Why a Protocol, Not Just an Inspection
Anyone can walk a building and come back with an opinion. The problem with an opinion is that it cannot be compared, cannot be audited, and cannot be aggregated across a portfolio of facilities. A client trying to prioritise scarce capital across twenty buildings does not need twenty opinions — they need twenty assessments scored the same way.
So the first thing we fix is the protocol: the same checklist, the same rating scale and the same evidence requirements applied to every building, by every engineer, regardless of who does the walkdown. That consistency is what lets the results add up to a defensible investment case.
“The test of a condition survey is not how detailed the notes are. It is whether a finance officer who never saw the building can rank it against the others and trust the ranking.”
This is also where many quick assessments fail: they capture rich detail on the building the engineer found most interesting, and thin detail on the rest. A protocol forces even coverage.
The Walkdown: What Gets Recorded
The field stage is a structured walkdown covering the building element by element, with each observation tied to a photograph and a location within the building. We record against four element groups:
- Structure — foundations, frame, slabs, beams and columns, with any visible cracking, deflection or corrosion noted and photographed.
- Building fabric — walls, roof, openings and finishes, and the water-ingress problems that drive most deterioration.
- Services — electrical, water and sanitation installations, and their safety and functional condition.
- Site & access — drainage, external works and the access and safety issues that affect whether the building can be used at all.
Every finding carries a photo with a timestamp and a location reference, so the report can be checked against the building later without a second visit.
From Observations to a Condition Rating
Raw observations become useful only when they are scored. We rate each element group on a defined condition scale — from sound, through serviceable-with-defects, to a level requiring urgent intervention — with written criteria for each band so two engineers reach the same rating from the same evidence.
1. Element Scores, Then a Building Score
Each element group is scored first; the overall building rating is built up from those, with structure and life-safety issues weighted so a serious structural problem cannot be averaged away by cosmetic items in good condition.
2. Severity and Urgency Are Separate
A defect can be severe but not urgent, or minor but urgent (a small problem that will fail an essential service). We record the two dimensions separately, because they drive different decisions — one drives budget size, the other drives sequencing.
3. Life-Safety Flags Override Everything
Any finding that poses an immediate risk to occupants is flagged separately and reported first, regardless of the building’s overall score. A client should never have to read to the end of a report to discover a building is unsafe to occupy.
The Investment Brief
The deliverable is not the survey — it is the brief built on it. For each building, the brief sets out the condition rating, the priority interventions, an order-of-magnitude cost band, and a recommended sequence. Across a portfolio, it lets a client see at a glance which buildings need urgent action, which can wait, and roughly what each will cost.
That is the document a client takes into a budget meeting. The survey behind it is the evidence; the brief is the decision tool.
What We Are Deliberately Not Claiming
To be explicit: a condition survey is a visual and structured assessment, not a destructive or laboratory investigation. Where a finding needs intrusive testing or detailed structural analysis to size properly, we say so in the brief and scope it as a follow-on — rather than implying a level of certainty the walkdown cannot support.
That posture — rigorous on method, clear about limits — is what makes the brief usable. A client is better served by a clear “this needs further investigation” than by a confident number the survey could not actually justify.
What Comes Next
Where a portfolio of buildings is surveyed the same way, the briefs combine into a capital-planning view across the whole estate — the first time many institutions have been able to see their buildings ranked on a common basis. From there, the engineering team can take priority buildings into detailed design and supervision where the client needs that.
If you are a Somali institution with a portfolio of buildings to assess and would like the longer methodological note, get in touch via the contact page.
