Bob, you are completely correct, this practice happens quite a lot in the construction industry and it’s quite frightening how little management effort is put into place to deal with the quality aspect.

Even the big boys with so called ‘quality professionals’ seem to miss the obvious, even when they have encountered a similar issue on another site!

I’ve had several near fatalities that have major factors attributed to quality management including; roofwork (pitched tile); metal-decking; formwork and steel erection to name a few.

These issues also had a major cost implication to them and yet simple and quite basic quality management procedures were never implemented as a result of any of those issues. So the same thing could still happen again and again?

I’ve since seen this happen in numerous construction companies as a consultant and even when this has been highlighted as an issue the clients have usually not taken on board the serious nature of the findings.

In my opinion there is a requirement for trust between all parties.

Clients depend on Designers to be competent, Designers are not obliged to attend site to check on the work, Principal Contractors do not have to undertake detailed supervision of contractor's work, and as has been said there is the professional indemnity issue.

I for one would not check that correct predetermined fixings have been used as I would not know the difference anyway.

Competence checks are important but here again we rely on contractors to issue their previously obtained documents to prove their competence.

Any sensible contractor will use what is specified but money and budgets are tight these days and short cuts are taken.

I once asked a contractor how he knew the threads of a rod would hold the weight of an air condition unit - he did not have an answer.

Bob

I would have to place such a deviation squarely on the shoulders of the engineering designer and the client. A simple site inspection would/should reveal such issues. My biggest bugbear is the torquing of bolts and the completeness of checks on each and every bolt

Bob

Competence is rightly identified as a key issue in all of this but I see very little evidence from clients that they are actually monitoring the competence of the persons that they have appointed on some sort of ongoing basis during works. It is not simply a matter of a clerk of works but is rather about having proper systems of competence management, this is a whole can of worms in itself. Most clients on major projects find themselves with systems that have safety critical o0r computer controlled control systems in which case the HSE have clearly stated the need for a CMS by the owner, installer, maintainer etc of such systems. This is not simply a matter of checking they have the relevant certificate but that is how the matter is treated - sounds like all competence management issues. Have they got CHAS? YES then the competence box is ticked and we can forget about it for the rest of the job.

It is not a CDM problem but a sound management issue

Bob

Chris

No formal CDM duty but rather one that can be established via the need to manage properly! It is also inherent in a PCs role

There are many more than a single client who do monitor H&S but very few monitror ongoing competence - I only know of two for certain.

Bob

Chris

Hence the mere action of a safety inspection is no measure of competence.

Bob

Chris

You are beginning to describe a competence management system:-)

The whole point is the agining of sensible information AND using that information to make judgements

Bob