — it's multi-package delivery where control, responsibility and as-built records determine whether your programme stays on track or unravels during construction and highway authority inspection.

Professional standards promoted by the Institution of Civil Engineers reinforce this competence-led approach across highway works and civils delivery.

How We Support Main Contractors Through Site Engineering

We adapt our site engineering support to your delivery model on Section 278, Section 38, National Highways framework and wider civils projects:

• You establish baseline control: we verify it's fit for purpose and provide independent checks

• You need control established: we set the primary network and handover checked coordinates to your packages

• Your subcontractors self-perform setting-out: we provide independent verification before critical hold points

• Fragmented as-builts across packages: we consolidate into coherent deliverables for highway authority adoption or handover

Site engineering services include:

• Control verification & establishment

• Structured setting-out workflows for your packages

• Progressive as-built capture

• Utility survey integration

• QA & ITR processes

The objective is fewer surprises during your construction programme and smoother highway authority adoption, not more paperwork.

Main Contractor Questions on Site Engineering

Can programme delays from rework be eliminated? No — but early site engineering verification removes most avoidable cases that affect your programme and highway authority sign-off.

Who should own setting-out? Any model works if it's explicit in your subcontracts and resourced properly with competent site engineering support.

When should as-builts be done? Progressively, before elements are covered — not scrambled together at handover or when the highway authority requests them.

👉 Visit www.aknengineering.co.uk or call ☎️01279 927 033 to discuss site engineering support for your next Section 278, Section 38 or civils framework project.