ºÃÉ«ÏÈÉúTV

If you were one of the 1500 people at the ºÃÉ«ÏÈÉúTV Awards two weeks ago, you will know that the running gag of the evening was - surprise, surprise - Wembley. With football as the theme for the event, perhaps it was inevitable. But on an occasion celebrating the excellence of the industry, it was also depressing, and the wry laughter was becoming a little strained as yet another crack was made about when it might, or might not, be finished.

The unspoken fear, of course, was that if this has happened to Wembley, what on earth will happen to the Olympics? Even the most fervent Welshman would admit that we can't just move that one to Cardiff.

It may have been unspoken that evening, but it is, of course, exactly what every phone-in show and newspaper has been discussing with ill-disguised glee since Multiplex and the FA made their announcements. Someone seems to have declared open season on the UK's ability to deliver big projects, and all of its successes - the new Arsenal stadium, the Tate Modern and the London Eye, to name but three - are conveniently forgotten.

Most importantly, it is a reminder that London 2012 is as big a risk for the construction industry as it is an opportunity. There are the obvious challenges of the sheer size and unshiftable deadline. But what the past few weeks have reminded us of is that during every step of the construction process, this is a project that will be under a microscope so powerful it will make the media interest in the Millennium Dome look like a model of restraint.

My view - from outside the industry - is that it has made a good start. The need for an expert client has been responded to in the creation of the Olympic Delivery Authority. The political support is there, with all the key players - the prime minister, the chancellor, the London mayor - firmly on board. And there is real pride and excitement in the country as a whole, which should mean that whoever occupies those positions over the next six years has a fighting chance of securing the public consent to do whatever is needed to make it a success.

The industry is also showing every sign of stepping up to the plate, with the key players in the Strategic Forum and elsewhere focusing on the need to deliver excellence. There is just one thing that really worries me: not what they will build, but how they will build it.

This is a project that will be under a microscope so powerful it will make media interest in the Millennium Dome look like a model of restraint

I have no real doubt that the stadium will look stunning, the village will be a model of comfort and practicality and (okay, I do have my fingers crossed for this one) the transport systems will work. But that is not the only thing that will be written and talked about for the next six years. The microscope will be firmly focused on the process itself. Are the sites safe? Are the contractors about to sue each other? Is the workforce being properly treated? How is the environmental impact being managed? Every success will be feted, and every failure magnified.

So, here's the opportunity. Pick the things that really matter, make sure the industry already knows how to deliver most of them, and put them at the heart of this project. Much can be achieved by simple, clear messages from the client, so that every bidder knows - and prices - for what is required. Excellent facilities for the workforce. The highest standards of health and safety. Zero waste to landfill from the sites. Sustainable use of materials. Contractual structures that encourage the resolution rather than the escalation of disputes.

And should anyone be put off by that reference to pricing, don't be. All it means is that nobody should win a place on this project by planning to economise on any of the above. The best contractors know that safe, sustainable, well run sites are efficient sites, and efficiency means good value for the client.

Getting back to those phone-ins and newspaper articles, one of the more general debates about the Olympics is the balance between the event itself and the legacy it will leave. The trite and, in my view, correct answer, is to say we have to do both. And the same is true for the construction industry. Yes, it all has to look fabulous at the opening ceremony, but if it has been achieved at the cost of the environment, and the people and companies who build it, that is not good enough.

Incontrovertible proof of the UK's ability to deliver a massive construction project safely, sustainably and without serious disputes should be as much a part of the legacy of the Games as running tracks, and will last just as long.