Product compliance is the bedrock of structural integrity in construction. Australian and New Zealand standards exist to safeguard this, yet some suppliers exploit loopholes by falsifying documentation to feign compliance. This not only undermines industry standards but also puts public safety at risk.
According to Alex Sharp, senior engineer at Hobson Engineering, the root of the issue lies in flawed verification processes.
“In the past, it was clear who was following the standards – suppliers or importers doing the right thing had proper documentation, while those who were not couldn’t provide any,” says Sharp. “Since the National Construction Code (NCC) was updated in 2022, some non-compliant suppliers have adapted by falsifying test reports to appear compliant without actually meeting the requirements.”
A truly compliant product undergoes factory production control, with a manufacturer-issued test certificate proving it meets required standards. Given Australia’s reliance on imports, importers play a crucial role in verifying these certificates to prevent fraudulent documentation. Ideally, both the manufacturer and importer should issue certificates to confirm compliance.
However, some importers skirt the rules, conducting only minimal testing – just enough to appear compliant. A handful of selectively chosen tests may generate a seemingly valid certificate, but true compliance is more than just ticking boxes. Without robust verification, fraudulent practices at the manufacturing level can slip through undetected.
Related stories:
- Protecting fasteners from hydrogen embrittlement
- XCHEM adhesive anchoring systems certified for performance
- Applied Bolting and Hobson Engineering boost bolting confidence
The accountability gap
Distributors, who buy from importers and sell to end users, often assume compliance is someone else’s problem and believe blame can easily be shifted away from them. But compliance is a shared responsibility. Instead of focusing solely on price, distributors should push for stronger verification measures.
Cost pressures further complicate the issue. Correct testing, involving multiple tests and a minimum number of samples, can account for more than half of a product’s cost, creating a financial temptation to cut corners. Some distributors, knowingly or unknowingly, sell non-compliant products to stay competitive. When compliance issues surface during project audits, contractors end up footing the bill for rectifications.
“The updated NCC has tightened these standards, meaning distributors can no longer ignore compliance without consequences,” says Sharp.
“Currently, some smaller importers are attempting to offload non-compliant stock at lower prices, tempting distributors and customers. While distributors may attempt to avoid accountability, the risk of legal and financial repercussions is real. Put simply, distributors will be dragged into court and sued just as much as non-compliant importers.”
The true cost of cutting corners
Sharp highlights the risks of using non-compliant fasteners, with structural failure being the most extreme consequence.
“While it’s unlikely, its potential impact is extremely high – imagine it as the red zone on a risk matrix. But it’s not the only risk,” he says.
Beyond safety concerns, non-compliance also creates financial strain. Many Australian construction companies operate on tight margins, pricing projects based on fixed costs. Discovering non-compliant fasteners after installation can send budgets spiralling.
“The initial cost of installing compliant bolts correctly is generally predictable and manageable,” says Sharp. “However, the cost of rectification – having to replace non-compliant bolts – can be far higher and less predictable.”
With increased scrutiny from regulators and the wider industry, compliance is under the spotlight. Media coverage of construction failures has heightened pressure on contractors to uphold standards.
“Unfortunately, some distributors choose to sell non-compliant fasteners because they can secure a more competitive price,” says Sharp. “They may think they can avoid repercussions, but this approach often creates issues down the line. Increased regulatory oversight means that non-compliant importers and distributors have less place to hide than ever before.”
Catching compliance issues early
For engineers and project managers, ensuring compliance starts with early verification. Engineers specify products under the assumption that all standards will be met, but if compliance checks happen only after installation, rectifying issues becomes a logistical and financial burden.
“With some distributors selling lower-cost products that lack traceability or have questionable quality, engineers need to check compliance documentation before installation. Once products are in place, fixing non-compliance is a major challenge,” says Sharp.
“Verifying compliance while products are still in their packaging makes it easier to return non-compliant stock. Waiting until after installation can lead to rectification work.”
Setting a higher standard
As one of Australia’s largest wholesale fastener suppliers, Hobson Engineering ensures strict compliance through its enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, which provides full traceability from factory production to final sale.
“The manufacturer’s assembly test is a critical point of traceability. Without a proper assembly test at the factory – where individual bolts, nuts and washers are identified with a single, combined assembly trace number and K class – traceability would be compromised,” says Sharp.
“Once the factory confirms the product and assigns these identifiers, our system’s traceability capabilities ensure that each item can be tracked throughout the entire supply chain.”
Additionally, many of Hobson Engineering’s products feature a three-letter head marking from the place of manufacture, offering further assurance of origin. This enables traceability even after products have left their packaging.
To guarantee factory claims match reality, manufacturers must have an International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA), ensuring they meet stringent ISO/IEC 17025 standards. This globally recognised accreditation mandates strict auditing, proficiency testing and sample retention.
“We insist that our factories test products at ILAC-accredited labs for verified traceability and quality. Beyond that, we also conduct additional independent verification testing, separate from the factory. Even if a factory attempted fraud – though ILAC testing minimises this risk – our independent checks provide an additional safeguard,” says Sharp.
“Put simply, two separate test programs are conducted on all Hobson Engineering structural assemblies. Both test reports are available from Hobson Engineering.”
Tech tightening the compliance chain
Looking ahead, Sharp sees technology playing a role in reducing compliance issues through better documentation retention and traceability. Accurate record-keeping is essential for verifying compliance years after installation.
“In the future, there will likely be increased demand for long-term traceability. Customers may request detailed records on products they purchased years ago,” says Sharp.
“Companies with robust traceability and quality documentation systems will be able to provide this information quickly and accurately. In contrast, those relying on inadequate systems may struggle to meet these demands.”
Compliance over cost-cutting
While technology can aid compliance, Sharp believes the biggest shift will come from cultural change – ensuring every link in the supply chain takes responsibility.
“There’s still a mindset that if the person before or after has done their job correctly, then there’s no need to double-check one’s own part. The key change needed is shifting from a reactive approach to a proactive one,” says Sharp.
“Everyone – from purchasers to distributors to engineers – should focus on verifying compliance before work begins, rather than assuming that someone else has ensured everything is correct.”
Too often, projects completed years ago are now scrambling for documentation only after issues emerge. At that stage, it is too late to make changes.
“The key is asking the right questions: Does this test certificate actually verify compliance? Does verification testing meet AS/NZS 1252 Part 2 standards? Was testing done by an importer or at the factory? Are these legitimate traceability documents or just paperwork made to look official?” says Sharp.
“Hobson Engineering has championed these verification measures for 20 years, one decade before they became a requirement of the 2016 standard. Compliance should not be an afterthought – it must be an industry standard.”
With every link in the supply chain embracing these standards, Sharp believes Australian construction can reach new heights – and Hobson Engineering is more than ready to lead the charge.