Requirements for an electrical design & the EIC

I suppose that another way of putting the question is whether an EIC which is not signed by the designer (but has been signed by the constructor, and inspector and tester) is valid.

I can certainly see a practical problem, especially is there is a long interval between design and completion of the work. Can you get the designer to come back and sign? Alternatively, should the EIC be started when the design is drawn up and then retained until the work is complete?

I can see no legal reason why the MC should not sign, but he is then assuming responsibility for the SC's work. This does not seem very different from, say, a head of department signing for subordinates' work.

What do the major construction companies do?

should the EIC be started when the design is drawn up and then retained until the work is complete?

That makes sense to me - the EIC would be passed onto the installer and then the inspector along with the design itself.

   - Andy.

Chris Pearson said:

I suppose that another way of putting the question is whether an EIC which is not signed by the designer (but has been signed by the constructor, and inspector and tester) is valid.

Regulation 644.4 implies it would not be valid for full conformity ...

644.4 The person or persons responsible for the design, construction and verification of the installation shall issue the Certificate, which takes account of their respective responsibilities, to the person ordering the work, together with the records mentioned in Regulation 644.3.

The recommendation for the interval between initial verification and the first periodic inspection shall be recorded on the Certificate.

I guess in reality, the certificate would be vaild for the installation and verification (inspection & testing) ... there would be no statement of conformity for the design ... if the Designer were engaged to provide a BS 7671-conformant design, then surely the obligation of the Designer would be to complete their statement on the certificate accordingly? 

So, perhaps in this case, the main contractor should follow up with the Designer?

A sticking point, though, is that the designer might not have been engaged to completion of the work to make sure that their design is what has been "built" on-site. 

regulation 644.4 that includes the phrase: "which takes account of their respective responsibilities"

When read in context of the rest of the regulation 644, this section leads me to conclude our certificates are appropriate and valid without a "Design" signature.

This works with the wording in the 'CLIENT' standard which only requires us to provide certification for completion and inspection.

Most of the other reference material refers to is in an Appendix 6, which is "informative", not a regulation.

Heera said:

When read in context of the rest of the regulation 644, this section leads me to conclude our certificates are appropriate and valid without a "Design" signature.

But there is still no statement from the person who did the design, so yes I agree your cert covers what you did, BUT that doesn't mean all of the certification required by 644.4 is available, i.e. nothing from the designer - hence the client could still claim the work is not complete according to the standard?

The question is it a requirement for the principal designer to have it signed? The standard doesn't require us to sign, only as per the respective responsibility? 

Yes, but not a lot you can do about it. Assuming that you were the installer, provided that you followed the design, you have nothing to worry about.

No, but the principal contractor, who has appointed sub consultants to do the installation, in which we provided as fitted designs.

Heera said:

No, but the principal designer who has appointed sub consultants to do the installation,

Apologies, but I'm now a little confused. In CDM, there is a Principal Designer, and there are Designers. I would not always expect a Principal Designer to carry out an electrical installation design (unless of course the only works being considered is electrical) and if the Principal Designer did not do the electrical design that person would not be signing as the Designer on a BS 7671 certificate ... but someone should?

Heera said:

n which we provided as fitted designs.

Do the as-fitted designs align with the original design, or did someone do more "design" ? Is it the person making design changes who ought to now provide a conformity statement for design according to BS 7671?

Heera said:

No, but the principal designer who has appointed sub consultants to do the installation,

Apologies, but I'm now a little confused. In CDM, there is a Principal Designer, and there are Designers. I would not always expect a Principal Designer to carry out an electrical installation design (unless of course the only works being considered is electrical) and if the Principal Designer did not do the electrical design that person would not be signing as the Designer on a BS 7671 certificate ... but someone should?

Heera said:

n which we provided as fitted designs.

Do the as-fitted designs align with the original design, or did someone do more "design" ? Is it the person making design changes who ought to now provide a conformity statement for design according to BS 7671?

On some of our sites electrical work has been carried out by our sub-contractors.

When complete, they have employed another contractor (sub-sub-contractor) to test the installation and provide a EIC certificate.

The work was usually a new MCB fitted in an existing DB with a new cable to a new security equipment enclosure.

In a few cases a larger DB (more ways) replaced an existing DB.

Our sub-contractor submitted a full design including cable calcs, general layout drawings and Single Line Diagrams.

The client's security consultants xxxxx have commented that the "Designer" section of the EIC has not been signed.

They are rejecting our documentation because there is no signature against the design.

To go with this certificate, we have submitted to xxxx and xxxxx the design drawings and documents (each design includes cable calcs, general layout drawings and Single Line Diagrams), as required by the client standards.

From this submitted design they can verify that the design has been carried out to any relevant standards (including BS7671).

Is there any mandatory requirement for this section to be signed?

Getting these existing certificates signed by the relevant engineer(s) could be difficult to achieve.

The applicable client specification (F15) states:

5.3 Detailed Design

Notwithstanding the dimensions given within the Particular Specification the Contractor shall confirm by measurement on site the requirements for all cabling and plant provided within the Contract. Cabling and plant shall be provided compatible with site measurements.

The detailed design shall include, but not be limited to:

• Cable sizing calculations to ensure correct sizing, type, length and method of installation in the light of the plant and installation provided.
• Cable installation design calculations shall take into account ambient temperature in compliance with BS7671 (see Guidance Note).
• Finalising all cable routes including sizing of cable containment (ducts, tray, trunking, conduits, etc) including mounting arrangements.
• All cable sizing calculations and test sheets shall be produced using the Amtech Pro Design software. Final test results shall be recorded on the Fast Test Plus format. Electronic copies of the design and test results shall be handed over to the Project Manager on completion.
• The Contractor shall submit calculations to the Project Manager showing that the installation complies with the IEE wiring regulations. On completion of the installation the Contractor shall provide Completion and Inspection Certificates in the form prescribed in the IEE Wiring Regulations
• The Contractor shall submit Loop diagrams to the Project Manager detailing all terminations and interconnecting cables.
• Circuit design information detailed in the cable sizing calculations shall include all of the optional information as detailed in xxxx 3.02, Clause 4.2.3."

As you can see above, the client requirement is for "Completion and Inspection Certificates".

No-where does it include a requirement for certification of the Design.

Heera said:

They are rejecting our documentation because there is no signature against the design.

If the contract requires a completed EIC, the customer if fully entitled to be supplied with one.

Heera said:

NICEIC certificate

I assume that you mean an EIC.

If you are (or work for) the principal/main contractor, you have a problem, but it is a legal one and not technical.

Yes apologies an EIC. 

A legal problem if it is not signed?

Heera said:

A legal problem if it is not signed?

Depending on the contract, the Client could claim the work is not complete? Perhaps this is really a question for a QS or contracts lawyer?

Heera said:

Is there any mandatory requirement (by the IET) for this section to be signed?

The IET don't have any mandatory requirements for this. BS 7671 may be mandated by contract, and/or by ESQCR.

The normative requirement in BS 7671 is Regulation 644.4 (Regulation 134.2.1 refers to Chapter 64 for certification required to be issued).

gkenyon said:

644.4 The person or persons responsible for the design, construction and verification of the installation shall issue the Certificate, which takes account of their respective responsibilities, to the person ordering the work, together with the records mentioned in Regulation 644.3.

The recommendation for the interval between initial verification and the first periodic inspection shall be recorded on the Certificate.

An interesting aspect is that there is another normative requirement, Regulation 134.2.2 of BS 7671, which requires the designer to make a recommendation for the interval to the first periodic inspection and test.

So, if the designer has not signed the certificate, even if it has the information (the interval) for Regulation 134.2.2, it could be questioned whether the designer has specified that information agrees with it.

Chris Pearson said:

If you are (or work for) the principal/main contractor, you have a problem, but it is a legal one and not technical.

And yes, this is really where it is ... it's an issue for determining "completion" of the works, or a stage of works, and something for a QS or contracts lawyer to help sort out.