DMDC Project Management · A published finding

We rejected our own joinery
before it left the factory.

A real inspection finding, raised by DMDC Project Management against DMDC Woodworks. The client and the address are withheld. Nothing else is.

The short answer

A batch of column cladding failed inspection at our own workshop. It never went on a lorry, never reached the villa, and never became the client’s problem. This is what we pay a separate company to do.

Inspection finding · redacted for publication

Raised byDMDC Project Management — internally funded, reporting to the founder
Raised againstDMDC Woodworks — a company within the same group
ProjectA villa under renovation at Golf Place 2, Dubai Hills Estate. Client and plot withheld.
ElementColumn cladding — manufactured joinery, workshop stage
StagePre-delivery inspection at the manufacturing facility, Dubai Industrial City
Reference & datePM‑V239‑J06 · May 2026

Finding

The column cladding presented for delivery did not meet the standard set for the project. The batch was rejected at the factory and did not leave it. Delivery to site was stopped before it was loaded.

Action

DMDC Woodworks remade the affected sections and re-presented them for inspection. The cost of remaking sat with DMDC Woodworks, not with the client, because the fault was ours.

Disclosure

The finding was issued to the client. Not summarised, not mentioned in a meeting — issued, in writing, as a finding against one of our own companies, at the time it was raised.

Why a finding like this is worth publishing.

Every contractor in Dubai will tell you it has quality control. Almost none will show you a case where its own work was refused, because the incentive runs the other way: the company that inspects is usually the company being paid.

Ours is not. DMDC Project Management is funded by the group and reports to the founder rather than to the site. It treats DMDC Contracting, DMDC Design & Architecture, DMDC Woodworks and DMDC Estates as third parties, and it can hold a stage closed against our own programme. When it does, the client is told.

The useful part of this particular finding is where it happened. Cladding rejected at the factory costs a fortnight in the workshop. The same cladding rejected on site costs a fortnight, a delivery, a part-built column, and a conversation with an owner who has already seen it. The point of inspecting before the lorry is loaded is that the client never has to hear about it — and then, because we publish, they do anyway.

One specimen is not a record. It is an example of the mechanism, published so the claim can be checked against something real rather than believed.

Ask any contractor to show you
a finding against themselves.

It is a fair question to put to us, and to whoever else you are considering.

Begin a private brief