Under regulation 5 of CDM 15 the Client has to appoint a Principal Designer in writing, however we are now commonly coming across contracts where the Principal Contractor is being told that they will fulfil the role of PD as part of the contract, is this classed as being appointed in writing because if we asked this clause to be removed we seem not to win the contract. Your thoughts would be appreciated as I feel this is not the way that CDM 15 wanted the role to be appointed. Regards PaulR

There are many Principal Contractors that are also able to undertake the Principal Designer role (e.g. D&B contracts) - they are managing the design process. If the Client wishes to appoint a party to undertake both roles - it is their prerogative. What the Client needs to do is makes sure whoever they appoint has the appropriate competence (skills, knowledge, experience and organisational capability). If the Client fails to make the appropriate checks than they can be held to account - however, anybody accepting the appointment also has a duty to make sure they are capable of doing so. So both parties would be in a tough position if it can be proved that both parties agreed to the appointment. If as a contractor, you wish to not put yourself up for taking on both roles or specifically the PD role, than obviously you will put yourself out of the running. That explains why you haven't won the work. Other parties have clearly been prepared to do what the client want and be both PC and PD. For these types of contracts, if it is clear what the client wants, then you need to be a position to give them what they want or you will continue to lose the work. Simple. See if you can takes steps to develop your capability to undertake the PD role and you might win more work. It might also be possible to work with sub-consultants/contractors to help you deliver the role until you are fully capable as an organisation to do so without assistance.

This is an example where everyone is trying to duck the regs and hoping no one notices. Companies who try to obey the law are being penalised on a daily basis. If you look at the recent case against Balfour Beatty, the client specified that they could not sub the work. Thus no case brought against the client and BB & their subby were rightly hammered. I do hope the Client's employee who drew up the T&Cs got a mega bonus.