Question:- 100mm service water line is leaking. Call comes into request a repair. Repair is undertaken by a standby squad of 2 men. Assuming the squad do not have TM training and they have not got the right type of TW equipment... Is it reasonably practicable to appoint a Principal Designer for this reactive type activity/s where there is a need to employ more than one Contractor e.g. dig up squad, traffic management contractor, possible TW contractor, possible black top contractor?

Irrelevent? Interesting... Basically the point which i was trying unsuccessfully to get to was the fact that the PD role has to be appointed no matter for what type of situation regardless of size/ complexity just because there is more than 1 contractor. Reasonably Practicable comes out in because you have to think about these areas where time vrs risk and effort goes way beyond the point for these smaller jobs, to support the appointment of the post. Even the PD HSL meeting was struggling with this I believe

Sorry Ray. Your assumption is incorrect. I am the Client or Client Rep. Basically, you are saying, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, that i would have to treat reactive type activities as design and build?

Surprising enough Ray, I am very familiar with what the Regulations say and who is to appoint whom and when. It is the practical measures needed by large organisations needed to implement the Regs fully, that I am currently grappling with and practicable solutions to these areas is difficult to grasp. To appoint both roles of PC and PD under a simple D&B type but changed to R&M contract seems reasonable as long as they are fully aware under what circumstances these apply to.

Yes... A more measured approached indeed. Question of how to get the Contract T&C agreed is going to be interesting with the scope of PD upsetting even the biggest design houses making them run to check their insurances. It wouold be interesting to hear from others as to how they have approached this. I do know that some have now brought back their own design houses and restructured their organisations now.

Just wonder why the principles of repairs to services lines are not in place before any emergency or similar work is required. In which case the same plan with minor modifications are put in place as and when required. It seems to me that we are facing the interpretation problems of 1994 and 2007 again. Surely it is feasible to have a management plan prepared in some form of generic arrangements BEFORE there is a need. Even back in the 80s I had processes in place for emergency repairs. Including those contractors to be called upon.

The problem with CDM 2015 is that it does not distinguish between small works and larger projects - except where it is notifiable. I also think the scope of 'construction' related work is too wide and/or ill defined. Many people on this forum have decided to interpret the regulations to suit their purpose, by either applying some common sense or information gained via different sources, some of which cannot be substantiated. Here we are six months into the new regulations and still discussing the ramifications...I think that says more about the regulations and compliance than I can put into words.