This is a great example of the issues caused by trying to deal with risk by transferring it down the supply chain.
V E N T I L A T I O N _ D E S I G N Who's responsible? Open question, based on a scenario and generic image. A ventilation manufacturer supplies an MVHR design layout based on the site drawings supplied by main contractor X. Main Contractor X who issues to subcontractor Y. Subcontractor Y puts the "design" out to it's ventilation installation subcontractors to price against. (Hopefully the Subcontractors are part of a CPS and completed the 2 day competence course. A course that doesn't cover design) Usually the lowest price wins and the parts are ordered as per manufacturers "design". Or only the ventilation unit is ordered and the ducting is ordered from elsewhere, who knows. The Subcontractor installs the system, commissions it to ADF and issues the commissioning sheet. The house is finished, signed off, handed over and sold. 6 months in the new home owners begin to suffer from condensation and mould. They call in an independent company who uncovers the design could not be followed due to site restrictions and other materials were used. This results in low air flows that contradict the ADF commissioning sheet. If the design would never work in reality, was it actually a design, or just a design idea / principle that someone else should check. If the design is just an idea from a manufacturer who may never step foot on site, and the subcontractor is on a CPS scheme (that doesn't cover design), are they responsible to ensure the design meets regulations. Or, should it be main contractor X ? Principle designer? who? Who's responsible??? I welcome your comments... #ventilation #design #mvhr #ducting
Stop, stop. Stop! Make ownership the keystone of Design, Engineer and Build. Key to that appointment is to transfer that capacity is to ensure competence, capacity and ability. Does it cost more to retain the responsibility with the original author, the responsible party? Is this a damning statement of delegating the responsibilities to another party to check compliance? The thread is required to be retained, so is any action shifting this responsibility? Delegation or derogation with a big risk! IMO
This is the problem with using design-build by default instead of using it only on repetitive types of construction and simple buildings. Profession designs and professional results go hand in hand.
Unfortunately it's down to what the contract says, and which riba stage your in. I always say ventilation should always be designed from concept and designed as vernacular when ever possible, but when mechanical is needed it should be undertaken at riba stage two, but if you are in a design and build contract then it will be redesigned by the contractor and their agent in riba stage 4 and the buck stops with them.
The BSA has scope to extend it's concerns on safety which could include healthy buildings as well as definition on the buildings that it covers. Then it's the PC as the AP surely at the time.
Some great comments here, thank you. Kelly Butler certainly alinging with our recent conversations.
Thanks for sharing,
Estates Records and Information Manager at Natural History Museum
2wYou can delegate responsibility but the risks associated with failure often cause the client to get caught in the repercussions one way or another.