Base Building–Automation Interface Misalignment
Slab and power gaps created widespread baseplate rework risk. We enforced interface ownership and protected delivery
- $240K+ saved on power scope
- Baseplate/anchor rework exposure contained and reassigned commercially
Slab Clashes, Power Gaps, and Commercial Reassignment
The Situation
During a greenfield 60,000 sqm automated DC build, two base-building to automation interface failures emerged in parallel, creating immediate commercial and schedule risk.
Power delivery gap
The automation system had been designed and costed from its distribution boards through to equipment, but responsibility for bringing mains power from the main building board to the automation distribution boards was not clearly allocated. A late subcontractor quote of $420K was issued to close the gap, placing the client at risk of absorbing scope that should have been defined and owned earlier
Slab, pit, and racking installation misalignment
Slab works, pits, and racking installation progressed without full alignment to the final automation layout and anchoring requirements. On a facility of this scale, even small dimensional or sequencing errors compound quickly because major racking lines can involve hundreds of baseplates and thousands of anchor points. The misalignment created widespread mechanical conflicts, including:
- Slab joint conflicts where major racking and automation equipment were to be anchored
- Reinforcement depth clashes with drilled anchors across racking baseplates and equipment fixings
- Penetrations and slab dimensions misaligned to baseplate requirements, forcing redesign and rework
- Knock-on impacts to anchor patterns, baseplates, and rack set-out, increasing re-engineering risk and downstream commissioning pressure
Although automation layouts and drawings had been issued well ahead of time, the interface was not governed tightly enough across trades. The result was a high-likelihood path to cost escalation, disputes, and schedule drag driven by rework across racking, anchoring, and services interfaces
Our Role
Engaged as Stream Lead and Superintendent, we stabilised the interface and converted a moving problem into a governed closeout. Our role included:
- Verifying upstream deliverables and issue records to confirm what had been issued, when, and to whom
- Coordinating technical and commercial stakeholders to trace the interface gap and establish responsibility boundaries across base build, racking, and automation scopes
- Securing a competitive power delivery scope at $180K to reduce immediate exposure and preserve momentum
- Applying AS4910 principles and commercial logic to validate entitlement, scope ownership, and closeout pathways
- Resetting sequencing and coordination routines to prevent recurrence across slab, pits, racking set-out, anchors, and services interfaces
The Outcome
The power delivery exposure was reduced by over 50%, with $240K+ saved against the initial cost position. Re-engineering and interface correction costs were assigned to the appropriate party rather than defaulting to the client. Installation sequencing was protected, racking and baseplate rework risk was contained, and downstream works continued without schedule slippage. Interface and coordination protocols were rewritten to reduce repeat risk.
Clarity Over Cost and Clash
This was not about blame. It was about accountability and controlled delivery. When base-building and automation interfaces are not governed in black and white, cost and time pressure forces poor commercial outcomes. We provided the technical traceability and contractual discipline needed to resolve the issue without escalation and without compromising progress.
Why It Mattered
Uncontrolled interface gaps create the most expensive failures in automated builds because they appear late, under time pressure, and with multiple parties in play. On large facilities, racking and anchoring misalignment escalates quickly into widespread rework, compounding cost and commissioning risk. Left unresolved, the client would have funded errors they did not create, putting budget, schedule, and trust at risk. By combining technical oversight with contract and governance fluency, we preserved delivery integrity and protected long-term working relationships. On builds of this scale, interface discipline is not optional. It is the difference between controlled delivery and reactive cost recovery.