Introduction
The Building Safety Act (BSA) came into force in England and Wales in October this year. This new legislation directly results from the findings published within the Hackitt report and represents the most significant reform in the construction industry for decades. So, what is it? And how might it impact designers and contractors for specific disciplines like mechanical and electrical services?
Not just for HRBs
Let’s be clear: the BSA is not just for what are now termed higher-risk buildings (HRBs). Neither is it just about fire engineering or problems with cladding. This legislation has ramifications for all construction, with enhanced regulation for HRBs.
HRBs are defined as buildings of at least 18 metres or seven storeys high that include at least two residential units (in Wales, only one residential unit applies). HRBs within the Act’s scope can be mixed-residential but exclude secure residential institutions, hotels, and some military facilities. Care homes and healthcare facilities meeting the height criteria are also in scope.
What types of M&E works fall in scope for HRBs?
In many ways, the answer to this is simple: for new HRBs, the work is always in scope. On existing HRBs, a whole range of project types may fall in scope, in line with those set out in the Building Regulations 2010. M&E-oriented works on existing HRBs, such as plant replacements, may be incorrectly assumed to be outside scope. All clients should clearly understand works considered to be within scope before proceeding.
Here to stay
To anyone speculating that the Act is either a fad or unlikely ever to be enforced, consider that this legislation was several years in the making. Know also that the government has set up a new Building Safety Regulator operating from the Health and Safety Executive office. There should be no doubt that this legislation is here to stay. Moreover, non-compliance consequences can range from project delays to civil and criminal prosecution.
Cultural change
When the Hackitt report plotted out the now infamous ‘web of blame’ for the Grenfell Tower disaster, it was evident that the construction industry required a wholesale cultural change. At a fundamental level, the Building Safety Act seeks to encourage all parties to demonstrate compliance with the legislation up front. This is a sea change compared to current sign-off processes like building control, where some non-compliant work can inevitably be missed. The capacity for designers and contractors to seek refuge behind sign-off paperwork where a later defect becomes apparent is now greatly diminished. The legislation puts an onus on all parties to do the right thing and then demonstrate it up front. This ethos is not just applicable to HRBs, and while it may take longer to filter completely through to non-HRB projects, the culture change is inevitable.
Early design engagement and collaboration
From a design perspective, there is a clear requirement for more collaborative working. For HRBs, the gateways represent a significant portion of the construction programme, for which poor or insufficient submitted information could result in crippling delays. In all construction projects, the lines of communication between different disciplines need to be straightforward to ensure comprehensive designs by eliminating potential ‘no-man’s land’ issues where gaps in interfacing designs exist. This likely means more time allocated for design work in general, where key design deliverables will be scrutinized far more than in the past.
For specialist contractors of all types, early engagement between them and the design team will have significant benefits. Stronger relationships between designers and competent contractors can be forged in the wake of necessary good practice, filtering through the cracks of the construction industry.
Verification
Verification is more than just a buzzword in construction. Even before the Building Safety Act, clients, specifiers and contractors have generally increased their demands for verification that construction work meets the required design, installation, inspection and testing standards. The BSA now puts a legal onus on all parties involved with HRB projects, which impacts all building-type work through enhanced requirements for principal designer and principal contractor roles, specifically for building safety.
Competency
The Hackitt report identified deficiencies in competency as one of the root causes leading to the Grenfell Tower disaster. The Building Safety Act requires clients to demonstrate their satisfaction that the principal designer and principal contractor are competent to fulfil their roles in the project via a signed and evidenced competence declaration. The responsibility for competence applies to all building works under the Building Regulations. Designers using NBS Chorus have numerous opportunities to specify competency requirements through various clauses and associated guidance.
Contractor quality assurance
Building services installation work is generally the subject of rigorous testing and commissioning. Additionally, services are often concealed by other building structures, such as ceilings, walls and floors with sometimes limited access.
For many years, building services contractors and their supply chain have operated their own quality plans to varying degrees. Larger, national-scale contractors have tended to have more developed quality plans, which may include a wide array of testing, inspection and sign-off forms, as well as extensive photographic records of work on their projects. In the past, some main contractors may have considered this level of construction-phase records from their subcontractors as a useful ‘nice-to-have’, or perhaps even dismissed it from a contractual point of view. The new responsibilities for the principal contractor under the BSA make collecting these types of records essential.
Building services contractors who regularly service main contractors as a part of their yearly order book (and the rest of their subsequent supply chain) will also ultimately be required to provide extensive detailed information about their works. Clear requirements for enhanced record-keeping will undoubtedly be set out within Preliminaries and Project Management sections of specifications and, as such, will form part of the subcontract orders’ requirements. The better building services contractors (and their specialist subcontractors) will seek to do this well for compliance purposes and to set themselves apart from their competitors.
Fire dampers – a classic example
While there are many examples of building services where cohesion between designers, main contractors and their supply chain is essential, the example of fire dampers is a particularly useful one. During design, the building services consultant engineers must clearly understand the fire strategy when producing design information for a building’s ventilation. Ideally, this is a two-way conversation that factors in any spatial limitations imposed on fire dampers by the testing method. Before installation, building services contractors must procure the correct products in line with the specification and, in many cases, coordinate services to ensure future accessibility to them for commissioning and maintenance.
The installation phase is critical; key communication between multiple interfacing trades, usually under the remit of the principal contractor, must happen. The building services contractor must convey the manufacturer’s requirements for damper installation to trades building the walls (generally dry-liners or blockwork contractors) to establish the correct opening size and any structural requirements for damper fixing. They must also liaise with the fire-stopping contractor to establish how their works interface with the damper installation. To get things right, designers and principal contractors may insist on providing builders’ work drawings and implementing mock-up damper installations as a part of their verification processes.
Dampers are required to be inspected, tested and signed off as a part of the handover procedure. They should be labelled with a unique reference number and display the inspection date. Dampers should then be inspected annually by the building owner or facilities management contractor for their integrity and correct operation.
The design, installation, inspection, and maintenance of passive fire protection methods such as this demonstrate the need for greater collaboration. They also demonstrate the necessity of maintaining the ‘golden thread’ from the designer to the building operator.
Wariness around substitution and sign-offs
In many circles, the terms ‘substitution’ and, in particular, ‘value engineering’ have become dirty words, not least in the Hackitt report, where value engineering was termed ‘neither value nor engineering’. There is a place for these activities in the industry when they are managed and adequately reviewed by competent individuals as a part of a robust change control process. However, there is an anticipated increased wariness to the acceptance of product substitution generally. For HRBs, the onerous nature of passing through the three gateways, plus any potential requirements to resubmit design information via a change control application, represent possible costly delays. Delay risks, plus penalties and liabilities for getting it wrong, may temper enthusiasm for substitution and make any projected savings look like a false economy to all parties involved. Designers presented with technical submissions for substitute products may also have a logical argument to decline them because of the increased time and multi-disciplinary design effort invested under the new legislation.
Towards the completion phase of projects, the BSA imposes an increased onus on construction professionals to sign off critical parts of the project. Verified compliance in installation, testing and commissioning work must be signed off by competent persons and retained as part of the project handover information. Sign-offs impose responsibility both at company and individual levels that could be scrutinized retrospectively under law should significant safety-related defects come to light. Professionals required to verify work via sign-offs may wish to establish greater certainty of compliance before doing so.
Summary
While the Building Safety Act represents a big shake-up in the construction industry, in many ways, the BSA is reinforcing what is already present within the Building Regulations. The main differences are associated with fixing the failings underlined in the Hackitt report. Clients, designers and contractors must consider several key areas of improvement and how they evidence them as a part of the ‘golden thread’. In summary, these are:
- Increasing competency.
- A greater understanding of construction products.
- Preventing unchecked design changes.
- Improved communication that maintains the ‘golden thread’.
Companies and individuals capable of addressing these issues by implementing policies and, more importantly, behaviours that ensure compliance with the Act should thrive. Others unwilling or unable to comply may find this new landscape more difficult to navigate.
More on the Building Safety Act
NBS has several articles providing more information on the Building Safety Act. These include:
