Posted By Dave McIness YES, but it is not necessarily a good thing!

Posted By Mal Shiels Arran Interesting question, i currently act as planning supervisor on many projects and have previously worked for a contracting organisation. Major advantage of one principal contractor are that there is a concurrent and consistent approach to the levels of management of health and safety on site. However i have worked on projects where the principal contractor has changed once, and occasionly twice. This has worked okay. What was important each time was prior knowledge of the change over and planning of the process. Regards

Posted By shaun cooper The problem arises when one of the contractors or even the client has more going on within the site compound than the PC. For example in 2005 I was PS on a large site near to Cambridge, and the client is a large PLC. The PC started putting up a large shed to house a new production line, however the client brought in their own people to do the M&E fit out. With mezzanine floors everywhere and over a 100 people involved in the M&E fit out the PC did not really have the knowledge and experience to police the site as PC. This meant that the building completion date was brought forward so that the client could take over the role of PC. I think that when the CDM role of the PS changes to co-ordinator, this will help matters no-end, as this will provide a facility for all the diciplines to communicate through whilst the co-ordinator can manage the site roles with far greater control and understanding of the legislation and regulations that apply to the overall site. I accept that having different PC's for different phases is not the best scenario, but sometimes it cannot be helped, and in some instances can aid in the CDM compliance. Regards, Shaun

Posted By Brett Day Horses for course, I know of several property developers that whilst very competant at house building haven't a clue when it comes to demolition or contaminated land remediation so the different PC for diferent phases works very well (especially when the phases are clearly defined), on other projects I've seen one pc throughout. I personally don't mind as long as: The PC has the required competance to manage that phase of the works, The PC hasn't been appointed to arbogate responsibilty and they are actually 'in charge', The phases start & stop are clearly defined with defined handovers of responsibilies, There is appropriate communication and co-ordination between the PC's of each phase.

Posted By Robert K Lewis I have to refer to reg 6(1) of CDM ...every client shall appoint a) a planning supervisor b) a principal contractor in respect of each project. Therefore there can never be two principal contractors on a project at ANY point in time. No matter how we try to read it or what is done. If two projects are overlapping in any way I cannot see any logic or grounds for believing that 2 PCs can be appointed rather than treat it as a single project. I think I'd rather deal with novated subcontractors and the associated problems than be trying to interface with a.n.other contractor who is beyond my control. In principle it is possible to transfer the role from one contractor to another in the life of the job but never have more than 1 PC on any project at any one time. The proposed 2007 revisions to CDM repeat the existing position on this. Bob

Posted By peter gotch Robert, Reg 6 does not say the client shall appoint one and only one principal contractor. Hence in the absence of a specific prohibition on having more than one PC this is permissible, not least since under the Interpretation Act the single equals the plural and vice versa. That it is sometimes beneficial to have different PCs for different parts of the project is implicit in Reg 6(5). Sometimes it is beneficial to have two PCs on the project simulaneously, e.g. if there workload is geographically separated. [e.g. We were involved in one £30m infrastructure project where two PCs could be working about 100 miles apart]. Obviously any interfaces need to be managed as indicated by various respondents and as required under the Management Regs. Regards, Peter

Posted By Robert K Lewis Peter Reg 6(5) is concerned with ensuring the roles are always filled and does not imply that two or more can be appointed. The whole thrust of the regulation is about the singular nature of the appointments. I do not see the Interpretation Act 1978 giving a plural meaning here as the intent and common understanding of the phraseology has a plain English meaning that cannot be avoided. I have to agree with large geographical separation one might well define two interconnected, remotely, workplaces as a single project but I would often argue these as two projects and thus could have two PCs. My time in telecoms however taught me that a single PC is best and let him manage the works throughout. The uniformity of management and control is far easier for the client ultimately. Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis Kevin I rather think that the HSE were effectively regarding your company as the PC. The last phrase of your posting says it all - we were managing all contractors on site. You had control and exerted it not the individual subcontractors/contractors. I presume these people held a contract with yourself and as you are a contractor they are your subcontractors. The alternative is to question why the HSE were weak in their stance over this. I have spent more than 10 years discussing this with the HSE and I have yet to find the approach you state. Bob