The contractor, facing significant technical challenges and a lack of confirmed funding for necessary design changes and escalating costs, made a calculated decision to withdraw. From the client’s perspective, the challenge was equally daunting: faced with a contractor seeking potentially open-ended funding for complex, unconfirmed changes, the client’s appetite for funding revisions was absent precisely because the ultimate cost of what was “coming” was unconfirmed and potentially astronomical. In hindsight, an earlier, comprehensive Gate Review that acknowledged these geological complexities and proactively budgeted for extensive redesign or even a route change, despite initial delays and cost increases, might have been a strategically superior choice. Such an upfront investment could have avoided the current indefinite suspension, legal battles, and immense Reputational Damage.

It’s widely believed that designers, in an effort to minimize immediate project costs and time, resisted deeper exploration of expert comments and potential revisions. From the client’s (NHS Scotland’s) perspective, the initial delay and extra cost to thoroughly review, amend, and re-certify the design would have been negligible compared to the colossal post-commissioning remedial work, significant additional costs, and erosion of public trust that ensued. A rigorous Gate Review that forced a strategic pause to validate design integrity, even at the cost of immediate delay and budget adjustment, would have ultimately saved hundreds of millions and preserved the hospital’s reputation.