Here too, from a lean perspective, though relying on a single |E*| value saves money, time and effort in
terms of conducting the SPT during the QA/QC process, it hinders the detection of potential “defects” (distresses) at
an early stage (during or shortly after construction) when corrective measures can be taken. As a result, detecting
any problem most likely occurs after the distresses appear, leading to premature rehabilitation and/or reconstruction
and their associated costs. When considering pay factors (incentives and penalties), relying on one |E*| will not result in reliable liability weighting. If relying on one value of |E*| for QA/QC under-predicts distresses, losses
resulting from the defected lots (premature rehabilitation) are shifted to the client although the contractor should be
held accountable. Whereas, if relying on one value of |E*| leads to an over-prediction of distresses, the contractor is
held accountable for an error that is non-existent or less severe than what is predicted.