Rank: New forum user
|
I wondered if anyone can clarify something for me?
I am CDMC and have just returned back from a pre start meeting, following discussions with the architect a couple of days ago I updated the F10 with a start date of 30/01/2012 for 21 week period.
I arrived at the school today to find the PC carrying out enabling works! I discussed with all at the meeting and expressed my concerns that this work is being carried out prior to the date given on the F10, the general feeling around the table was that it is not part of the main contract and shouldn't matter if carried out prior to notification of the main works.
I however tried to look at it objectivley and wondered how a HSE inspector would veiw this, should all works be carried out during notification period?
obviously this has been a lesson learned, I need to know if to ask the Architects if enabling works are required and notify earlier / or notify as normal and accept that enabling works are external to the main contract?
Your comments please
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Unless the enabling works are a totally seperate contract they should be notified on the current F10. Seems like you have an education task ahead.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Andrew, I concur with Bob, indeed the CDM regs state: “construction work” means the carrying out of any building, civil engineering or engineering construction work and includes—
(b) the preparation for an intended structure, including site clearance, exploration, investigation (but not site survey) and excavation, and the clearance or preparation of the site or structure for use or occupation at its conclusion;
(c) the assembly on site of prefabricated elements to form a structure or the disassembly on site of prefabricated elements which, immediately before such disassembly, formed a structure;
A structure is defined as:
(b) any formwork, falsework, scaffold or other structure designed or used to provide support or means of access during construction work,
So, if the enabling works form part of the project the PC is 'guilty as charged' in my book.
Ray
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Going slightly off track here, and I've posted similar query before but never received a suitable answer, but since we have people who appear to have an understanding of CDM here I thought it worth including this here.
If work is being carried out on a large premises, with multiple buildings, and involves several small pieces of work in different locations, which individually would not be notifiable but taken collectively would be, how do you support an argument that the work should be taken collectively as one project when PMs etc. want to treat them as separate works despite being under one contract (or is this perfectly acceptable)?.
Richard
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The legal term of 'proximity' applies here so the enabling works are part of the project as is the pulling down of the security fence that surrounds a site after a building is handed over!
These pre and post areas are almost always 'missed' out of people ideas and thoughts
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
These enabling works wouldn't be the provision of welfare?
There's an element of Catch22 in CDM, which may counter the "proximity" argument, with the Client & Contractor tasked with ensuring that adequate welfare provision is available at the start and throughout the Construction phase.
So the "Construction Phase" can't start until the welfare is established!!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Enabling works can mean many things; proximity in this case [in my view] would be any construction related activity connected with setting up site e.g. Erection of a security fence or the taking down of the security fence when the main job has finished
Time and again I find the enabling/decomissioning areas are very poorley managed even where the site, once surrounded by its fence, was well managed
Dropping off a welfare cabin may not come under proximity if it requires no construction works to get it up and running but if waste and other services require construction activities to be undertaken to get the welfare unit up and running then I would expect that the installation of welfare /removal of welfare is covered under the overall site management system
All the above does not mean anything in any case because the client still needs a management system under H&S law for dropping off a welfare unit prolixity or no proximity/ CDM or no CDM!
Have a good day
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.