Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error
Principal Contractor vs Principal Contractor
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Previous Topic Next Topic
firesafety101  
#1 Posted : 17 May 2015 13:08:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101
Same old thing happening - a PC on a new site, retail units going up and being completed, one unit handed over to new client who appoints a PC to carry out the shop fit.

All good so far.

The PC appointed to carry out the shop fit has to access his site through the initial PC's larger site, they are still doing groundworks, car park etc.

New PC has been required by the initial PC to hand over all his H&S documents relating to the shop fit. He is not happy because some of the documents are being criticised and he is being asked to improve them.

IMO he has no responsibility to do this, only to ensure the safety of the new PC's personnel who access their site through the main site.

Further, the CDM Consultant who was previously the CDM C for the client and is now operating for the Principal Designer, is still requiring the PC to provide his CPP for review. No requirement for this in the new CDM regs.

Very frustrating for those of who 'think' we know the new regs.

Back to top
ashleywillson  
#2 Posted : 18 May 2015 08:42:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
ashleywillson
FireSafety101 wrote:

IMO he has no responsibility to do this, only to ensure the safety of the new PC's personnel who access their site through the main site.


Agreed.

The old PC may want to induct the new PC which would be reasonable but as the new PC is not carrying out works for the old PC, the new PC is not required to show the old PC his RAMS.

FireSafety101 wrote:

Further, the CDM Consultant who was previously the CDM C for the client and is now operating for the Principal Designer, is still requiring the PC to provide his CPP for review. No requirement for this in the new CDM regs.


This bit has interested me too. Do you mean he is not required to produce his CPP for review (which I agree with!) or is there something else I have missed in the new regs?
Back to top
firesafety101  
#3 Posted : 18 May 2015 09:38:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101
Thanks Ashley, both confirm my thoughts.

Nothing missed, there is no requirement to have CPP reviewed any more.
Back to top
Alfasev  
#4 Posted : 18 May 2015 09:39:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Alfasev
Although I agree the CPP has not got to be reviewed by the PD/CDM-C what you may find is that the client is still asking/expecting it to happen. One way to ensure initial compliance with regulation 6 is for the Client to review the CPP.

With regards the interaction between the two PC I believe this largely depends on how independent the shop fit is and the hazards and risks presented. The fit-out PC has to provide access to their RAMS and discuss/agree coordination. The initial PC can ask for clarification or minor amendment to fit in with their site procedure if they have good reasons to do so, for example unloading deliveries and fire risk. They cannot just criticise them and have no say regarding risks wholly in the shop fit out, for example electrical and wood dust.

However I do understand the initial PC worries and I would want reassurance that the shop fit out will act as another separate site.
Back to top
johnb  
#5 Posted : 18 May 2015 09:40:08(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
johnb
The client must ensure the plan adequately addresses the arrangements for managing risk. If he does not review the CPP how will he know that the CPP manages the risks on site.

Above taken from the guidance L153

Johnb

Back to top
Stedman  
#6 Posted : 18 May 2015 09:50:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Stedman
One site, one F10, one PC, one CPP rule. If the fit outs of the units fall within the scope of the previous F10, then the original PC should include this work within their CPP.

One PC cannot supervise the work of another PC!

Looking at pages 30 to 34 of L153 (Duties of a Principal Designer), I cannot see any requirement for CPP Review.
Back to top
cobblers  
#7 Posted : 18 May 2015 09:59:02(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
cobblers
The PC should review, revise and amend. Also, there is no requirement for the PD to receive RAMS but I have been asked for them. I wonder if they will sit in the dock with me if they ever come into question?
Back to top
achrn  
#8 Posted : 18 May 2015 10:40:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn
Stedman wrote:
One site, one F10, one PC, one CPP rule. If the fit outs of the units fall within the scope of the previous F10, then the original PC should include this work within their CPP.

One PC cannot supervise the work of another PC!


In the account given, it is a different client and a different appointment, which would make it a different project. So it can have a different PC, since they are then adjacent sites, not one site.

That, at least, was my understanding of teh scenario set out.

If the original F10 included fitout, it simply needs an amendment filing.
Back to top
firesafety101  
#9 Posted : 18 May 2015 10:59:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101
To clarify, new project with F10 for the shop fit but access through the initial site.

I have discussed with the PD and his CDM Consultant the issue of reviewing the CPP and they agree the wording would create some objections. There have been other PCs asking about this before me. They agree a change in wording would be best but still require to see the CPP.

Thanks for the input, I see the CDM 2015 is creating some interesting viewpoints.
Back to top
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
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.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2025, Yet Another Forum.NET