It is not unusual for Clients to transfer PD responsibilites to the PC on a Design and Build project, but not common on traditionally procured Design, then Build schemes.

I agree with the above posts. Assuming there is a design input, which given the project there must be, then the main designer should be appointed the Principal Designer. It is unlikely you would have the necessary skills, etc, to take on this role anyway - therefore you could be in breach of the regulations if you did.

The trouble with this argument is that if you are D&B contractor, then no-one else is actually going to be in control of the project. That is, the D&B contractor IS the party that is in control of the project, and is the party that will be managing and coordinating the design process. I think it's quite difficult to argue that a DESIGN and build contractor who is the only direct appointment by the client is not in control of the design of the project. If the client appoints a subbie to the D&B contractor to be the PD, is the D&B contractor going to accept the instructions of its own subbie? How does that work, contractually? This also requires the client to operate two contracts and two intertwined appointments. The law requires someone to be appointed to plan, manage and monitor the pre-construction phase, and so far as the client is concerned they have appointed a single party to plan, manage and actually do everything (both design and build), so why wouldn't that party be the PD?

Where a D+B contractor is the PC, but a Specialist Consultant is engaged by the Client (from initial design onwards) to: generate the specification and ensure the design meets the Client / Consultant's specification, and direct the D+B Contractor in terms of design changes (influencing safety and health elements along the way), then who is the PD (Consultant or D+B Contractor)? Simon