Why Engineers Should Never Approve Their Own Variations

It is 7 PM on site. The slab pour is tomorrow morning, and a service opening needs to move 400 mm. The site engineer writes a quick change note, agrees a figure with the subcontractor and signs it off himself. Work keeps moving. Everyone goes home happy.

Six months later, at final account, the client's auditor asks a simple question: who authorised this cost? The answer is the same person who asked for it. The variation is rejected, and the contractor is left arguing over money it has already paid.

The problem isn't dishonesty

Most self-approved variations are made by good people trying to keep the job moving. The risk is not usually fraud. It is that:

• nobody checked the price against the rates in the contract,
• nobody confirmed the change was actually instructed by someone with authority,
• nobody can later prove a second pair of eyes ever looked at it.

On a large project, dozens of these small decisions add up to real money.

Separation of duties, in plain words

Banks figured this out a long time ago: the person who requests a payment should not be the person who releases it. Construction needs the same simple rule for variations, payment certificates and claims.

• The author raises the change and explains why it is needed.
• The assessor (usually the QS) checks the scope, quantities and rates.
• The approver with the right authority makes the decision.

Three roles. Ideally three different people. At the very least, the author never approves their own item.

Why "we trust our team" isn't enough

Trust is good for working together. It is weak evidence in a dispute. When a variation is challenged in a final account, mediation or arbitration, the other side does not ask whether your engineer is honest. They ask whether your process is.

A clear trail showing who raised it, who checked it and who approved it, and when turns an argument into a record.

How BuildRevu enforces it

In BuildRevu, these rules are not just a policy document. They are built into the system itself:

• The author of a variation, payment certificate or claim can submit or withdraw it, but cannot assess or approve it.
• Assessing and certifying must be done by someone other than the author.
• The final decision must also come from someone other than the author.
• Every step is saved in a history that no project member can edit or delete.

So even at 7 PM before a pour, the change can be raised in seconds, and the right person can approve it from their phone. The work keeps moving, and the paperwork holds up later.

The bottom line

Speed on site matters, but not at the cost of control. Keep the person who asks, the person who checks and the person who decides separate, and your final account becomes a formality instead of a fight.

Ashwani Bhalla is the Founder of BuildRevu and Principal at AEAS Concept Project Management Services, Dubai.