[Column] Does Selecting 'Gamri' in Public Sector Reduce Accidents?

"Is there any guarantee that supervision will be properly conducted on-site just because the public sector appoints the supervisor?"

A specialist who has studied safety management for over 30 years and is well acquainted with construction sites sighed over the phone. Having served as a government advisor multiple times, he expressed frustration regarding the 'Expansion of Designated Supervision by Permit Authorities (Local Governments)' bill pending passage in the National Assembly. "The building owner, who has the final decision-making authority, escapes responsibility, and construction companies are squeezed by low-price competition. Do you think safety will be ensured by increasing the supervisor's responsibility?"

Contrary to these on-site concerns, the National Assembly is moving in a different direction. Last month, a bill (proposed by Kwon Young-jin of the People Power Party and others) to expand the designated supervision system?which currently applies to residential buildings with 30 or more households and mixed-use buildings with fewer than 300 households?to multi-use buildings was referred to the Land, Infrastructure and Transport Committee. According to this bill, for cultural, assembly, and sales facilities exceeding 5,000㎡ or buildings over 16 stories, the public sector will select the supervision company. This measure was prepared with the intent to strengthen the independence of supervisors and prevent poor construction after major disasters such as the 2023 Incheon Geomdan apartment underground parking collapse and the 2022 Gwangju Hwajeong-dong apartment collapse.

However, on-site parties emphasize that both the Geomdan New Town and Gwangju Hwajeong-dong collapse accidents occurred under the designated supervision system. They argue that it is illogical to expand the designated supervision system to prevent accidents when accidents have already occurred under this system.

They believe that the designated supervision system may actually encourage poor construction. A representative from a comprehensive architectural office said, "Although supervision is supposed to be the authority, supervisors cannot avoid being influenced by the construction companies and clients on-site." Many supervisors worry, "If they raise issues unnecessarily, they might suffer disadvantages." In fact, over the past five years (July 2018 to July 2023), there have been only 14 cases where supervisors issued work stoppage orders. Industry analysis suggests this is because clients who pay supervisors avoid delays and cost increases.

There is also concern about losing the flexibility to issue contracts from design to supervision at once, allowing for agile responses. In the private sector, design, construction, and supervision are often organized as one team to quickly respond to design changes or schedule delays. However, if supervision is designated separately, this collaboration breaks down. Moreover, if supervision fees are uniformly set according to public standards, the cost burden on the private sector may increase.

“Who appoints the supervisor” is not the important issue. On-site, it rather creates problems. More attention should be paid to whether proper supervision is being conducted. Supervisors must balance soaring construction costs and the lowest bid system to prevent reckless construction and reduce the possibility of poor quality. What the government and National Assembly need to do is simple: correct the disconnect between the system and reality to create an environment where supervisors can work with conviction. Properly supporting supervisors so they can fulfill their roles?that is all that is needed.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.