THE CHANGING FACE OF CONSTRUCTION PRODUCT CERTIFICATION ROUND TABLE REVIEW 27


Nev Grunwald said there were persistent challenges in the supply


chain: “We are being overly kind to the ‘laggards.’ He cited one “large manufacturer of facade components” who was pushing back against changes to bring more rigour in testing, and who had an “absolute belief there was no requirement for change in specifi cation testing.” He added that Wates was “changing the way we deal with our supply chain because of the issues we are fi nding; getting our arms around the lot, because there are holes in the testing standards.” He asserted that project supply chains “should be acting as a team, not as combatants.”


CCPI & standardisation The CCPI is a voluntary, independent code for vetting product information, including 11 points under key criteria to ensure that information is “clear, accurate, up-to-date, accessible and unambiguous.” A growing number of manufacturers are signing up, plus some Tier 1 contractors. Amanda Long said that even though the CCPI was currently at the stage of working with “early adopter” manufacturers, who were “willing and confi dent,” even among these fi rms there were “differences between what is in the certifi cation and the claims that are being made.”


Paul Morrell said that as a general principle on testing, “we should work out product by product, industry by industry, when and what we should test, and why.” He added: “We will start working these things out for ourselves, if our duties are clear.” Delegates said that some standardisation of product certifi cation would be ideal, though potentially hard to achieve; Mike Vaczi, technical director at the round table’s co-sponsor Soprema, commented: “Standardised details would be the dream scenario.” Tony Ryan of Siderise concurred that standardisation for different product sectors was “key,” however cautioned that there was a “lack of designated standards for safety critical products.”


Systems thinking


One of the key problems which has led to a “disconnect around trust in the industry” – said Bryan Cowey of SpecStudio – is that products have been tested and certifi ed as fi t for purpose as single items, but not as systems assembled in individual site conditions; given the allied complexities this causes. However, this level of rigour is what is required in order to provide a fully robust system, according to attendees; others proposed the approach of a system of ‘templates’ to more effi ciently cover a range of scenarios. Amanda Long agreed that there is “going to be more demand for testing of systems,” and pondered whether more guidance on “bringing together tested systems” could be provided. Tony Ryan agreed that it was “totally impractical to test every single detail within every single project.” Paul Morrell’s view was that while systems testing had improved immensely, “the question is, what are you trying to fi nd out; you can never test everything.” Attendees focused on some of the practical issues around testing and certifying products and systems to create performance standards in common situations not covered by laboratory testing, or where they sit in interfaces with other materials in the building envelope. Mark Taylor of Allies and Morrison gave a critical example:


“Testing takes place between two pieces of concrete, particularly cavity barriers. This is one of our great problems.” To try and address such issues he advocated “leadership from a single body, whether it be the Government or Construction Leadership Council


ADF APRIL 2025


or whoever, to fi nd a way of fast tracking new GB standards.” Taylor also highlighted the issue of the UK still “relying” on EU Commission Decisions around some aspects of materials fi re safety, without testing. “Some of these decisions are 25 years old; they’re outdated.” He said the Government could write modifi ed UK versions of the Commission Decisions to allow industry to fast track aspects of construction “without the need for additional testing.”


Sponsors’ questions Siderise’s Tony Ryan proposed a key question to the round table: “How are life safety critical product manufacturers supporting design and specifi cation teams in understanding the complexities of product testing and certifi cation?” Nev Grunwald praised Siderise for being one fi rm that was “proactive” when it comes to testing, with a “supportive” approach “when we get to the diffi cult details.” However, he said that there were “holes in testing” for many building details, meaning that teams “lean on [guidance] which isn’t applicable,” and even “make up the rules as we go along.” Grunwald admitted that in order to “industrialise the roll out of standards for new tests” would require “people around the table who are all altruistic, which is diffi cult.” On behalf of co-sponsor Soprema, Mike Vaczi asked the group – in the light of the new safety regulators now being implemented – “how sure can we be as manufacturers the regulators will have the right knowledge and experience e.g. to understand fi re test reports, updated Building Regulations, and BBA certifi cates?” Vaczi cited a worrying example of a regulator approving an application from another manufacturer that wasn’t compliant. Paul Morrell responded by saying “I wonder what will happen when the fi rst building which has gone through the new gateway process suffers a catastrophic fi re,” adding that the Grenfell inquiry had recommended expanding the defi nitions of Higher Risk Buildings to “almost any complex building.” He said he thought the result would be “the Government putting the burden back to industry,” due to the complexity of the challenge. However, Nev Grunwald said that while it was unreasonable to expect civil servants to have the necessary knowledge, “we still


PUTTING ARMS AROUND SUPPLY CHAINS Wates’ Nev Grunwald: “We are changing the way we are dealing with our supply chain because of the holes in testing standards; putting our arms around the whole thing”


WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68