Requirements for an electrical design & the EIC

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

, I would be struggling to accept any project where the electrical deisgner hasnt given written assurance

Quite so - now at the shallow end the  "design" may be as simple as looking up a cable size in the OSG and looking at voltage drop over length - and that may be done by the same person who also acts as the installer and inspector,  but it is a "design decision" none the less - and selecting the wrong cable, but installing it perfectly, would be a design fault, rather than an installation one...

Mike.

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.

I think the nature of the way the certificates are designed may pose problems. For a EIC for example, you cannot say you are the designer exclusively for the part of the installation you either worked on via some kind of repairs or circuit reroutes/removals, or you simply added say, a new ring final.

The Design box if signed, infers that you have designed the whole installation rather than just the one part which you have carried out work upon. Yes there is a 'Limitations' box, but how many actually bother to enter anything into it other than for a Inspection report? Maybe there should be a clause added such as 'this certificate exclusively applies only to the works described and not the complete installation unless stated otherwise'.

i agree the current forms cannot cover all cases well. But there is no prohibition on making a more complex record than the current signature sheet on  'prpo-forma' forms available from the IET and from  the providers some competent person schemes.

As Graham points out the areas of responsibilitiy may well be decided at contract allocation, though I suspect the actual who installs what is later decided based on staff  availability on the day.

There could be, and maybe should be, if we are honest  a consolidated record somewhere that reads more like the credits that roll up at the end of a long film, as on a large program with multiple teams, there is  a mix of local design decisions and then some over-arching authority deciding the  big stuff.

Light fittings installed by team one

Fire alarm by team 1A but components selected by specialist contractors X 

final circuit Cables selected and erected by .. 

Plant room supplies and sub main selected  by team three installed by team 7

special FX by ....

Director of program ..

tea made by... 

you get the idea.

To reduce it to 'Fred Bloggs is responsible for all of it ' may not be appropriate.
Mike.

whjohnson said:

The Design box if signed, infers that you have designed the whole installation rather than just the one part which you have carried out work upon.

I see no problem in somebody signing for a company (which is a legal person) even when different bits have been done by different personnel.

If different parts of the installation have been put in by different companies, then multiple EICs are required: each company just signs for the work they completed.

If you add a new circuit, you do not accept responsibility for what was already there save that the section between the origin and the new circuit needs to be capable of supplying the new circuit safely.

mapj1 said:

tea made by... 

An important question. I often ask that as a PRA for CEng/IEng applicants. If they add "and I made the tea" to their competence examples, how does the example now read? [cf the whole assertion of the thread; someone else did that 'design' work..]

Scope and context!

mapj1 said:

Light fittings installed by team one

Fire alarm by team 1A but components selected by specialist contractors X 

final circuit Cables selected and erected by .. 

Plant room supplies and sub main selected  by team three installed by team 7

special FX by ....

Director of program ..

tea made by... 

you get the idea.

To reduce it to 'Fred Bloggs is responsible for all of it ' may not be appropriate.

I dislike the, "not my part of ship" mentality, but I can see that it may lead to efficiency and economy.

In theory, there are checks and balances. Each signatory certifies, "the work for which I have been responsible is to the best of my knowledge and belief in accordance with BS 7671[date]".

However, the installer, who is a bit dim, but has good hand skills says to himself (or herself), the designer has already signed to show that the design is in accordance with BS 7671; I installed everything in accordance with the design, therefore my work must also be in accordance with BS 7671.

The inspector admires the installer's workmanship, does his tests, and writes down the results. Of course, it must be in accordance with BS 7671 because the designer and the installer both say so.

I remember something the tutor said to myself on my original C&G 2391 course and one of those satements that sticks with you for life!

1) How can an installer, install something to comply with BS7671 if there was no Designer? Doesnt matter if its a complex project or an installer just adding in one new circuit. Either the installer is given the design by the Designer and thus the EIC should be signed by that party or the installer is actually the designer, in that case the installer signs for both. Or as we see on some EIC's there are multiple spaces for designers to be listed and for their respective signatures.

2) How can the verifier, verify an installation against BS7671 if it was neither designed or installed to that standard? So the verifier should be in possession of the design details and criteria and ensure during verification that what was proposed has actually been exceuted, or if site conditions, equipment etc changed since design was initially carried out they make sure that change still complies with BS7671. Again the verifier could of course also be the installer, but sometimes they may not be.

3) There is in theory three** checks or levels of "quality" control to ensure an electrical installation is in compliance with BS7671.  The designer ensures as far as reasonably practicable based on all details from client, principal designer etc they have carried out their electrical deisgn work in full compliance with BS7671 so thats the first "Check". The installer then makes sure that what physically is installed on site, the layout, equipment, use etc etc is indeed as the deisgner was informed if not its redesigned by the designer or the installer to suit the change, the installer ensures the installation is in accordance with BS7671 as far as their work is concerned. So thats the second "Check". Finally the verifier is the third and final safety/quality/verification check against BS7671 to ensure that in their view the installation they are verifying is indeed designed and installed correctly to BS7671.

That made sense to me in 1998 and still makes sense to me today.

Yes, contract awards and who does what may be far more complex nowadays, but to me my logic above is still sound. The parties involved only sign for the work under their control and responsibility, but  there needs to be a design, install and verification sign off. world I work in can be lots of EIC's at the end of the project, but a EIC handed to myself with no signature against the design will be sent back to the electrical contractor if design was in their contract, or I will sign the design part myself if I was also providing a design element.

Cheers GTB   

GTB said:

The parties involved only sign for the work under their control and responsibility, but  there needs to be a design, install and verification sign off.

The EIC does contain a box for 'description and extent of the installation' ... which needn't be a "whole installation'. So, it is still the correct vehicle to use, even if you are only responsible for the design, installation, or verification, of only one circuit, or perhaps even a part of a circuit for which a MEIWC is not appropriate.

Moreover, depending on the contract, a larger installation, building or premises might well, even when newly pressed into service, have many EICs.

In my experience, on sites where there is more than one contractor providing electrical, M&E, security and comms works, planning for the "end game" is the best approach. Try to get agreement early-doors what is acceptable to the parties involved for partial and final handover, and the scope, format and responsibilities for relevant paperwork. Planning to succeed, and agreeing what success looks like, is always better than having to dispute whether or not one or more parties have actually succeeded. A QS I know, who is also a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, would call it "plan to get paid" - run your part of the the contract around the payment applications and key milestone events, and know what's needed for each.