Posted By Mike Draper
Can't help much with the fees side, but transition is fairly straightforward.

CDM 07 came in to force on the 6th April. If you were PS or PC prior to that date, you continue as CDM-C or PC respectively, unless the Client makes a formal appointment to the contrary. You then have 12 months to demonstrate competency within the meaning of the regs.

For new projects you must demonstrate competency.

The start of a project is a good discussion point. I've tended to view this as being a point perhaps somewhere between having a firm idea (concept, +/- 30% estimate, etc) and giving a project a green light (capital approval, site chosen, developed design brief +/- 10% estimate, etc.). It's hard to nail down as everyone has a different view and every job is also different (especially if you think about repeat work). The caveat is that until the Client makes a formal appointment, they are the CDM-C and/or PC, so there will always be a CDM-C anyway.

Other points that have cropped up include transitional arrangements for designs to comply with the Workplace Regs on existing projects, civil liability (I would like to hear any considered views on the meaning of Reg 45), the role of the CDM-C when compared to the ability of different Client organisations to plan and manage construction, and competence (particularly individual competence).

As for the changes you make now, I think that particularly for larger organisations, it would be ineffective to suddenly say here's a new set of forms. Start with a clean sheet for new projects, but gradually migrate existing work towards closer compliance with CDM 07.

This might mean making some procedural revisions, but but sensible.

Posted By Shaun Brennan
Luther

i give talks all the time on CDMC and we (NHBC) are one of only 3 accredited course providers by APS

1) As regards fees, i would say a day rate is the best approach, agreed with the client from the start.

2) any project running at the moment stays as is i.e.94(2000), anything starting after 6th April runs as 2007.

if you require anymore information please do not hesitate to ask

Bugsy

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Holyterror

Read regulation 21 carefully and bear in mind the interpretative rules governing UK legislation. "By or on behalf of" does not mean what some in the HSE are trying to force through. If the legislators had wished only the client to sign the regulation would have stated "by the client" only.

There are clear legal precedents for the interpretation of the current regulation 21 phrase as meaning:

By the legal entity or on behalf of the legal entity by another legal entity who is a position to know the mind of the client and is authorised so to sign.

The phrase is used for instance in the guidance to the Ombudsman Act where it is defining who may make complaints - "by or on behalf of a member of the public" A member of the public may make a complaint or an organisation can make one on behalf of a member of the public providing they can demonstrate their state of knowledge of the mind of the member of the public. Can you now see that there are distinct parallels.

This argument has been well rehearsed on other threads and I stand by my interpretation and have conversations with Principal Inspectors who accept that we can sign on behalf of clients. There are safeguards however that we have to ensure that we are comfortable with the client state of knowledge concerning the regulations. There are clients we do not sign for, especially those who are not previously known to us. Inspectors at Rose Court have been led up into a dead end by organisations who are trying to complicate matters in the hope that the law will be ineffective. It would have been much better if they had left the phrase open to its normal legal understanding rather than try to implement an understanding that cannot be supported by the text without verbal contortions and distortions of interpretation.

Contract law has been around long enough to establish clearly the term client and how the client signs contracts. Terms such as by and on behalf of are also well understood, in spite of the current bruhaha. As a legal entity Toytown DC lets the contract as client and authorises people to sign contracts in their name. These people are acting under the delegated authority of Toytown DC. Unfortunately this is often colloquially referred to as on behalf of, the reality is that the signatory is signing here on behalf of another person, not the legal entity per se.

The issue of signature is in my personal view an example of the Denialism culture that is spreading throughout safety as people are attempting to frustrate the introduction of much needed legislation or the continued existence of other legislation. I am not arguing that only the CDMC should sign - merely that the choice is open dependant on the relationship. It could in fact be a third party in strict legal terms, but the need is always to be aware of the client state of knowledge or pass the F10 to him for signature.

Bob

Posted By holyterror72
Thanks Bob.