The challenges of implementing the Building Safety Act
Roundtable discussion about whether there is more to do on construction culture post Building Safety Act
On 7 May 2024, Premdor brought together clients, developers and manufacturers to discuss the implementation of the Building Safety Act and the impact this is having throughout the supply chain.
Shakil Ahmed, category manager at L&Q, Dene Donkin, deputy head of maintenance at the London School of Economics (LSE), Andy Howard, buyer at residential developer London Square, Hannah Mansell, UK group technical director at Masonite UK, Nick Morris, commercial director at mixed-use developer Groveworld, and Gary Wenham, area sales manager at Premdor, joined chair David Smalley to share their thoughts on the current building safety landscape and the challenges it presents.
The true cost of change
Unsurprisingly, the implementation of a more stringent regime has extended project timescales and led to additional costs.
All attendees agreed that the requirement for a more detailed specification earlier in the process, combined with the introduction of gateways and the new mandated change control process is one of the main causes of expanding timelines.
“A lot of procurement needs to be done upfront now. Architects, fire engineers and fire safety officers need the product information as early as possible so they can produce the details,” explained Andy.
“But what this means is, when I write a specification, the guide costs are already in there based on the agreements we’ve established with manufacturers. If our surveyors come up with a more commercially viable option, then the drawings we may have produced will need to be changed. For a major change, we need to make an application for change to the Building Safety Regulator and while we wait for approval, we can’t progress any further.”
While it is not unusual for teams to try and find the most cost-effective way of delivering projects, Hannah highlighted that the implications of making changes to product specifications at any point could ultimately end up costing more money in the long run.
“Conversations are now being had much earlier when it comes to choosing products for a building which is really positive. But if people are changing their minds when you’re on site, it does cost them in the long run. If we costed that whole change control piece, I wonder if they’d end up really saving much money,” said Hannah.
Managing stakeholders
Alongside increased timescales and costs, the changes brought about by the Act have also created a further challenge for those involved in project delivery: balancing the expectations and requirements of wider stakeholders.
“Under the new building safety regime, we’re spending a lot more money, much earlier, to provide a high level of detail upfront to the Regulator who may then sit on the application for an unspecified time. That leaves me trying to explain to the bosses why I’m spending a million more per plot than I’ve had to previously for ultimately the same – but slower – outcome,” said Nick.
Echoing this, Shakil emphasised the importance of ensuring everyone working on a project is on the same page and changing the way that they think about project costs to help with wider expectation management.
“As a housing association, there are also a lot more stakeholder requirements that we need to juggle from a technical perspective. We’re balancing requests from health and safety, sustainability, operational, and residential teams and the legislation for each. It becomes very complex,” said Shakil.
“We need to make sure we’re having that conversation with everyone involved in the project to let them know that the cheapest option is not always the most viable because we have to ensure compliance with building regulations and stakeholders’ requirements.”
Collating building information
It was agreed that the volume of information that now needs to be collated was a positive and very necessary step, but not without challenges.
For Dene, who manages multiple student accommodation blocks that house more than 10,000 students a year, this adds more complexity to the data collection.
“The majority of my time at the moment is spent collating historical information for the Building Safety Case,” said Dene. “Some of our buildings are more than 100 years old, and now we need to submit detailed information that may have been handed over to the people managing buildings years and years ago.”
“In the past, we’ve been blindsided by contractors trying to push practical completion over the line but then when we’re looking for the information, it’s simply not there. We’ve learned our lesson from this and now I make sure I’m involved at all stages, particularly in the procurement process, and that I get that Golden Thread of information.”
Confusing product information and certification
In such a crowded marketplace, it can be difficult for stakeholders to confidently source products that meet the project requirements, particularly when there are multiple requirements.
“When we’re procuring products, we’re not just looking for one performance characteristic. For example, when it comes to fire doors for flat entrances, we are also looking to meet the requirements of Secured by Design,” said Shakil.
“There is so much information out there, it’s hard to see which is the best way to know which products can fulfil what requirements, and whether we should be looking for a specific accreditation or certification.”
While the Code for Construction Product Information (CCPI) should go a long way to addressing this issue, Gary acknowledged that the technical information associated with construction products is often difficult to interpret.
“Requests for further product information from manufacturers are often met with technical data sheets or a referral to the original fire test certificate. These of course do have all of the information needed, but they aren’t easy to understand if you don’t know what you’re looking for,” said Gary.
“It’s this misinterpretation of information that can then lead to a set of newly installed fire doors needing to be taken out and replaced because they’ve been fitted with an incorrect component, further extending project timelines and wasting a lot of money, not to mention the environmental impact.”
The future of building safety
The attendees concluded that moving forward, it is important for the construction industry to focus on the following five areas:
- Get all stakeholders involved as early as possible, particularly procurement teams;
- Ensure everyone involved in the project is aware of the new building safety processes and requirements;
- Minimise changes happening later in the process;
- Simplify information around building safety to make it more accessible;
- Adopt better practices for collating and sharing construction product information.
Confusing product information and certification
In such a crowded marketplace, it can be difficult for stakeholders to confidently source products that meet the project requirements, particularly when there are multiple requirements.
“When we’re procuring products, we’re not just looking for one performance characteristic. For example, when it comes to fire doors for flat entrances, we are also looking to meet the requirements of Secured by Design,” said Shakil.
“There is so much information out there, it’s hard to see which is the best way to know which products can fulfil what requirements, and whether we should be looking for a specific accreditation or certification.”
While the Code for Construction Product Information (CCPI) should go a long way to addressing this issue, Gary acknowledged that the technical information associated with construction products is often difficult to interpret.
“Requests for further product information from manufacturers are often met with technical data sheets or a referral to the original fire test certificate. These of course do have all of the information needed, but they aren’t easy to understand if you don’t know what you’re looking for,” said Gary.
“It’s this misinterpretation of information that can then lead to a set of newly installed fire doors needing to be taken out and replaced because they’ve been fitted with an incorrect component, further extending project timelines and wasting a lot of money, not to mention the environmental impact.”
