BIM4Housing Construction Working Group Meeting

BIM4Housing Construction Working Group Meeting

GEORGE say’s he’s just had a meeting with the Golden Thread Initiative Team and they’ll be producing a final report in the next couple of weeks, they are very complimentary about the work that’s been happening here. This meeting is following on from DCW. Apart from the building Safeties Act this work is being driven by the Defective Premises Act which puts a lot of teeth behind what we’re trying to do here in terms of information: missing information is going to be treated as a defect. He displays a document headed ‘Liability on Developers and Contractors increasing to 30 years’. DEBBIE interrupts to say the only thing that will be different is that asbestos will be 40 years.

The giving of prescribed information is part of the Building Safety Act. The Golden Thread Initiative Team are trying to prescribe what that prescribed information may be. The HSE has pushed us towards doing things from a risk based perspective. Therefore, the gateways will require information to be done much earlier. The big difference is the requirement to establish prescriptive specifications for things by the end of Workstage 4. When we overlay that in the context of the RIBA plan of work and the Gateways the Building Safety Regulator is going to be requiring that all of this information is complete before they give the approval to construct.

DEBBIE interrupts to ask if he has seen the report in the construction management that 50% of applications do not get through gateway 1. STEPHEN COPPIN says they are going to produce a list of all the non-compliance/non-conformances in relation to the Building regulations 2010. LUCY says that competency links into how we buy design so what may be missing from the diagram is about appointments, the RIBA stages of work and the BG6 and how they need to change because it’s about how the design is procured. DEBBIES says it’s more explicit in the Value toolkit about value based decisions of the Construction Administration Hub.

GEORGE talks about the importance of machine readable data. The information is there in the data sheets, but you have to find it by manually reading it. Isn’t the data in the Bim? that’s a common question. Actually, each different software application produces its own data and also the answers are different. Consequently, it’s not machine readable. Naming is also a problem. George has spent years trying to map and standardise all this data. Much of the data in the different dictionaries is similar, but different. It’s a matter of managing all this complexity of information and bringing it together.

The solution to that that allows us to connect into all of these data dictionaries…the different library providers are able to use a common set of information to make it all machine readable . Also, the steer from the HSE and the Golden Thread Initiative is it needs to be risk-based. Risk-Mitigation-Asset Types-Asset properties. We have to drill down into the detail. We have substantial documents with information and we are doing it from the position of all the different stake holders because everyone needs different information to do certain things. George goes through the scenario from the DCW exercise in which a fire breaks out, generates smoke and how are the asset types going to perform .

Today, says George, we’ll focus on compartmentation. The task today is to look at the schedules. To make it simpler, all the data sets have been turned into questions because if we can generate a question we can also produced what the expected answers are to that and then ask different people to be responsible.

Building regulations refer to 800 standards. We’re trying to turn that unstructured data into machine readable data so that we can start to build on it. The principle is to take the data, turn it into reusable libraries which can then be used for different software applications - all the different applications can connect into it. Finally, the Construction Control Plan will allow us to have the specification that can then be tested against manufactured products and also be checked to see if they are satisfying requirements when they are installed. DEBBIE makes the point that it needs to be communicated in a natural language as it is form humans.

They then organise who will go into which breakout room, afterwards everyone leaves this meeting to go into the breakout rooms.

KARIM makes a point about some similar work he was doing on project information requirement with the BIM health & Safety group, it was useful to categorise the questions based on 2 things: the stage, when are you going to ask this question? And also quality sign-offs and ATPs - is this question yes or no, or is this question providing information. He feels these questions need this kind of categorisation. PAUL McSOLEY and DEBBIE agree with him.

STEVE COPPIN’’s breakout group only got halfway through the RACI. he said there was a lot of confusion between accountability and realising they are also responsible at the same time. PAUL says in relation to this that the client and the main contractor’s responsibility varies due to the contract type, that should be segregated out.

PAUL MCSOLEY explains what happened in the Dampers breakout room. The group agreed that the manufacturer creates a product to make a function, you have to make sure that function meets the function you require. he added an image to the document of the prescription of the smoke control damper so the group could refer to it. The commissioner of smoke control systems is the other nuances because all they are gonna do is verify a volume, a pressure drop against what was originally designed by the designer, the specialist trader has done the calculations for it.

GEORGE thinks the interesting point there is that the team needs to do more work on what these questions are in order to end up with clear answers.

SHARON of the Penetration seals breakout room says they used what Alistair Brockett had already filled in as a base document. Changed submissions from his have been marked. Regarding inspection, when you’re looking at penetration seals its very much up to the installer, the trade contractor and the main contractor which is a deficiency. So, we thought the Commissioner role should be highlighted as an addition.

The Fire Doors breakout room had 90 questions to go through, says RICHARD, so consequently didn’t complete them, they didn’t do the last eight. he says there was a feeling that it depends at what stage (gateway or RIBA) as to who is responsible for that information. The manufacturer is often responsible for supplying it, but at different stages there is a responsibility for passing that information on. We need to fine tune not just the questions also the context of the questions. Or, says DEBBIE, what may be needed is provide information/interpretation/action/confirmation. that kind of model - particularly those responsible for interpretation is key.

KARIM thinks there should be different separate tick boxes for who will provide this information, who will use it or check it, and who asked for it. Secondly, related to risk treatment and asset properties, there should be one in the middle: asset properties based upon this question. The question will be the property set which will host the information…to answer for a specific treatment. GEORGE talks about Karim’s contribution and ontologies - taking knowledge and then being able to bottle it in some sort of way that can be re-used.

They start to complete the 8 questions regarding fire doors that there was not time to finish in the breakout room.

JIM is a bit dubious about some of the questions that have already been answered because they do relate to the work stream being referred to - if it’s just referring to new build, that’s fine, but for refurb, maybe not. George said there could be the same thing done entirely for refurb. ELIOT agrees with Jim.RICHARD says the question is actually about who is supplying the information on the frequency. ELIOT says it’s the builder owner thats responsible: the main contractor isn’t responsible for the building once its handed over. GEORGE says there are so many standards (often conflicting) so we need to look at what the best practice is - that would be a combination of the manufacturer and the Operations team. ELIOT says, despite the manufacturer designing doors to perform for a long duration they can in fact be damaged as soon as they are installed.

They continue to work through the remaining questions.

Re the replacement components, ELIOT says that will hopefully form the data capture from the start, it can only be replaced with like-for-like products. ELIOT modifies the question to read ‘any replacement ancillary items must fall within the field of application relating to the supplied door set’.

GEORGE says that we need to make sure we don’t end up with something that is a silo. We need to make sure that all these different survey tools/inspection tools are able to interoperate.

Break Out Rooms

Fire Doors_20220615 breakout room


RICHARD finds the document and shares his screen with the group.

RICHARD says that the task is to go through the 30 or so questions and assign who is responsible for supplying that information. The first one: what type of door is it? It’s certainly the Designer, but the architect would also consult the Supplier (so both are ticked).

The Supplier and Trade Contractor would be responsible for manufacture date/installation date - though as the door transitions through RIBA stages different people are responsible for it: the Operator is responsible when it's in use. Ultimately, it’s part of the golden thread, so it should be the supplier who is solely responsible. RICHARD says maybe the Trade Contractor is responsible for the installation date element. Maybe it’s best to assume that the Trade Contractor is a trained and accredited installer? There seems to be a consensus on this. Trade contractor and supplier are ticked.

What about the likely frequency of use of the door? It’s the Client and the Designer. Next, supplying information on the nature of its day-to-day operation? It’s the Designer…also, the door location including x/y/z coordinates is the designer….

Are the fire doors clearly marked on both sides? A fire door is only identified on the hinge side of the door with data tags that ensure it’s compliance - you can only see the tags once the door is opened. The installer would have to pop a tag in to say that it’s been installed properly. The Main Contractor and Trade Contractor are responsible. Ultimately maybe the Main Contractor should be ticked for every item as they should have checked whether the Designer has done X etc.

What is the tenure status of the resident? The Designer and Client are responsible. Someone queries why the Designer would be responsible - does the Designer get involved in tenancy? But there are different design requirements, if it’s for an HA then you have to conform, it’s part of the planning application. Sometimes there are strict planning requirements. Moving on, Q14, is there any certification to ensure what was tested is actually being used? Manufacturer and Supplier are responsible.

Everyone Question from 13 through to 21, they are all confirmed as part of the same test, there are no desktop studies anymore, everything has to be identified and tested.

Is there a question missing here about checking the art of the possible? If you look at the KOBE sheets they won’t have a lot of the information there…That’s the difficulty of going into contract without that level of detail available.

So, it’s the Manufacturer and the Supplier who are responsible down to Question 25. Then from 25 downwards they are all part and parcel, different information at the same time.

Question: if standards you need to match up to change over time what do you do? Do you need an extra question about the new standard? Answer: if standards change sometimes the doors will have to be taken out if they do not comply.

RICHARD: in terms of Materials, questions 40 to 50, who’s responsible? if there is primary test evidence about the material then you will have all of this information within that.

GEORGE adds in to the chat the image of the layout of the flat provided by Paul McSoley.

RICHARD asks George to help with a point that has been raised - if a fire door has been fully tested, firstly that information would be on the test documentation and secondly, why do you need that level of detail? GEORGE replies its for reasons of safety, the info is needed for the next 30 or 40 years so we don’t know what we need. If somebody needs that information where is it best provided from? ELIOT says it depends what it’s for: if it’s for a complete replacement you refer back to the architect’s plans…but all you need to check is is that door PAS24 accredited and fire-tested? Some of these questions seem overkill.

GEORGE reiterates the point that there are some people who are asking for this information and therefore it needs to be provided to them. It doesn’t matter if 90% of the people don’t need it because those people don’t have to see it: the technology allows us to strip all that out. JIM agrees with Eliot that it is overkill, but it’s typical of the world we are in now, we have had to give answers to all of these questions and we’re always fully prepared to give the answers. The whole idea of BIM is that if this information is there at an early stage we won’t be inundated with phone calls.

GEORGE mentions CHRISTINE’s point that the technology exists to hold all of that information and then to present it back into a simple way for anyone to consume it. Also, to collect the information in a standardised way means it can be put together once and then used many times for different purposes. ELIOT agrees, but he would potentially fill out for the building the dimensions/slab/lipping etc, but if the door is damaged there is no reason it can’t be replaced with a timber version, therefore it would be completely irrelevant what you’d put in at the front as you’d be fitting an equivalent product which is made from something completely different which is still fully compliant.

CHRISTINE queries whether there is something missing from the tick-box options: who can provide the information for the materials? You’d expect the manufacturer would be able to, but it’s another matter of whether you’d actually use that information or not…it’s a nuance she guesses.

Question 52, who’s responsible? JIM says that’s a hard one…who’s done the surveying? The installer? The door manufacturer? GEORGE says it is possible to change the questions. Regarding tolerances, JIM says that it’s the person that has to be the person that has carried out the survey and taken measurements. GEORGE says to assume in this case that it’s a new build (not a replacement). From a Construction perspective it would be the installer…but also the Main Contractor has some responsibility. But what about the designer who establishes intent? It’s about the on-site survey, structure etc In principle, that main contractor is responsible overall but others also deliver information to them. GEORGE thinks it’s about who is able to provide the information rather than who is contractually responsible. JIM thinks, in light of George’s clarification, that it’s the Manufacturer. But X says it’s the Installer….

ELIOT says it’s the Manufacturer because it’s the test evidence that that door has passed to which will give you the gap tolerances for all of the above etc. GEORGE agrees with him. Therefore, for the Construction section it is Manufacturer who is responsible. Eliot disputes this regarding 3 of the questions.

Moving on to the INSTALLATION section, who would be responsible for whether the door was installed correctly, patent sealed, by a competent person with third party accreditation with evidence? The Main Contractor…but they’d need it to be supplied by the Installer. ELIOT says the problem is that there is not currently legislation that someone needs to be accredited to fit a fire door. What kind of certification of competence? Architects would often ask for accreditation…

RICHARD says that often in the BIM4housing workshops they do not come from a position of where it’s got to be legislated for, we come from a position of best practice. On this basis ELIOT says the main Contractor would be responsible. But….it could also be client, designer, main contractor and installer…

ELIOT says installation training is the Manufacturer because the manufacturer sets the installation guideline for that door, it has to be installed in a certain way.

As-build drawings showing fire strategy - X questions whether that is the right question…they should have installed as per the fire strategy and if they haven’t that needed to be picked up. It wouldn’t be as built drawings…the architect should have provided the last construction set of record drawings for the build which would be representative of the build…the question is probably slightly wrong, it should be ‘are the final record drawings showing the fire compartmentation strategy aligned with the installed’…the designer, main contractor and installer are all responsible.

Any evidence of training provided to the customer? Training for what, says ELIOT. Richard puts a question mark for this one as the meaning of the question is uncertain. Are there any details of automation that’s been added to the doors? This means added after installation. The original intent would come from Design, but the supplier and installer are involved. Most things can’t be retro-fitted to a door, so actually this shouldn’t be occurring anyway - no one is responsible (maybe). Is there anything else that’s been added connected to fire alarms/systems that might cause fire alarms not to work? Eliot doesn’t know what the cause might be - only if something has been de-activated or taken off the door. Ultimately you could say ‘always refer back to the manufacturer’. Is there a cause and effect diagram? That relates to BMS so it’s part of commissioning. Also it needs an input for the designer.

Penetration Seals-20220615_113607-Meeting breakout room


Regarding base material, it’s the base material of what? says PAUL WANG. it’s of penetration seals, replies JISS. SHARON McCLURE asks if it means to determine what the fabric of the building is primarily made of. She says it's the Designer that is responsible. PAUL says she’s talking about the base material of the wall itself, but it’s surely the base material of the actual penetration seals, but it’s kind of irrelevant as long as it does its job. He thinks it’s trade contractor or supplier as they are the ones that would have the solutions. SHARON says it can’t be the trade contractor because that means he’d be taking design responsibility…

GEORGE asks SHARON if she has seen the one that Hilti sent through. She hasn’t yet. he says Alistair Brockett has already gone through and put his view on it and asks her is she can check to make sure that she agrees. They now look on screen at the document where the tick boxes have already been filled in by Alistair. George says they could keep a copy of this document and that if Paul, as a main contractor, has an alternative view there’s not an issue with that. SHARON asks if JISS can do something with the document to show where the changes have been made, he can do that.

They look through the questions and seem to agree with Alistair’s selections as no additional ticks are made. regarding question 15 what supports are needed for continuous support during fire? The manufacturer would test and advise, says SHARON. She thinks they’ve both been ticked because they are both affected by it…PAUL says it’s maybe the designer as well. SHARON thinks that based on Alistair’s point of view is if we’ve been given an anomaly and we had to go to Hilti and ask them for a fire stop detail they would give us information relating to any supports or any additional anchors to counter for any deficiencies in the building…the designer would have the original supports in the original build. The designer has to give us the basics…

GEORGE interrupts to say he’s just put into the chat the layout to give her some context. The Damper group are using the image as a way of relating it. Going back to the ‘supports’ question, PAUL wonders if it refers to the lintels or the structure above the hole itself. SHARON doesn’t think so, it’s for continuous support during fire. They think it should be partly the designer’s responsibility - Jiss changes it to a red box to indicate that a change has been made to the original document.

What areas need to be accessible for inspection? Should the operators not be involved in that discussion, asks SHARON. it’s all very well somebody saying you’ve got to get it from this side but if they’ve got a candelabra hanging in the middle of an atrium they might say ‘no, I don’t want it to be spoilt’ or ‘you can’t get access to something that they would be involved in’. PAUL thinks the operator should also have input as they will have to do it. Question number 20 is deleted as its a repeat of question 15 and question 21 is also deleted as its the same as question 16. Also, 22 is a copy of 17.

What are the limitations? Manufacturer, definitely. With the Lifespan, the manufacturer determines it but the lifespan is dependent of external factors as much as it’s determined by its original testing. PAUL thinks the client and the designer wouldn’t really come into it. SHARON thinks its relevant that the designer needs to be aware of the environment of where it will be installed. They remove the ‘client’ tick on the Lifespan question.

SHARON doubts why Question 27 should even be a question. What are the levels of protection? The decision is made by the designer and the client but the main contractor still has to make sure that the specification is passed on and the trade contractor has to make sure that it is compliant on the build. Question 30, what are the levels of protection? The manufacturer would be involved in that because you might have a situation whereby it’s what’s in front of you: it’s not in the design, it’s not in the drawings or the fire strategy, so the manufacturer might need to get involved because they’ll determine whether or not the product can be used for and provide the protection.

SHARON is trying to look at the questions holistically, to not get bogged down into one thing, to look at it via all the products she’s ever experienced. What are the means of application? the designer would determine how the building was being built and then the trade contractor would install it inline with the manufacturer’s installation guidelines. She says’ they are going on about active systems, so it can’t all be passive - this has obviously been worded in a way that it’s fire protection generally because the dampers are active and penetration seals are passive’. PAUL points out that there is a separate group doing dampers. SHARON says the problem can be there is an overlap. Is there a true cause and effect? Sharon doesn’t know, but imagines the designer would be responsible.

PAUL says the trouble with the seals and all the passive systems is that they are all hidden away so there are a lot of unknowns about them, they are not accessible for maintenance. SHARON says that’s why there’s a plan on an app to deal with this where information is uploaded and before and after pictures. Have installation seals around the outside been checked? The problem is that you don’t have to be third party certified and some that are certified don’t register all their jobs on the system. The Commissioner should be added. SHARON says the last 2 (questions) are key in terms of handover and quality assurance for building owners and contractors - two of the biggest problems in the trade.Question 34 also needs the Commissioner box to be ticked.

Smoke Dampers_20220615_102919 breakout room


KAREM has added the coloured plan, he took it from this chat to the other chat, all the other groups can still access it. The groups will notice someone has sent something as it will pop-up.

PAUL McSOLEY shares the document on screen. They look at the Information tab. They are only going to work on Smoke Control Dampers. He indicates the shaft on the diagram. It’s going to be a mechanical shaft, not a natural one. Who specifies the material of the Dampers? PAUL explains that a smoke control Damper is specified against…they are not fire dampers, but they can be used for compartmentation to meet that requirement, the only thing that’s common is the prescription etc…

The basis of the type of material should be the designer, but also it’s the main contractor and the trade contractor - the manufacturer shouldn’t specify anything, they should just give you what you’ve asked for.

The first question is, this has been shown as 60 minutes and its a 2 hour firefighting shaft so it should be shown at 120…DEBBIE says that once we’ve got this kind of information it’s ideal to put into some kind of decision support app. The service maintenance is the designer and the manufacturer and possibly the supplier. The operator would just get the output of that - people agree with him. Paul McSOLEY continues to work through the questions ticking boxes indicating who is responsible.

Something that PAUL is trying to preach is the importance of getting the prescription right: what is it? what is my intended purpose? Am I appropriate? Next question, what is the test evidence of compliance to match the intended use? The designer has some information, the main contractor’s got some responsibility, the trade contractor and suppliers also have to do it -it’s about VEW/VED…

The nuance is because a wall has got its own standard, a damper has its own standard, it’s been identified that it needs to be suitable for a wall. The damper…required to get it into the wall has to be done by the trade contractor or the supplier to make sure its appropriate. We also have to say it depends on the form of contract.

Re ‘no CE marking will be mandatory’, that’s not necessarily correct e/g if you do tunnels or anything with high pressure differentials…only goes up to 1500 pascals. if you do the smoke control system in the underground you’d not be using that CE marked product because it would be an ISO system which is bespoke. Therefore maybe it’s not mandatory. Would the commissioner check that? Fire stopping contractors deal with part 3 and part 4, we are talking about part 10 now.

The appropriateness of the whole installation, who is responsible for making sure it’s correct? Ultimately, says PAUL, it’s the lead consultant because that’s the person who instructs the design team on the work they are undertaking. Is the design approach for damper holistic etc? it’s difficult to say. You have to treat post-Grenfell by contract type as well. The trade contractor has got to check i, the Supplier is going to be sucked into it. The manufacturers just tell you how their stuff works.

KAREM asks if there should be separate ticks for who is responsible and who is accountable? PAUL says smoke control in it’s own right is so complicated. It all comes back down to the information that is appropriate to what you are doing. We’ve been in a situation where architects can’t really design walls because its about the manufacturers information and how the trade forms it to form apertures etc and it’s the same for all the other subjects that are there: dampers, ducts, doors. All they should be is the coordinator of bringing it all together but if the products aren’t selected…when you get to stage 4 and its based upon no products we’ll get the best value from the contractor.

The RACI should be done by contract types.

PAUL sent through to DEBBIE a document called Fire safety Case and Golden Thread Overview (which he will get George to distribute to everyone). He shares the document onscreen. he says there are 3 things that JCT always has in it which are discrepancy, adequacy and statuary requirements. Statutory requirements will rule all, adequacy will rule discrepancy, so if its adequate but not statuary compliant that will change the requirement of adequacy- this is basically what we are talking about. You have to schedule out contracts in simple forms - its Design & Build, that the Contractors are not really responsible for the adequacy of it of the design team, or it’s traditional when the client and their design team is responsible and Contractor is just delivering it - you have to separate whether its a client responsibility or a contractor responsibility and that depends on the form of contract.

Is there planned works in the building? How they are affected probably comes from the Supplier and probably the Operator…and maybe the client as well. looking back at Clients…think about it the other way round says X, when its finished and someone says ‘who chose this?’ and the designer said ‘it was the client’s choice’ then you would say the client is responsible for that, whereas in other instances the client might ask for it but the designer should say ‘no, you can’t have that because it’s not to standard’, but if there are options then the client might say its an option they can choose - it’s about money, rather than about there is only one right way to do it.

Can the damper be positioned to allow access for maintenance? There are strict codes about how you are supposed to do it that tell you you have to be able to get to the damper, to clean it etc on a yearly basis…

Regarding the Commissioner (who has not been ticked as responsible for anything) the only thing they check is volumes and performance of the system. They verify the volume that the designer says should be there.

The big thing about Clients is, if its Design & Build, a lot of these main contractors are going to turn over to client/developer, whoever is responsible for the contracts and the trades. The Operator is involved…they are responsible about planned working…actually, it’s a hard one, it could be all of them. X says often when contracts go wrong its because the responsibility hasn’t been correctly allocated to the person who can control that. So, if you give responsibility to the person who actually can’t do much about it then thats when it all goes wrong.

PAUL once again shows the Fire safety Case and Golden Thread Overview on screen.