Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 18 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 1240 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Old design to 17th Edition updated to 18th - query on responsibilities

me1899
Hi All


Slightly convoluted question:


1. A design and build job originally designed to Stage 3 level detail during 17th edition times (2017)


2. Updated by consultant to Stage 4 detail mid 2019, still design and build, but not updated in line with 18th edition (presumably erroneous thinking on the part of the consultant that because the job was to the 17th and the stage 4 was not considered a major redesign from first principles, then it did not need updating)


3. Job being installed now in 2020.


4. Given that the contractor has taken on design responsibility, are they right to try and claim additional costs for redesigning in line with the 18th edition? Or would they be expected to have noted and included for this seeing as they were appointed late 2019? 


I think personally that it would be argued the contractor should have picked this up and flagged in their pricing that they would need to update the design to the 18th.


What do others think?




  • 0
    Domestic or commercial?


    What changes have been required?


     Andy B.
  • 0
    Hi Andy


    Commercial job, a dance school. 


    Changes to get up to 18th are surge and rcds for various commando sockets. 


    Changes from stage 3 to 4 were containment route tweaks to coordinate better with beams and some dbs getting upsized in terms of ways. A fresh citcuit here and there as well.
  • 0
    BS7671:2018 was released on the 1st July 2018 and will become effective from 1st January 2019, but the new edition can be used immediately.


    The consultant reworked the design in 2019, after the new regs came into force.


    So how and why has the contractor assumed any responsibility for the design whatsoever and why would they be expected to realise that the consultant had not designed in accordance with the current regulations?


    Surely they were given plans and specifications to price from, why is it their fault if what the client wants was not what they were told to price for?


    Andy B.
  • 0
    Would a design and build contract not shift the design responsibility to the contractor though?


    D and B seems to be used like that to push risk over to contractors. Client side seem to like it. 


    If there is something blatantly apparent in the consultant design that is being priced, does the nature of a D and B type of contract not expose a contractor to be hit with a 'you should have known' argument?
  • 0
    I would say that advice of someone with proper legal training is required here, at best on here it`s just our opinions . Interesting question nonetheless and I am sure that some of us would like to know what the best answer actually is. My take is that it needs to be seen as to what exactly were the conditions of the actual contract itself?
  • 0
    If it is a genuine design and build job why was a consultant ever involved?


    Andy B.
  • 0
    Not sure I catch your drift Andy - I always see that a consultant is involved in a D and B on client side to provide a base performance design. Guess dependant on the job.


    Of course the problem arises from said performance design being produced on the cheap with little effort - so little assistance or narrative is provided to a tenderer.


    Then of course let's not give anyone sufficient time to understand and price it properly and see what a good hassle free job we get.

  • 0
    Thanks Ebee, that's fine - this job is pretty weird - been floating about since 2014 I believe.


    I also found an article about a D and B dispute yesterday (link below) albeit on a much grander scale.

    http://constructionblog.practicallaw.com/supreme-court-rules-on-diffuse-design-and-build-obligations/


    What are others (both consultant and contractor sides) experiences with D and B disputes? 


    Screwed over or fought back to win? Clients side people only like them from the perspective of 'de-risking' seemingly.


    Personally speaking, I am not sure I can recall seeing a nicely done D and B - would be nice to hear some success stories.
  • 0
    I'm not sure what's involved in these (BSRIA?) design stages, but a long as the BS 7671 designs was started before the new regs came into force, then I believe that from a BS 7671 perspective it's perfectly valid to continue with that earlier version of the regulations through installation and I&T. I would imagine that any minor modifications to the original design (that would end up on the same certificate as the original) could similarly remain under the previous version.


    Some large projects take decades to complete - and given the rate the regulations change it would be an impossible task to keep re-designing every time.


    Of course the customer might not be happy with a brand new installation that would fail to meet current standards even on the day it was commissioned - but that would be a matter of contract rather than regulation.


        - Andy.
  • 0
    If the consultant just provided a drawing showing a light here and a socket there, then left all the detailing to the "design and build contractor" then I can see that the contractor assumes responsibility.


    But if the consultant provided a complete design with schedules specifying exactly what distribution boards are to be installed and what protective devices they are to contain to protect each circuit and so on, I cannot see that the contractor can be held responsible for non-compliance with the latest version of the regulations unless there is a clause in the contract saying that they take responsibility for ensuring that they correct all the consultants mistakes.


    My thought is the consultant is probably responsible and the contractor should be paid for the extras.


    Andy B.

Community Rules & Guidelines