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
  • Replies 34 replies
  • Subscribers 41 subscribers
  • Views 903 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

Requirements for an electrical design & the EIC

Heera

Hi All

Just a quick question, is it a legal requirement the following section to be signed? The main contractor, sub-contracted a designer and the employed a installer, however hey signed all sections apart from the design section. I can't remember it being a legal requirement but the MC can sign it as a departure?

I/We being the person(s) responsible for the design of the electrical installation (as indicated by my/our signatures below), particulars of which are described above, having exercised reasonable skill and care when carrying out the design and additionally where this certificate applies to an add1t1on or alteration, the safety of the existing installation is not impaired, hereby CERTIFY that the design work for which I/we have been responsible is to the best of my/our knowledge and belief in accordance with BS 7671 :2018, amended to ….. except for the departures, if any, detailed .as follows:  

Thanks

Heera

Parents
  • 0

    Sooo...

    Who actually does the design calcs etc, and is the result really so bad he or she does not wish to admit it it?

    regards Mike 

    (who occasionally signs for more than one section on similar looking forms....)

  • 0 in reply to mapj1

    Principal 'CONTRACTORS' have appointed sub-contractors for the installation of new DB, that then became an as fitted design, in which the principal contractors did the design. Now a new subcontractor comes a long a installs a new circuit on that DB, in which another as fitted design has to be done. And in accordance with the client standards the principal contractor only had responsibility for completion and inspection which has been complete. Therefore is a signature required by the principal contractor under the design section, if the client has or has not asked for it?

Reply
  • 0 in reply to mapj1

    Principal 'CONTRACTORS' have appointed sub-contractors for the installation of new DB, that then became an as fitted design, in which the principal contractors did the design. Now a new subcontractor comes a long a installs a new circuit on that DB, in which another as fitted design has to be done. And in accordance with the client standards the principal contractor only had responsibility for completion and inspection which has been complete. Therefore is a signature required by the principal contractor under the design section, if the client has or has not asked for it?

Children
  • 0 in reply to Heera

    Well, if several folk have jointly and severally generated the design over an extended period, then ideally all of them need to be recorded, as well as who is responsible for what aspects - if not on that form then somewhere else, unless another party is happy to adopt the responsibility for  design work that is not their own on  behalf  of others - such as a director on behalf of his company.

    The whole point is that there is someone, or at least a legal entity, that is responsible if something is later found to be defective in the design, and the form is one place to record that. Who is responsible for a design weakness, much like an installation error, could become really important, if for example the building burns down.

    Mike

  • 0 in reply to Heera
    Heera said:
    Now a new subcontractor comes a long a installs a new circuit on that DB, in which another as fitted design has to be done.

    If you're following the accepted rules of thumb per Appendix 6, this new circuit is not part of the original design, that's a new EIC for the new circuit, limited to that circuit.

    There should be a previous EIC for the original installation ...

    The MEIWC can only be provided for a new circuit:


    Or ... is someone trying to play "all ends to the middle", by suggesting circuits that are already planned into the original design are "new circuits" just because a contract says another company is installing the wiring from the distribution board, and perhaps some bonding and containment too?

    Whichever, in general these are all contractual issues, rather than something that needs to be addressed by BS 7671 itself.

    I'm also providing this commentary, from the perspective of working on very large infrastructure programmes, that involve a Principal Contractor, and number of other contractors, with varying scopes. including the situation you describe.

Community Rules & Guidelines