Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By steve e ashton
Has anyone else wondered why CDM requires the client to inform the contractor (10.2.c for non-notifiable jobs) or the CDMC (12.b for notifiable jobs) about the MINIMUM time before start of the construction phase?....
I understand (I think) the intention behind the regulation... But to require a (technically illiterate?) client to inform a ?competent? contractor (or CDMC) that "I expect it will take several days to plan this job, but as a MINIMUM, you have ...."
Anyone willing to take a bet on the first 'ten second minimum"? Or less?
The regulation seems to miss the point completely for me... And the new F10 ducks the issue by simply asking for the 'time given' - it doesn't mention the word 'minimum'.
Ho Hum
Wouldn't it be nice to get some comprehensible, simple-to-understand, well written regs every once in a while
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philip McAleenan
Good morning Steve,
Establishing a minimum time period for planning and preparation recognises that time is necessary and therefore required to allow planning and preparation to take place. Note that it is a minimum time period the client establishes, not a maximum.
Reading further, this time in the ACoP (Para 43(b)), the client must ensure that they allow sufficient time for each stage of the project, from concept onwards.
And then Reg 9 states that the client must ensure that the arrangements made for managing the project (including the allocation of sufficient time and resources) … are suitable to ensure that the construction work can be carried out so far as is reasonably practicable without risk to the health and safety of any person.
Of course one of the primary intents behind the CDM Regs. is that all parties co-operate to ensure the safe design and construction of the project, hence the appointment of a coordinator. And all being competent in what they do, there is no reason to assume that they would not be able to arrive and an agreement on what constitutes sufficient time and resources to make it happen.
No-one could justifiably argue that they misunderstood the regulations and ACoP to arrive at the scenario you have described.
Regards, Philip
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Clarke Kent the 2nd
The Idea is that the CDMc helps/advises the client on performing his duties, therefore the competent CDMc should advise the client on the period of time required for planning after appointment of the PC, before commencement on site.
I cant see how its complicated unless you have not read the acop/regs and are just out to confuse matters with poor interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mal Shiels
Hi guys
The main driver behind a minimum mobilisation period is to do with welfare facilities. The HSE were sick of attending site in early days and there was still only a thunder box on site for site operatives to use.
As stated by an earlier respondent the specified minimum mobilisation is also to allow enough time for planning the site management properly.
In terms of being able to decide on the mobilisation period the client has the CDM-C and project team members to advise them. This is why in appendix 4 the competency criteria for CDM-C talks about a knowledge of procurement.
Regards
Mal
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steve e ashton
I did say that I understood the intent behind the provsions - and yes, I have read the ACoP.
However I still cannot get my head round why this obligation is placed on the client (who probably won't have any real understanding of the issues) rather than on the contractor or the CDMC. And how is this ever going to be enforced? If a client tells the contractor (or CDMC) that he will give a minimum of 10 seconds - he has complied with the letter of the law. The law is simply not worded in a way that is going to force the industry to improve matters.
I don't recall any project where the contractor has wanted to be on site before the client wanted him on site. The complaint in the past has been (I think) that the client wanted work to start as soon as possible. He still will! And - again - he can arrange this by specifying a minimum of ten seconds (or less!) and still comply with this obligation. The pressure will still be on the contractor to mobilise as soon as possible. I don't see this regulation changing anything. Unless its 'intent' is communicated by competent CDMCs in notifiable projects, rather than its content.
Just a thought.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philip McAleenan
Steve,
Any project that is commercial, and therefore “for profit” in nature requires the minimum amount of time and resources to be input in order to maximise the profit. Thus everyone will want to be on-site as quickly as possible and offsite at the end as quickly as possible.
CDM 2007 does not change that.
What is required is that all parties include in their reckoning that time and resource inputs are sufficient to make the project safe to construct, use, maintain and eventually demolish.
Again CDM 2007 does not change that requirement.
Requiring the client to specify a minimum time to plan and prepare the construction work is to ensure that consideration is given to that aspect of the project. However specifying 10 seconds is equivalent to also stating; “and I want you to build it for at least ten quid”, absurd.
Nor can it be argued that this is within the letter of the law, as the law must be read in totality, not cherry picked. The law requires sufficient time and resources be allocated to each phase of the project; ten seconds nor ten quid meet this requirement.
And as for the client “probably not having any real understanding of the issues”, if they are putting their money into CDM-sized projects, the reasonable client will make sure that they do have an understanding of the issues.
Regards, Philip
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mike Draper
The obligation is placed on the client as ultimately the client will get what they are prepared to pay for.
In practice, most clients will enter into a discussion with the contractor or cdm-c and find out fairly quickly some realistic timescales and a guide to the costs.
They are also obliged to take the advice of the competent person giving that advice.
A client who wants rapid mobilisation can have it, but it will cost them more.
Most of the revisions to the client duties have been about aligning the clients duties with their position and level of control over a project. They create the need for construction and provide the money. Ergo, if they want to keep costs down then that will probably mean that they won't want to pay premiums for rapid mobilisation or overtime on site. Alternatively if a faster return on investment is required, the client has to accept that they will pay a premium.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Mike
The problem is that the timescale should be set out in the tender documents so unless this is a negotiated contract the PC will not yet be appointed. It does ultimately come down to the expertise of the CDM-C and Designers to give a ball park indication as they have the best handle on the complexities of the work. Having said that the client will know when he wants the structure to come on line. The calendars never seem to quite fit.
The problem is often two fold
a) There is a sudden realisation that work has to commence before a particular date for either financial or planning reasons
b) People simply tend to think that the PC commences the C Phase plan at tender when it is only at contract signature and the planning time needs to start at this point.
Contractors want time to tender but then the site mobilisation planning is totally separate. Even good CDM-Cs can have client problems getting this message across.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steve e ashton
Philip:
'CDM' sized projects - ? CDM2007 applies to ALL projects - not just notifiable ones. Many client will NOT have any construction expertise, (and many small contractors will not have CDM expertise....).
And.. 9.1 spells out the clients duty for allocation of time and resources - I have no problem with that. My problem (if it is a problem) is seeing what practical impact 10.2.c (or 15.b for notifiable projects) will have.
BOB: thanks for the support- you and I seem to have a similar understanding of where (some of) the problems come from - and a rather jaded view of how effective the new regs can be in improving things.
Steve
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.