News

Law No. 135/2025/QH15 is often summarized with one attractive message: procedures are leaner and project entry appears easier. For construction businesses, however, the decisive shift is not “less paperwork.” It is a transfer of accountability into the company’s own operating system. As some external administrative layers are simplified, the burden of proving correct project classification, technical-document alignment, and execution discipline at site level becomes heavier.

So the right executive question is not “how do we cut internal controls quickly,” but “how do we redesign controls so they stay lawful, fast, and defensible under post-review.” This article addresses that question from a contractor’s operating perspective: legal-obligation classification, internal approval flow, and practical risk locks across legal, engineering, procurement, and site delivery.

The risk has moved: from government counters to internal classification and governance

Under the old reflex, many firms focused on assembling a complete submission file and waiting for administrative feedback. In the new context, some external steps may be reduced, but companies can no longer run on trial-and-error filing habits. The center of gravity is early-stage project understanding: scale, functional nature, environmental footprint, planning interfaces, and cross-discipline dependencies.

If that classification is wrong in week one, downstream decisions drift: design assumptions miss legal boundaries, procurement plans diverge from approval logic, subcontract terms fail to allocate evidence duties, and acceptance records become vulnerable. The most dangerous aspect is timing—this error often stays invisible until a critical milestone or later inspection exposes the gap.

Why construction firms misread the “simplification” signal

The first common error is equating reduced procedures with reduced responsibility. Regulation may lower administrative friction while preserving full obligations on technical compliance, quality assurance, safety, and document traceability. Without clear internal communication, project teams interpret simplification as permission to remove safeguards at the exact points where legal and commercial risk is now concentrated.

The second error is forcing one rigid process template across all projects. It feels safe but creates overload: smaller projects carry unnecessary bureaucracy, while complex projects are diluted into average forms that miss their specific risk profile. Teams then optimize for internal sign-off rather than meaningful control.

The third error is KPI distortion. If incentives reward only early mobilization speed or contract volume, functions will naturally mute legal-engineering warnings. Short-term wins are purchased with long-tail disputes: redesign cost, variation claims, acceptance friction, and avoidable client conflict.

Three recurrent breakpoints across legal, engineering, and site execution

The first breakpoint is the legal-to-engineering handoff. Many firms produce legally sound conclusions but fail to convert them into executable technical requirements. A boundary condition or functional constraint is omitted from the design brief, and major rework arrives later when drawings are already integrated with schedule and cost commitments.

The second breakpoint is design-to-procurement translation. If BOQ logic, material standards, and acceptance criteria are not synchronized with initial legal assumptions, procurement may optimize for short-term price while undermining evidence quality needed for testing and acceptance stages.

The third breakpoint is site execution versus document control. Site teams may resolve technical problems pragmatically, but without structured logs, RFIs, approved change records, and as-built evidence, the company loses its ability to defend decisions during disputes, audits, or compliance reviews.

Three field scenarios that separate proactive firms from reactive ones

Scenario one: a medium-sized factory project must break ground quickly to meet an order pipeline. Reactive firms skip an integrated checkpoint across architecture, fire safety, and infrastructure assumptions, then absorb repeated redesign after procurement is locked. Proactive firms run a legal-technical gate before issuing construction drawings, with each discipline explicitly confirming legal conditions tied to its scope.

Scenario two: a building project with multiple MEP subcontractors. If subcontract terms do not tightly bind certificate submission and testing documentation, risk accumulates at main-contractor level during acceptance. Strong operators tie evidence deliverables to each payment milestone, making compliance a cashflow condition rather than a late-stage request.

Scenario three: retrofit work in a live facility. Reactive teams rely on verbal site agreements to preserve schedule, but decision traceability collapses. Proactive teams apply short-form RFI protocols, strict response windows, and zone-based digital evidence repositories so each change can be traced to a responsible approval.

Redesigning governance: fewer gates, higher-value gates

An effective model does not require many approval layers; it requires the right stop points. In practice, three gates are often sufficient: legal-obligation classification before project commitment, design-procurement alignment before issue-for-construction, and evidence-readiness checks before acceptance milestones. Each gate should use a compact set of high-impact criteria mapped to named accountable roles.

These gates must sit on a shared cross-functional responsibility matrix. Legal cannot only “issue opinions,” engineering cannot only “draw correctly,” and project management cannot only “chase schedule.” All three functions need a common, version-controlled legal-technical assumption set, with clear records of who proposed changes, who approved them, and what cost-time-quality impact followed.

If the company already uses ERP or DMS platforms, this is the right moment to standardize document taxonomy: file codes, package identifiers, issue milestones, and validity status. This is not clerical housekeeping; it is the backbone of fast internal audits and defensible regulator responses.

Building people capability: from checklist completion to evidence-based decisions

Legal change only becomes operational change when people capability evolves with it. Training should be scenario-based and cross-functional, not clause-by-clause classroom theory. Strong sessions simulate real decision chains: client request intake, obligation classification, design freeze logic, procurement conditioning, field-change handling, and acceptance documentation.

Within that chain, each role needs explicit non-negotiables. Site leadership must know what evidence must exist before authorizing sensitive works. Procurement teams must know which supplier documents are mandatory at RFQ stage to avoid late-cycle certification gaps. Legal teams must know where early intervention has greater value than post-fact commentary.

Performance systems should also shift. Alongside schedule and margin KPIs, firms should track document quality, rework attributable to early misclassification, and RFI response cycle time. Behavior follows measurement; measurement must reflect compliant delivery, not only fast mobilization.

A practical 90-day roadmap for substantive implementation

Days 1-30 should focus on diagnostic mapping: review active projects, build a risk map by project type, and identify the top three cost-driving failure points in current legal-technical flow. The goal is precision, not procedural inflation.

Days 31-60 are for controlled pilots on representative projects. Deploy the simplified three-gate governance, enforce structured RFI/change-record protocols, and embed evidence duties into subcontract administration. Leadership should monitor a concise dashboard: issue volume, decision latency, and schedule impact.

Days 61-90 should institutionalize what worked: finalize tested process versions, issue minimum viable templates, retrain teams on real project cases, and integrate updated KPIs into quarterly evaluation. Done properly, the company becomes faster than the old system while remaining resilient under legal scrutiny and handover pressure.

What remains decisive: execution discipline as the true competitive edge

Law No. 135/2025/QH15 can reduce procedural friction, but it does not automatically produce competitive advantage. Advantage appears only when legal change is translated into an internal operating system with explicit accountability, reliable evidence, and disciplined decision points. Firms that do this well mobilize faster without sacrificing control; firms that do it superficially absorb the cost through corrections and trust erosion.

In construction, credibility is not built by compliance claims; it is built by delivering to standard, to commitment, and with records that can withstand scrutiny at any moment. That is why the central management challenge now is not “more procedure or less procedure,” but “the necessary procedures, at the right moment, owned by the right people.”