Some developers and clients could simply pay lip service to the reforms of CDM 2015 by appointing “principal designers” from their pool of existing CDM coordinators and changing their designation, it’s been suggested.
Alternatively, clients could appoint their architects as Principal Designers on the undertanding that they will outsource the role to existing CDM coordinators.
The view from an experienced health and safety adviser comes as the HSE published the latest version of the revised regulations, due to be implemented from 6 April. As highlighted in Construction Manager, there will also be a “grace period” of six months for projects that are already underway up to 5 October.
The main change in comparison to CDM 2007 is the removal of the role of CDM coordinator, with the bulk of their duties now taken on by the principal designer.
But one amendment in the documents published last week compared to the consultation version is the introduction of an obligation for all duty holders (in Regulation 8) to ensure that principal designers, designers, principal contractors, and contractors have suitable “skills, knowledge and training” to take on their specific roles safely.
Other changes, as highlighted by the Association for Project Safety, the representative body for CDM-Cs, are:
- greater emphasis on the principal designer being in control of the pre-construction phase;
- clarification of default appointments on domestic projects and the contractor having to undertake the client duties;
- clarification of the client’s duty to provide pre-construction information;
- the explicit requirement for principal designers to advise and assist clients with the preparation of pre-construction information and management arrangements for health and safety.
But Steve Coppin MCIOB CFIOSH, partner and head of health and safety services at Rider Levitt Bucknall, says that many “educated” clients have advised him that they plan to simply utilise their existing CDM-Cs as “principal designers” rather than risk appointing a principal designer from the design team who isn’t up to the job.
Read related articles
HSE rethinks plan to drop Approved Code of Practice for CDM 2015 relaunch
“CDM 2015 is focused on the client getting a designer to fulfil the role of principal designer, but in my view around 15% of educated clients will use an existing CDM-C. The client is really up against it – they’ve got to ensure principal designers and principal contractors are capable of fulfilling their responsibilities for all work, including non-notifiable maintenance and repair,” said Coppin.
“The principal designer takes on 80% of the CDM-C’s role, as they don’t have to legally check the construction phase plan. But if the principal designer does not have the necessary skills, knowledge and experience – for instance, to collate pre-construction information, such as utilities surveys or asbestos reports – then the client is taking a chance and a big risk."
“Plus many architects are planning at the moment to outsource the CDM H&S coordination function of the principal designer role to existing CDM-Cs. So some clients do not want to take on the risk of using an architect that either isn’t up to the job, or will simply outsource the function.”
Asked whether it would be legally possible to appoint a “principal designer” who did not have any design qualifications, Coppin pointed out that the the HSE had not published a set of competencec criteria for the role, as seen with CDM 2007 for the CDM-C role. Instead the legal requirement was focused on their “skills, knowledge, experience and where necessary training” relevant to the project.
He added that clients operating frameworks that extend beyond April 2015 would either have to negotiate with their existing [framework] CDM-Cs about switching to the principal designer role, or go out to tender mid-framework. “If they’ve already got CDM-Cs on board, why take the risk of appointing someone who’s not capable? Why fix something when it works?”
And APS president, Richard Wilks, said: “Whilst the proposed regulations will remove the role of the CDM Coordinator (CDMC), the CDMC’s duties have been distributed between the client and the new principal designer. It is clear that, for the majority of commercial projects, the principal designer will need to have the skills, knowledge and experience of a CDM coordinator at their disposal if they are to discharge the role effectively and in accordance with the new regulations.”
The newly published documents also suggest that clients assess safety competence by looking for membership of the Safety Schemes in Procurement Scheme (SSIP) and/or assessing against PAS 91.
But Coppin predicted that this approach would still leave many clients relying on a range of well-established, third-party accreditation schemes – even though another thrust of CDM 2015 was to rein back the “competency industry” and prevent duplication of accredititation to satisfy different clients.
Last week, the CITB also published a suite of guidance documents targeted at specific duty holders – amounting to 78 pages in total – which will replace the 140-page Approved Code of Practice.
The HSE’s plan to produce a shorter “micro” ACOP, as previously highlighted in Construction Manager, has apparently been shelved until later this year.
I find it funny how the “big” architectural practices are relishing the challenge. The only ones relishing it are the ones who already provide CDM-C services as they believe there will be no competition in terms of the fee they can charge for the role.
I work for a lot of “big” practices who are all scrambling to appoint us as a sub consultant to help discharge their duties.
Alan, With regards to the Client he has been left for dead under the new regs with the other duties, however I am sure there is an opportunity here for existing CDM’s to pick up this and provide advice or indeed tag some of the Client duties onto any PD appointment.
I believe that a part of the reason for the reason for CDM update was also to reduce the cost of project to the client, it certainly has not done that in fact it has increased it considerably as the most design houses are charging much higher fees for the PD’s role in comparison with the old CDMc.
Would the solution for companies who are happy with their existing CDM-C’s not be just to change their CDM-C’s to Principal Designer
I can understand the point that ‘educated’ clients are looking to reduce some of the risk by shifting it to another party in the design team, but I can’t see it working exactly as you describe in your article.
Working for one of the top ten architectural practices in the UK [Stride Treglown] we certainly won’t be ducking the role and sub-contracting it out to existing CDM-C’s. Our organisation is looking forward to taking ownership of the role, as it clearly states the PD role must be undertaken by a designer on the project who is control of the design process. It also has a strict and simple definition of a designer. From my conversations with contacts at similar sized architectural firms, they are also welcoming the role.
The Principal Designer has to be a Designer and both roles are defined in the regulations. The Principal Designer is the Designer in control of the pre-construction phase that has been appointed by the Client. A Designer is any person who in the course or furtherance of a business prepares or modifies a design or arranges for or instructs any person under their control to do so.
They can be project managers, quantity surveys, clients and contractors as well as architects and consultant engineers. I believe this now excludes standalone CDM-C organisations.
Unfortunately not all Clients are the same and whilst the larger ones will be up to date with the regulations, the smaller clients, including now domestic clients, will still not have a clue what a Principal Designer is, just as they didn’t know what a CDMC or a Planning Supervisor was. They just see it as an extra cost on the job and think the contractor should just get on with it! Consequently I can foresee many jobs where the client actually runs the project himself being done without the appointment of a Principal Designer at all, even though it will be against the law. There are many now, so it will only get worse.
I do hope that the architectural practices are ready for the extra work involved because the whole subject seems to have been highjacked by them and no doubt a fair number of the existing CDMC’s will be out of work and drawing dole. Since 1997 I know of many architectural practices that have stopped doing the CDM work due to it being loss-making and consuming too much of their time instead of concentrating on actual design work.
As far as I am concerned the original 1994 legislation was more than adequate and it only needed the Planning Supervisor to be given more clout when he got to the site to enforce the health and safety law there and then. It is action that saves lives not mountains of paperwork in a file.
All in all it’s a bad day for health and safety on site.
I think the article has missed the mood of the commercial developer market and the large design practices. Those Designers with the “skills, knowledge and experience” are welcoming the role.
The RIBA did express concerns (during consultation) regarding their members ‘appetite’ to fulfill the PD role and suggested external help may be sought. Not sure how much of the new Regs are aimed at top 10 practices? Does the RIBA Plan of Work 2013 not call for a H&S consultant?
Q.Who helps the client comply with their (statutory) CDM 2015 duties (outside of PCI)?