CDMC's should be competent in all and any area of the particular contract that they are involved with at any one time re design and coordination. Alas in many many many cases they are not - but I must also note that there are some excellent CDMC's Many are cases are typical; 'you chose your CDMC and you get what you have chosen'. We should also note that between the designer, client and the PC there is a lot of interfacing and many many CDMC's are on the sidelines Sorry but I cannot be more helpful

Good Point. This is often not given the priority it should. The Client's multi-million pound is often very vulnerable to fire loss, and risk often increases as the Project progresses towards completion. It might be fair to say that CDM Regs have more of a focus on "people" issues as opposed to insured/uninsured losses? Should it be the CDM-C? It should be somebody in the Project Management Team, and I think it proper that the CDM-C air the issue at an early stage. I confess, I've never really looked at the insured loss aspects of construction Projects though.

Fire Risk should be a consideration for any building PCI. The PC should be responding with a response telling the Client how that risk will be managed across the Construction Phase. There should also be an expression and acceptance of any Client Rules (e.g. refurb project or project adjacent to occupied premises. The prompt already exists in the CDM ACoP - Appendix 2, section 2(a) (iv) but the context is too narrow. ("requirements relating to the health and safety of the client's employees or customers or those involved in the project....") All well and good, but the measures have to protect the structure too - particularly when unoccupied!