Inflation in construction. Impossible outpacing versus impossible building

Abstract: We have long been concerned about the question: is it really economical to build facilities (including ones financed by the state budget), maximally reducing all the production cycles in attempts to outpace inflation? Is it possible to implement a project effectively without taking into account the opinions of engineering geologists and ecologists? In our opinion (that is supported by the experience of specialists), it is impossible. Ignoring (and often just non-acquaintance and misunderstanding) of the costs of geological, environmental and engineering-geological risks inevitably prolongs the implementation period of a project, violating the very idea of maximal reduction of construction time. Facilities built in this way inevitably bring problems instead of satisfaction. Landslides, avalanches, mudflows occur on the roads; the roads become covered with in bumps and holes; houses, bridge supports and overpasses become tilted. As a result, money from the federal budget is not only spent on correcting the situation, but also labor forces are restrained instead of being involved in some new construction, and not to mention the general disappointment of the population. And it is all aggravated by the fact that the engineering survey industry (which employs up to half a million people) has not yet been officially recognized as an independent industry (for it, there has not yet been a separate code according to the All-Russian Classifier of Economic Activities), so it is so underfunded that it is getting closer and closer to the brink of extinction.

Today, we propose our thoughts on this issue on the basis of specialists’ comments and on the study of materials from open sources. And we will be very glad if there is an open discussion on this pressing problem.

Keywords: construction; engineering surveys; inflation; risks; economic efficiency; safety; deadlines acceleration; costs rise; false economy.