Ambulatory, non-ambulatory, ...?

True, and rather amusing. I suspect everyone involved does not want to think about the ramifications, and just stays quiet.

As we have said many times, BS7671 is not law. If it was it would look very different.


Mike.

Andy, I noticed that, but you have not quoted the whole paragraph.


If you stop at "current edition" the current standard would be 18th Edn +/- any amendments. However, it goes on to say, "with those amendments pertaining at a date to be agreed by the parties to the contract concerned (see Appendix 1).


So first of all the designer and client agree the date. I do not think that it can be far in the future, otherwise the contract might be void for uncertainty. One cannot make a contract whose terms are unknown. So when a new edition or amendment has been published, but overlaps with the current one, the date could be that of the commencement of the new edition or amendment.


Having agreed the date, the parties now know which editions (+/- amendments) apply.


So in my opinion, not ambulatory, but just consistent with the general approach that it is the date of design which counts and not the date of erection.

I think Chris has nailed this one.


There are legal reasons why legislation and guidance has fixed-date standards. In terms of legislation, the basic issue is that changing a standard might "change the law" and that's perhaps not correct.


There are ways of handling changes to standards and legislation.


Those of you who are familiar with the standard forms of construction contract will have come across this issue before. The parties sign up to standards and legislation in force at the time the contract is agreed. If the standards or legislation changes, this is effectively a contract variation, and there is a relevant process for dealing with these in the standard forms of contract.


In essence, a Client is not necessarily forced to take up variations in standards (although of course there may be a compelling reason to do so, especially where safety is concerned); however, changes in legislation are a different matter.


In this respect, the wording of the "commencement" paragraph in Amendment 1:2020 is extremely interesting:



I guess the Client doesn't have to take up the variation ... but perhaps they will not quite get the EIC they were expecting at the end of the job?

It is interesting to understand the history of this standardisation process. When I first started work there were many fewer standards, and these were fairly obvious in function. They tended to cover simple things like interchangeability and interfaces between various systems and components, for example, the diameter and threads on conduit and fittings. When we joined to Common Market things immediately became much more complex, because the "level playing field" (you may have heard of that!) adopted a large number of standards, particularly from Germany, and made them mandatory. I am not commenting on whether this was a good or bad thing, it worked both ways. At some point, which was never very clear there became standards for virtually everything, and once it became the EU, these standards were changed in many cases to directives from unnamed bureaucrats. Suddenly following the standards became terribly important, and the minefield had really started. All the standards interacted, and cross-referenced one another, just as BS7671 does. In many cases the standards were written by "experts" in a particular area, often manufacturers of particular products and the standards tended to evolve to suit certain competitive advantage. This was because having to produce a product to a very specific standard made cost advantage from better design or innovation very difficult, exactly the purpose of the supposed level playing field, and the only way to gain advantage was to modify the standard by the tortuous committee process to introduce something new where short term gain could be achieved. This is still happening!


This may appear slightly cynical, but literally, years spent in small rooms do have an effect, and in retrospect saved some of the public from unnecessary additional costs.