Just to add to Alasdair's excellent answer: Of course there will be cases where the contract doesn't specify the standard version. And may not even specify the standard, but you may still need to comply to a standard to meet statutory requirements.


Fortunately for these cases most standards, including most BSs, have a transition period between the application of the new standard and the withdrawal of the old standard. As long as your project finishes within that period you're ok, if it doesn't you will either have to comply to the new standard or argue a case as to why meeting the old standard still meets your legal and contractual obligations (which is not the best way to go but sometimes there's no other real way out - this is likely to need someone who really know what they're doing to argue this).


BUT sometimes the old standard just gets withdrawn when the new one is issued. This, frankly, is a right pain in the bottom. My industry, which tends to have projects measured in years rather than months, has recently been hit with this one with one of our key standards.  Often the only solution you're left with is to argue why you've still met your legal requirements under (e.g.) HASAWA (or whatever the relevant legislation is) AND get your client to agree in writing that you're ok to hand over the job to the old standard.


Hate to say it, but the best thing to do if you're often delivering to standards is, as Alasdair suggests, to do everything you can to make sure you hear about any changes the moment they happen, or preferably before they happen. But it's not easy and we all get caught out sometimes. So keep your eye on what the standard is actually there to achieve just in caseyou do need to make an argument to a client or (even more fun) an independent assessor.


On that note, as an independent assessor myself, I can say that just saying "we did it to the old standard because we couldn't afford to meet the new standard" doesn't go down at all well (heard that one before). But saying, as you suggest here, that the project was designed and installed to the current standard at the time, but that by sign-off / handover the new version was in place, AND (this is the important bit) you've checked against the new standard, you can list the big differences, and then explain why you believe there's no big safety or compatibility risk by not meeting them, then at least you've got a good chance of being taken seriously.   



Altogether it's a VERY good question! You won't be alone in wondering about this. I seem to have spent years and years digging companies out of the manure when they've realised they've been complying to out of date standards - it's not fun and I wouldn't recommend it as a career path. I think I'm reasonably good at rescuing this situation, but there have certainly been a (fortunately very small) number of times when I've had to give the bad news to organisations that they basically need to shut the offending part down until it does comply, which for business reasons meant assessing and showing compliance immediately (that day) to the new standard. When there was a (say) three year transition period, and that transition period expired (say) five years ago, and it's a safety standard, the company really doesn't have much of a leg to stand on...


Cheers,


Andy

Just to add to Alasdair's excellent answer: Of course there will be cases where the contract doesn't specify the standard version. And may not even specify the standard, but you may still need to comply to a standard to meet statutory requirements.


Fortunately for these cases most standards, including most BSs, have a transition period between the application of the new standard and the withdrawal of the old standard. As long as your project finishes within that period you're ok, if it doesn't you will either have to comply to the new standard or argue a case as to why meeting the old standard still meets your legal and contractual obligations (which is not the best way to go but sometimes there's no other real way out - this is likely to need someone who really know what they're doing to argue this).


BUT sometimes the old standard just gets withdrawn when the new one is issued. This, frankly, is a right pain in the bottom. My industry, which tends to have projects measured in years rather than months, has recently been hit with this one with one of our key standards.  Often the only solution you're left with is to argue why you've still met your legal requirements under (e.g.) HASAWA (or whatever the relevant legislation is) AND get your client to agree in writing that you're ok to hand over the job to the old standard.


Hate to say it, but the best thing to do if you're often delivering to standards is, as Alasdair suggests, to do everything you can to make sure you hear about any changes the moment they happen, or preferably before they happen. But it's not easy and we all get caught out sometimes. So keep your eye on what the standard is actually there to achieve just in caseyou do need to make an argument to a client or (even more fun) an independent assessor.


On that note, as an independent assessor myself, I can say that just saying "we did it to the old standard because we couldn't afford to meet the new standard" doesn't go down at all well (heard that one before). But saying, as you suggest here, that the project was designed and installed to the current standard at the time, but that by sign-off / handover the new version was in place, AND (this is the important bit) you've checked against the new standard, you can list the big differences, and then explain why you believe there's no big safety or compatibility risk by not meeting them, then at least you've got a good chance of being taken seriously.   



Altogether it's a VERY good question! You won't be alone in wondering about this. I seem to have spent years and years digging companies out of the manure when they've realised they've been complying to out of date standards - it's not fun and I wouldn't recommend it as a career path. I think I'm reasonably good at rescuing this situation, but there have certainly been a (fortunately very small) number of times when I've had to give the bad news to organisations that they basically need to shut the offending part down until it does comply, which for business reasons meant assessing and showing compliance immediately (that day) to the new standard. When there was a (say) three year transition period, and that transition period expired (say) five years ago, and it's a safety standard, the company really doesn't have much of a leg to stand on...


Cheers,


Andy