Hold Points vs Witness Points: Release Protocol for Principals on Civil Projects
Two of the most misunderstood mechanisms in civil construction QA are the Hold Point and the Witness Point. On the surface they look similar — both require the contractor to notify the Principal before proceeding. In practice, the obligations they create are completely different.
Getting this wrong has real consequences. Missing a Hold Point release can mean work proceeds without authorisation. Treating every Witness Point as a formal approval step creates unnecessary administrative load and gives contractors grounds to claim delay.
This article sets out exactly what each mechanism requires — and what happens when things go wrong.
Hold Points: The Full Stop
A Hold Point is a contractual gate. Work cannot proceed past the specified point until the Principal has reviewed the submitted documents and formally authorised the release.
The process:
1. The contractor completes the preceding work
2. The contractor submits the required documents (test results, certificates, method statements, checklists)
3. The Principal reviews the submission
4. The Principal either releases the HP, directs further action, or requests additional information
5. Work may only proceed after release
The submission defines the clock. The review period — typically 5 working days unless specified otherwise in the contract — runs from receipt of a compliant submission. If the contractor submits incomplete or non-conforming documents, the Principal is entitled to return them without starting the review clock. This is a significant point: a submission that does not include all required documentation is not a valid HP submission and does not start the review period.
Does Releasing a Hold Point Transfer Risk?
Witness Points: A Notification Right, Not a Consent Gate
A Witness Point is fundamentally different from a Hold Point. The contractor gives the required advance notice. The Principal has the right to attend and witness. If the Principal does not attend within the specified timeframe, the contractor may proceed anyway.
There is no “release” for a Witness Point. The specifications use language like “process to be witnessed” with no equivalent of “authorising the release.” This is deliberate — a WP is a notification obligation, not a consent mechanism.
Practical implications:
– Log WP notifications as received with date and time
– Record whether you attended or not
– If you attend, make an inspection record
– If you identify deficiencies at a WP inspection, issue formal direction to address them — but the absence of direction does not constitute approval of the work
When Contractors Proceed Without Notifying
If the contractor proceeds past a Hold Point without obtaining release, the work that follows is in breach of contract. Options for the Principal:
- Direct the contractor to cease work pending HP release
- Require the contractor to provide evidence of conformance for the work carried out beyond the HP (tests, photos, inspection records)
- Issue an NCR and direct remediation where evidence of conformance cannot be established
If the contractor proceeds past a Witness Point without giving the required notice period, that is also a contract non-conformance. It deprives the Principal of a contractual right — the opportunity to witness — even though work was not held. Record it formally. On a project where pattern behaviour develops (consistently failing to notify for WPs), it becomes relevant to the overall assessment of the contractor’s QA system performance.
Practical Management Tips
For Hold Points:
– Always respond to HP submissions — even if the submission is incomplete, issue a formal return noting what is missing and stating the review clock has not started
– Keep a log of submission dates, return dates, and release dates — this is your protection if a contractor claims delay attributable to HP management
– Use clause-referenced release notices rather than informal email confirmations
For Witness Points:
– Attend where the activity is high-risk or where the contractor’s track record warrants closer scrutiny
– Document when you choose not to attend — this prevents misinterpretation that non-attendance equals approval
– If you find deficiencies at a WP inspection, issue a formal direction the same day — verbal feedback at a WP is not sufficient
ITP review article
QA tracker article
Based on TfNSW QA specification framework and GC21 General Conditions. Applicable to construct-only contracts. Project details are not disclosed.