THE CHANGING FACE OF CONSTRUCTION PRODUCT CERTIFICATION ROUND TABLE REVIEW 37
However, according to round table attendee Peter Caplehorn, chief executive of the Construction Products Association, the sector had made “huge progress” on product regulation, and was “moving the dial on confi rming and verifying what you have done. Although he did caveat this by saying that manufacturers could be divided into three categories; those who are “on the case,” those who are pretending they are making changes but who want to tread water,” and those who are happy to do what they have been doing for over 30 years. The round table being held in February came shortly before the overnment released its green paper setting out the consultation on improving the construction products testing framework, including minimum standards for third-party testing, new co-ordination between regulatory bodies, and clarifi ed accountability across the industry. The event was sponsored by two manufacturers keen to position themselves as thought leaders on this issue passive fi re protection specialist supplier Siderise, and waterproofi ng, roofi ng and insulation manufacturer Soprema, both of whom gave useful perspectives in the discussion.
GETTING A GRIP ON SAFETY Despite the potential benefi ts of a more robust process for vetting product certifi cation, concerns were expressed by Wates’ Nev runwald that the sector hadn’t got a grip on the uilding Safety Act, and that many in the industry thought it didn’t apply to them. The credibility of the uilding Safety egulator was also questioned its staff’s knowledge levels, a lack of direction on rincipal Designers’ remit, and a lack of predictability on how it was currently vetting projects. Some delegates expressed concerns that the S had already approved schemes which were not compliant.
ther key issues raised included ‘grey areas’ in contracts around products’ fi tness for purpose, and the need to test ‘systems’ of products as assemblies rather than just individual products, an increased requirement post-uilding Safety Act. The round table also heard that architects and housebuilders need to grow their understanding of product testing, and there was support for the increasingly popular ode for Construction Products Information, for assessing product information in the industry across a range of criteria. The event also saw comment on the industry research undertaken among architects by ADF in 2024, which revealed a range of views on the subject, and helped to drive a focus on specifi ers’
issues at the round table. While nearly half of architects surveyed said they had problems obtaining performance certifi cation info on products, a slightly lower fi gure 32 said they had diffi culties with getting purely safety- related info. owever, a large majority said that third party certifi cation on safety and performance was an essential requirement.
POTENTIAL FOR A CULTURE CHANGE The chair ames arker asked whether we are beginning to see the “culture change that ackitt called for happening yet in the industry, as the national regulator beds in with a mission to actively enforce construction products requirements. Amanda ong, E of td said that in terms of the industry change curve, it’s very early days. Nev runwald of Wates commented that trying to get the industry to engage in terms of general housebuilders on the building safety agenda and product certifi cation is probably further away than we would like.
The round table, which included former overnment onstruction Adviser aul Morrell himself, also looked at issues raised in his report, such as the potential for culture change in the industry. Architect Mark Taylor of Allies and Morrison agreed with Morrell there was a disconnect between architects and product testing, saying, The world of testing and the world of specifying and designing is two ends of a very long road. e added: Architects need to understand more about the context of the products they’re specifying, but this was a challenge for smaller practices and time-pressured architects.
Morrell cast doubt on the possibility of the overnment being able to change the culture of an industry as diverse and fragmented as construction. e agreed with the chair’s assertion that the driver which was likely to change behaviour fundamentally would be when an individual or fi rm is prosecuted, such as by the SS. epresenting SME builders as well as architects at design and build fi rm encil rick, was Sean McAlister who also sits on the ondon board of the Federation of Master uilders. e said the realisation that “all builders are going to be held responsible for specifi cations that the architects pass them, and that you can’t just rely on that for meeting safety requirements, that that’s really shaken the boots of everyone at the FM. McAlister said there were major challenges to achieving an unbroken ‘thread’ of information through projects, asserting that many don’t know how
to keep a record, and have to swap out products all the time. n addition he said that the information around the uilding Safety Act hasn’t been made for consumer consumption,” excluding homeowners, and that explaining new duties to clients was very diffi cult, given the complexity of the language. e said ’ve had to rewrite it in order to communicate it.
Nev runwald had criticism for manufacturers “in the middle” who ‘are not bothering, regarding a change of culture to more rigour in product certifi cation and testing he commented: we have let them get by for decades; we come up with another initiative and they say, ‘we’ve heard all this before.’ e added: ut it’s the law, it has to change contractors of every size have to stand fi rm.
Amanda ong summed up the ‘culture problem’ in construction, saying: The fundamentals of the culture change are about accountability, transparency, and responsibility. There are other sectors that embrace those more readily than this sector does. She added that on the client side, while there was evidence that some clients haven’t taken the time to understand and buy into the responsibilities they now have, the CCPI offered a “demand side pledge” enabling them to “show leadership and drive change. Peter Caplehorn suggested there were dangers to using prequalifi cations for project bids to ensure competencies and compliance under the new regime, warning that people don’t fully understand the principles of the SA, including architects. Amanda ong concurred: We have to be very careful that we don’t use things like ‘prequal’ to just assume that we can just tick that box. runwald however said while prequalifi cation was not the ideal route, it was a “good starter for 10,” as a systematic route to change, while standards and competence “have been driven by volunteers. ong countered that there was a risk that prequal could be misunderstood as the ‘be all and end all.’
UNSAFE DEFINITIONS aul Morrell offered a fairly damning critique of current and previous overnments’ responses to the issue, saying most of the questions in the review still haven’t been answered, but without them you can’t make all the other decisions. e said the industry, pre-renfell, had been trading on good luck. Morrell also said the notion of contractual ‘safety’ was problematic and subjective, meaning there’s no duty to design or build a ‘safe’ building, you
WWW.HBDONLINE.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 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
