{"id":246,"date":"2023-06-26T15:34:33","date_gmt":"2023-06-26T15:34:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/?page_id=246"},"modified":"2023-06-26T15:44:37","modified_gmt":"2023-06-26T15:44:37","slug":"contractual-workstream-meeting-12-06-2023","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/contractual-workstream-meeting-12-06-2023\/","title":{"rendered":"CONTRACTUAL WORKSTREAM MEETING 12-06-2023"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n\t

Contractual Workstream Meeting 12-06-2023<\/strong><\/h2>\n

PAUL \u2026it\u2019s been designed in such a way that you can\u2019t actually run anything through the building and it\u2019s on-site and everyone\u2019s starting to realise. It\u2019s a bit of a nightmare when you get to that stage.<\/p>\n

GEORGE What\u2019s the implication of that?<\/p>\n

PAUL We\u2019re still seeing it, when people design steel frame buildings is they keep putting all the steels again across all the compartment lines running in linear fashion with the walls and suddenly we haven\u2019t realised is actually you can\u2019t go through the beam when you go through the wall you\u2019re actually 300 below the bottom of the beam anyway. When they get through it it\u2019s too late, especially when they\u2019re constructed, you can\u2019t correct it. You end up with doors that are too high, things coming through the wall that have to be too low, it becomes a nightmare to correct, you have to physically move walls.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Is that part of what we were just talking about with the fire engineers?<\/p>\n

PAUL Yeah, because a structural engineer will design a structure, they\u2019ll go we\u2019ve got all the torsion drift, sheer loads are locked in, brilliant, done, but we\u2019re not doing the passive compartmentation of the beams because we\u2019re not experts. It goes through another bit of rigmarole and people will draw pipes and ducts and things and they\u2019ll show them all going through the wrong place because actually you can\u2019t take them through the beams. By the time someone comes along and says hold on a minute when you\u2019re on-site, you can\u2019t put it through there you go what do we do? You\u2019ve got to remove the beams and if hit\u2019s built you can\u2019t do that, so you\u2019ve got to move the walls, well you can\u2019t. We see it a lot with riser safe system as well, they\u2019re great systems, the problem is that there is an appropriate place to put them and an inappropriate place to put them. If you\u2019ve got loads of stuff running up a riser and you look at the new fire code HSG168, you\u2019re in a situation where if you put the stuff in it\u2019s made of steel and it\u2019s got to be a compartment floor and you\u2019ve not picked up the fact that it should have been a compartment floor, you\u2019re knackered, it has to be torn out. You\u2019re still seeing these things going on, fire engineers don\u2019t pick it up because they\u2019re not experts on products.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Who would pick it up?<\/p>\n

PAUL Normally, you can get a situation where the architect doesn\u2019t see it, the building services engineer doesn\u2019t see it, the fire engineer doesn\u2019t see it, the principal contractors don\u2019t see it, and it\u2019s not until you come down to supply chain engagement, they don\u2019t always see it because they\u2019re only supplying pipes and you\u2019ve got a riser safe system installed and someone goes, well, how do we seal that. You go, well, you can\u2019t because\u2026what ends up happening is you\u2019ve got big open risers and they go it\u2019s 3 different spaces, we\u2019ll put some steel beams in between so we can put the riser safe in, then you haven\u2019t got the substrate on all 4 sides to put a concrete floor back in. You can get to that really late in the day when everyone goes, hold on, how does that work? By that time it\u2019s all deconstruction not construction because you\u2019re pickled. From Iain\u2019s point of view what happens then is the person who\u2019s put the drywall in gets the blame, which is not right.<\/p>\n

GEORGE It\u2019s because people are not looking at things in a holistic way, isn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n

MARTIN Yeah, fair point, they\u2019re siloed.<\/p>\n

IAIN I was talking to Joe the other day about one where you\u2019ve got overweight doors, doors that weigh more than 60kg that need extra support in the frames, and then if that\u2019s not done properly and at the right time then the wall configuration can\u2019t be built around the door and there\u2019s also a little bit of timber in there and we\u2019re not sure who\u2019s test evidence it covers. The door manufacturer needs a bit of timber for you to fix to, the drywall manufacturer won\u2019t cover that bit of timber in their construction, so you\u2019ve ended up with these situations where\u2026do you remember that little bit of wood we used to talk about on the staircases, Martin? Fixing the timber staircase to the steel, so it\u2019s a little bit of an issue. Again, it\u2019s who\u2019s responsible for that little bit of wood.<\/p>\n

PAUL Fire curtains spring to mind with that because you end up with C16 timber inside the wall to fix the anchors into the drywall so you\u2019ve suddenly got a drywall system with a C16 timber and an anchor in it and everyone goes who warrants that? It should be the test of the curtain, but it all gets a bit difficult to determine who\u2019s to take liability for it. Or are we just overthinking it, not sure.<\/p>\n

MARTIN I think we got too good at sorting things out on-site and the front end got very easy because sorting it out on-site was the way forward. And then when you get it wrong you get criticised.<\/p>\n

GEORGE We\u2019ve got a whole series of workshops that Richard\u2019s organised over the next 2 or 3 weeks and the purpose of those is to revisit the guidance that was produced 18 months ago and just see if it\u2019s still fit-for-purpose and get a lot more subject matter experts engaged in that process. He\u2019s been very successful in getting a lot of people to sign up to it. So, if there are things that we want to float past them as subject matter experts in these different areas then that\u2019s an opportunity.<\/p>\n

PAUL it\u2019s good, I\u2019ve accepted a lot of them. I think on the fire damper one Paul White had asked him to move the date of it as he couldn\u2019t do the date that was pertained. The one on the 22nd on smoke control dampers I can\u2019t do it, but as long as Paul\u2019s there I don\u2019t think ti matters too much because he\u2019s the leading guru on that subject.<\/p>\n

GEORGE The good news is we seem to have a lot of new people engaged, well over 100.<\/p>\n

PAUL That\u2019s good, you need diverse views on all of this because there\u2019s things that you don\u2019t see it until someone says, oh, I\u2019ve had this problem and you go, oh, I\u2019ve never seen that before.<\/p>\n

MARTIN It\u2019s encouraging that more and more people are coming to the party.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Absolutely. I\u2019m also talking with some people who are doing risk assessments and moving into principal designer roles which I think is also encouraging as well. One particular company called Safer Sphere, they\u2019re CDM coordinators, health and safety specialists and they\u2019re very much gearing up now to offer that principal designer role. My impression is that\u2019s going to be really important function.<\/p>\n

MARTIN It is, probably more so that the CDM. The regs require a principal designer to be, the roles and responsibility of a principal designer and a CDM are one thing, but the principal designer\u2026a different set of roles and responsibilities for the Building Safety Act.<\/p>\n

GEORGE What\u2019s the difference between a principal designer and a principal contractor?<\/p>\n

MARTIN Different role, different responsibilities, different stages.<\/p>\n

GEORGE And when you say different stages, does the principal designer still have a role during construction?<\/p>\n

MARTIN Yes, very much so.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I thought that would be the case, right to handover I guess.<\/p>\n

MARTIN And a bit of beyond, as well.<\/p>\n

GEORGE And what about principal contractor? What\u2019s different about the role as far as building safety is concerned?<\/p>\n

MARTIN I think it\u2019s just a bolt-on in terms of responsibilities to make sure that the engagement has been done with the fire authorities and the handover information to the occupier is carried out and I think there is a legal requirement to do the Section 38 of the Fire Safety Act handover of documentation as well. It\u2019s just more robust.<\/p>\n

GEORGE But the principal contractor, the handover of documentation would rest with them\/<\/p>\n

IAIN Preparation, delivery and handover, that\u2019s the three stages. They\u2019re responsible for the preparation of a workable programme ensuring that that\u2019s delivered incorporating change management and information management and at handover the baton is passed to the\u2026and that\u2019s a legal responsibility, as it is with CDN.<\/p>\n

GEORGE So, they would be responsible for making sure that the information that is being handed over is right.<\/p>\n

MARTIN Is as-built, yes.<\/p>\n

GEORGE And is that a person within\u2026would it be a named person on a project?<\/p>\n

IAIN It\u2019s an accountable person so it\u2019s a duty to define duty holders.<\/p>\n

PAUL The basic accountable person, it\u2019s an AP essentially. They\u2019ve got 2 names for it.<\/p>\n

MARTIN Principal contractor and a named person, Paul?<\/p>\n

IAIN The ultimate responsibility for risk rests with the CEO of the principal contractor, they\u2019re ultimately responsible for delivery within the business. But there will be other duty holders defined, but beyond that you get all the different duty holders in the construction and design element. You can be a main contractor and principal designer as well, you can hold multiple hats.<\/p>\n

GEORGE What I\u2019m trying to do at the moment is see how we can coordinate the work that\u2019s done by whoever is producing that safety plan and the safety case report and the ongoing safety management system because what\u2019s become clear, and we did this at the Digital Construction Week. Everybody at the moment is focusing on registering their building and producing a safety case report, but what many don\u2019t realise is that that safety case report is a snapshot in time and therefore you have to have something in place that is an ongoing safety management system. So, the landlord has to do that and I guess, I don\u2019t know whether duties hold with the main contractor on that, because obviously things are going to change after handover.<\/p>\n

MARTIN Yeah, the building owner or the landlord will have to have their own safety management system, which is an ongoing management system.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Of course, that\u2019s clear. But it is the case that at the moment it\u2019s not clear as to how they\u2019re actually going to do that.<\/p>\n

PAUL Principal accountable person, then you\u2019ve got accountable persons.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Yeah, the principal accountable person, I think on the client side that has been explained to me as being that you\u2019d have an accountable person that is probably responsible for one building and you might then have a principal accountable person where there is more than one accountable person.<\/p>\n

PAUL (shares screen<\/em>). The PDF kind of explains it here what\u2019s supposed to be going on, this is the one from the regulator, it\u2019s out there. You\u2019ve got PAPs and APs that sit underneath it.<\/p>\n

MARTIN So the PAP would be an organisation as such?<\/p>\n

PAUL Yeah, so you might have\u2026I had a conversation recently, my biggest fear was if you look at the principal designer and you\u2019re gonna give them all of these duties, no disrespect, they don\u2019t have the knowledge of all these different systems so they\u2019re not going to spot it. The fire engineers don\u2019t understand the products, they\u2019re not gonna spot it, building control are not going to spot it. So, there\u2019s still this kind of risk and you\u2019ve got all these people who are now accountable but actually who is actually dealing with the risk? That\u2019s the bit that frightens me because you see the effects on big projects where you get to the end and you go there\u2019s seven tiers of hierarchy that\u2019s not spotted it and now it\u2019s there and then you\u2019ve got to deal with it.<\/p>\n

GEORGE We had a good session at DCW that I can give you some feedback on. We\u2019re trying to encourage more knowledge sharing and the best way of doing that is to give people problems and then to come up with the collective solution. What happened was that Jarek Wityk, an electrical specialist, asked the group that attended DCW about a particular problem with the stairwell and he was trying to figure out how to address this. He\u2019s very Knowledgable, he\u2019d done a lot of research but he was not clear as to how to move forward with it. So, he sent me some information, he asked me if we could do something and he put up there what research he\u2019d done and what was the missing gap. Paul responded to him and then Roy Buckingham from Abloy came back on and said he thought it was very useful that this sort of thing was being posed.<\/p>\n

So, one of the things that I\u2019m just trying to get my head around is how best can we facilitate that type of dialogue where there is actually a problem. We set up on BIM4housing the Blackbox site and the intention of that was to encourage this type of debate, but I think the problem with any\u2026I had the same problem with Zero which is the zero construct initiative. We were doing all of that through Whatsapp and people became a bit frustrated that Whatsapp a fairly basic technology and there\u2019s better collaboration platforms. So we moved everything over to Disperse which is far cleverer and you can set up different groups and all the rest of it and nobody used it, because Whatsapp is quick and simple. It\u2019s not organised, people are answering questions and you can set up particular groups, which they\u2019ve done very well in Zero, for particular topics, but again it\u2019s just a stream of comments and things. To some extent I think we have to make it easy for people to engage, maybe a way of doing that is just to have this type of thing where you encourage people to put up there a particular topic which we can then circulate and then if somebody\u2019s got some views on it they can share it and we can then potentially take that information and put it into the Blackbox site. What are your thoughts on that?<\/p>\n

PAUL That one for the Blackbox was fine, George, that kind of stuff\u2019s good because the conflict in that particular one is that you\u2019ve got a standard that says you can have sanitary combination of a firer fighting shaft but then they\u2019re saying you shouldn\u2019t have services that go through it that ?? 22mins. Having it in there where you can go this is all the facts around it is useful to other people to make their determination of actually what they want to do to design around it. The hard thing is getting to a platform where everyone is consistently feeding in and out because businesses have so many different mediums now for transmission of information, it\u2019s too many.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I entirely agree and taking, for example, that e-mail exchange that you did and turning that into something that would be useful would be quite a bit of work for somebody that really would need to understand what the topic was as well.<\/p>\n

IAIN What\u2019s the role of Cross group in this? They\u2019re supposed to be dealing with our mandatory duty to report and there is still no real tight definition of what a near miss is. Is a near miss something that nearly happened at design phase. I had an interesting one the other day where a company I knows worked on a number of buildings which are all identical across the country and there was a fire in one of them, not in one of those they\u2019d worked on and they\u2019d like access to the information about the cause and movement of that fire, but they\u2019re not entitled to it. Is that a near, is that not something that Cross should be exposing. if there is a fire in a building hat actually happens to the information about that fire and how much of that is made available to the supply chain in what kind of time frame by whom and when? It\u2019s quite a big open question for me still. But all of these things about how do you ensure that there is a record of a problem that\u2019s made available to people. That\u2019s kind of what Cross are there to do, but I think everyone\u2019s underestimated what big a role that is.<\/p>\n

MARTIN It does need proper curating, all of that information, that\u2019s not something that\u2019s solvable from a software perspective, it needs people behind it.<\/p>\n

PAUL Generally you find all the fires that are occurring, all the ones that are total building loss and to some degree Grenfell falls into this, it\u2019s all to do with cavities, whether it\u2019s an external cavity or internal cavity. Then it\u2019s the construction material that\u2019s been used and the lack of sealing around those cavities. Take the one on Orkney in Shetland the FPA does lectures on around the EMC agenda where the two buildings burnt down because the fire got in the cavity. Buildings that are made generally of steel and concrete providing it\u2019s not an external cavity, it\u2019s internal, generally I don\u2019t think you read about big fires in that material because they don\u2019t seem to really occur. Or they\u2019re old buildings, historic purposes and basically you\u2019re always going to get a total loss if they go up in flames, the big thing is getting everyone out alive in the first instance. It\u2019s hard because when ti comes down to reporting fires in buildings there is obviously the legal consequence that goes on as well, no one wants to declare what\u2019s happened, do they?<\/p>\n

IAIN That\u2019s why there\u2019s Cross because it\u2019s effectively the blackbox, that\u2019s the way I sort of read it. At the start of it Cross was supposed to be the industry-wide blackbox that people can raise their concerns, deposit them so that they\u2019re responsibly dealt with.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I know somebody that is one of the cross advisors, Paul Bray, he's from Plymouth, he's quite active in BIM4housing, but he's also one of the consultants that works, I think they're all volunteers in Cross.<\/p>\n

PAUL I think they are. I think there\u2019s a couple of people from the ASFP have got onto it as well. Cross started off as Safer Structures but its bridged across many different subjects now. When you look at all of these things that go wrong what I\u2019m seeing recently again is that it\u2019s a culmination of many different system failures to get to the overall consequence that you get to. Whether there is a fire or not, you go and see the building and you can kind of see how they\u2019ve followed each other to that natural conclusion where the materials or the whole compartmentation system of the building is wrong. So, it\u2019s got to be hard for Cross to pick all of that up, that\u2019s probably why they\u2019re asking for experts at the moment.<\/p>\n

MARTIN The mandatory occurring that you mentioned, Iain, that just hasn\u2019t landed yet, they\u2019re out for consultation in terms of what are we going to do. They\u2019ve mentioned Cross, they\u2019ve mentioned Riddor, but there\u2019s no way forward been agreed yet in terms of who do we go to.<\/p>\n

IAIN As I read it, it was that we were going to use the Cross framework to manage it, that\u2019s about as far as I\u2019ve seen. Say, for example, one of our members was working on a project and the issue that Paul identified earlier was in the pack. Then you\u2019re moving towards a clear and present risk to safety in that building and you\u2019ve allowed for it in your quote and you know somebody else probably hasn\u2019t has won the job. Have you got a duty to report that?<\/p>\n

PAUL I think the bottom line is really, not to be facetious but you can sometimes point out the blooming obvious and sometimes the people, the receptors don\u2019t understand what it is. You see things all the time, we\u2019ve had it on jobs and I\u2019ve gone to clients, look, your structural frame is wrong, you can\u2019t compartment everything through the walls. You go back 8 months later and someone else is building it and the client\u2019s in big dramas because that contractor\u2019s now got the issue because they can\u2019t put anything through the frame. Someone is now contractually liable to make it work, it\u2019s horrific, but no one can see it. The amount of times you get told \u2018just go and test it\u2019, well, you can\u2019t test everything and actually there\u2019s no procedure to do it. You can\u2019t even test it ad hoc because you\u2019re mixing standards that aren\u2019t compatible.<\/p>\n

IAIN This thing is on the higher risk buildings it\u2019s fine, which is where your mandatory duty to report is, you sort of hope that the process will pick it up anyway. So, if it\u2019s not picked up at procurement stage it should be picked up by the building safety regulator. I think it\u2019s just a wider application of the rules and it there is a fire in a building that\u2019s not high-risk and you didn\u2019t report, what\u2019s your liability? There\u2019s so much inferred in the Building Safety Act, inferred in the responsibilities around it. One thing they said at that safety regulators conference is the CDM requirements are the same for all, that bits not different for any part of the Building Safety Act, all buildings are now required to conform to the CDM requirements as made out in the Building Safety Act and subsequent documentation.<\/p>\n

PAUL Until the knowledge gets better with it those kind of shenanigans are going to go on where you can say to a client, look, your building shape and form doesn\u2019t really work. But until it kind of manifests itself into that problem they don\u2019t go, ah, I can see what you mean. We have a good habit of going that project was a problem because of this, we don\u2019t go that one was really good because of this. Because it doesn\u2019t manifest itself you can\u2019t say why did it go so well, it\u2019s hard, isn\u2019t it? You\u2019ve got to capture the good\u2026a report years ago called The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, a bit of Eli Wallach, Clint Eastwood. Because some situations were good, some were bad and some were just plain ugly.<\/p>\n

MARTIN But as an industry the health and safety and the CDM and the reporting of near misses and accidents is pretty robust, through Riddor it happens, it\u2019s a cultural thing. There\u2019s very few exceptions, it\u2019s embedded now, it\u2019s part of what we do. I think that\u2019s the aspiration. I\u2019m aware they\u2019re still asking the industry what do they think should be the reporting mechanism, be it through Cross or Riddor, how are we going to do this. It\u2019s difficult because you\u2019re going to be whistle blowing, almost, in certain circumstances. You might be saying some of your designers that you work with regularly, you might be reporting them saying this is wrong, they haven\u2019t though about this, this and this. And when do you do that? Do you give them a grace period, sort this out through design development or do you report it straight away.<\/p>\n

PAUL And they\u2019ll go we never spotted it because it was all CDP. What do you mean? The walls were all CDP, we din\u2019t know any better, did we? Anything apart from the frame is basically CDP, great, brilliant.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I think the point Iain\u2019s made is a really interesting one and that is that if it is the case that you think\u2026clearly you don\u2019t know the detail of someone else\u2019s quote, do you? But, if you anticipate that somebody\u2019s missed something out it\u2019s a problem. You don\u2019t want to raise it before the bid has gone in because that could be your expertise that you\u2019re\u2026<\/p>\n

IAIN Weirdly, if you do raise it before the bid goes in you can end up disadvantaging yourself in the tender process. That\u2019s the issue, doing the right thing doesn\u2019t necessarily deliver the right results because you\u2019re then basically providing a qualified price because that\u2019s an issue that needs to be resolved and as a consequence you\u2019re not the fixed price person on the list. There\u2019s a good article in our magazine this month about this, Richard Blackston wrote it. It\u2019s more about issues identified, it doesn\u2019t make the link to\u2026<\/p>\n

MARTIN When it does get going it\u2019s going to be a lot of mischief and sour grapes going on.<\/p>\n

IAIN Well, how do you separate these things. Is it reasonable to report\u2026this is where subjectivity comes in because is it a near miss because it was in that pack or do you assume that there is a rigorous process that follows and therefore it will be picked up by somebody else and dealt with. So, the assumption that it\u2019s going to be done wrong isn\u2019t necessarily right, but it\u2019s a miss.<\/p>\n

MARTIN Could be, potential, and I think you\u2019re right, it\u2019s a subjective assessment and when you\u2019re into that territory dealing with busy people they\u2019re not going to be doing the reporting, are they?<\/p>\n

IAIN And also we deal a lot with things like the payment code and we hear all sorts of shenanigans going on. But when you say report it to the small business commissioner there is a process, well, I can\u2019t do that, I don\u2019t get anymore work. It\u2019s an anonymous, yeah, you say that, but\u2026There\u2019s not many people involved and it won\u2019t be hard for them to guess who it is.<\/p>\n

GEORGE The other thing is the expectation that the regulator is going to pick something up\u2026<\/p>\n

MARTIN With his expert knowledge.<\/p>\n

PAUL I did some training with one of the approved inspectors the other day. For me, it\u2019s always reg 7, reg 8, reg 4 for refurbs, it\u2019s always appropriate for the circumstances, that\u2019s always the governing thing, is it reasonable. Then it\u2019s all about is it discrepant, is it adequate and does it comply with statutory matters. It\u2019s all it really is but when you start looking at it on subjectology these guys were just blown away because they did not know, they all had snippets but when you put it into a whole system approach, like the damper I\u2019ve show you before, I\u2019ve done duct work, pipe work, trying to do cables and fire resistant ducts at the moment. You go no one is ever going to pick up on all of these nuances unless you\u2019ve got good robust contracting at the bottom that understands how you record the space risk and what it is and how you put that stuff to work with all the other products. Designers at the top that know the same knowledge of how you classify things correctly at the start and people in the middle who know how to manage the quality of it during the whole build process.<\/p>\n

Until you get to that point they\u2019re all kind of like\u2026it\u2019s only contractually when you become aware of it and the thing is you want to become aware of it at the earliest possible point, not suddenly you\u2019re 12 weeks from handover and someone goes by the way, your riser systems and things are all wrong. Because it\u2019s constructed, so, what\u2019s the solution? Tear it out. I don\u2019t want to tear it out! Well, what you want to do and what you don\u2019t want to do is irrelevant because to form those seals it\u2019s got to come out. It\u2019s really hard conversations when you\u2019re at that point, but that\u2019s the world we\u2019re kind of in now, kicking that can down the road is no longer a good idea.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Martin this must be a problem you\u2019re encountering all the time, I\u2019m not suggesting you\u2019ve got this problem all the time\u2026<\/p>\n

IAIN Thanks for reviewing that document for me.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Not at all, I think it\u2019s really good. I\u2019m keen to see the finished version.<\/p>\n

IAIN I\u2019ve got a meeting with NBS tomorrow to look at this structured system thing and get some input, Stephen says he\u2019s put some stuff in an email but he\u2019d rather have a chat to me around it. That\u2019s coming to bear on some of the sustainability work we\u2019re doing as well because we\u2019re trying to do work around re-use of products and then categorisation of system product component. We want to use artificial intelligence but artificial intelligence is going to struggle when you haven\u2019t got a clear systemised approach that works in the real world.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Yeah, one of the things that we\u2019ve found using Uniclass, and I\u2019m not saying we shouldn\u2019t use Uniclass at all, quite the opposite, but the relationship between the product classification and the system classification, there isn\u2019t one.<\/p>\n

IAIN Stephen claims there is, I can\u2019t find one, but he claims it is a logical hierarchy. They can\u2019t work out how it\u2026<\/p>\n

GEORGE It\u2019s logical within the products section, but what I wanted to do was to have it so when you pick a system under the system classification you could then see what product types are likely to relate to that.<\/p>\n

IAIN If you take product there is a structured approach within the product directory, let\u2019s say, and there is a logic within the system, but the system and the products don\u2019t relate to each other. So, it\u2019s almost like I think you need to take a product to bits because door sets is a product whereas in our level they\u2019d be a system. Door sets is a system, but we call it a product, I think that\u2019s the way around, but you can\u2019t then sort of logically build a directory of products and systems off the back of Uniclass easily.<\/p>\n

GEORGE And to some extent, basically Stephen has explained that\u2019s why you need to buy Chorus.<\/p>\n

IAIN Chorus is what takes the performance and then searches through, it\u2019s the mechanism for dealing with it, isn\u2019t it? There\u2019s got to be an alternative, there\u2019s got to be a mechanism for us to align them, but I can\u2019t get my head around it.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Yeah, the other challenge, and I believe they\u2019ve now changed it, but in the old Uniclass (before NBS took it over) there was something called the materials table which allowed you to hold in there things like steel or copper or whatever. Because there was no materials table, they didn\u2019t implement the materials table when they implemented Uniclass 2015 therefore every product, when it\u2019s classified, it has to say whether it\u2019s steel or whatever, so you end up with a lot more products. Like a boiler, for example, you might have a cast-iron boiler, you might have a stainless steel boiler, or whatever, and all of those are different product classifications whereas actually they\u2019re all boilers.<\/p>\n

IAIN Yeah, that\u2019s the bit, we were getting down to the\u2026the structure we\u2019ve been trying to work with in terms of is super system, system, product, component, and actually there is a dimension below that the environmentalists have pointed out which is material and there should be a material passport with the product for sustainability reasons an if you had that logical structure the two could be the same, but because you don\u2019t it\u2019s really hard to manage the two together.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I was told recently that NBS have introduced a materials table. I think part of the issue as well is that NBS won the commission to build the Uniclass, and they were paid to do it (over a million, I believe), but they\u2019v spent that money now. They\u2019re now owned by a venture capital company so it\u2019s no longer RIBA. I imagine that people will be asking why are we carrying on managing this.I think it would be a real shot in their own foot if they stop doing it because I think Uniclass is probably a good marketing thing for them.<\/p>\n

IAIN The thing is they\u2019d have to reinvent something else, but it might not be fit-for-purpose or the purpose that I need it for.<\/p>\n

GEORGE (shares screen<\/em>). At Digital Construction Week we had some online and offline discussions to answer certain questions. These were the questions: How do we prevent incorrect design, selection and installation of fire safety products? That was the question that I posed and this was the group that contributed to that and this was the output from a combination of what was said at the roundtables, but also we did an online session before hand as well. We\u2019ve got some good examples there, quite how I turn that into something that we can use I\u2019m not quite sure, but I think we\u2019ve got some good information there, 26 bullet points. Then we had another one which was how do we ensure that the asset information is managed through the asset lifetime. I\u2019ll just explain why this particular topic came up.<\/p>\n

What I\u2019ve discovered in working through, in particular on the fire safety side of things, is that when people are using inspection software like Bolster or Plan Radar what they\u2019re actually doing is the golden thread, as it were, that they\u2019re recording is the actual inspection rather than it being against an individual asset. So therefore in two-years-time when somebody carries out another inspection, even with the same software, they renumber everything because it\u2019s the inspection that\u2019s being paid for and it\u2019s the inspection that\u2019s being recorded, rather than the asset.<\/p>\n

So, if you\u2019ve got something like fire stopping you want to see that it\u2019s lasted for 10 or 15 years and it has or it hasn\u2019t been damaged or repaired, you\u2019re buggered, really. So, what we need to do is to make sure that all of these different records, because we\u2019re finding now we\u2019re getting dozens of different golden threads. Everybody\u2019s got a golden thread, fire doors for example, you\u2019ve got a golden thread that\u2019s being created by the manufacturers, really good stuff going back to where the product came from and even the individual components. And then the people that installed it, they\u2019ve typically got their own applications to record that they\u2019ve installed it and then when people are doing inspections of fire doors, again, and it may or may not relate back to the same asset.<\/p>\n

PAUL Everyone\u2019s got to many golden threads, really, at the moment. I\u2019ve had this conversation internally, we\u2019ve got a bit of barking going on at the moment about digital records, as you say, George, having an installed condition doesn\u2019t mean it was appropriate for the space or the risk it was supposed to be protecting against in the first instance, it\u2019s just a record of what\u2019s been installed, not how you got there.<\/p>\n

GEORGE These are the results as to how we can overcome that problem which it was great that people recognised that particular issue. We\u2019ve got here some steers from people. I\u2019m not going into this in detail because we\u2019re going to put it into a report. Then, the building safety data, it shouldn\u2019t just be a snapshot in time. This was the group that was involved in that, we had several landlords involved. This was the results of the discussions. And then this is the one that Paul led where, basically, finish the design before you build it, novel idea. I think most of these we\u2019ve not had, Paul, the feedback from the table itself, although Mandeep sent something through this morning. Do you know if anybody was making notes?<\/p>\n

PAUL Yeah, I took my notes and sent them through to Jiss.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Martin, the key thing about that is what we were trying to do was distill down what information is needed into some things, topics that we then came up with. I think having some fairly simple questions there that people thought were useful.<\/p>\n

MARTIN The answer to the last one is the answer to most things, quite frankly. That\u2019s something that we\u2019re doing as an organisation and we\u2019re getting a lot of fightback from some very good customers but we\u2019re saying you\u2019re not ready to a lot of customers at the moment. The days of us jumping in with both feet and starting to dig holes before we\u2019re confident that the services are going to fit, they\u2019re behind us, we\u2019re not doing that anymore. A lot of customers, including the biggest customer of all, who don\u2019t like that when you play that one back at them.<\/p>\n

PAUL I sent you back an email, George, and what I said was information flow was obviously a key point, how you hand information to and forth. What do we know when it\u2019s not flowing from the relative response of accountable persons. We underestimate the complexity in providing this information because there\u2019s so much more than just is it RER120? 57mins 05secs. There is too much belief that the value is in the market at the later stages of the project process when the value is in the information, the products at the early stages. And one key point is does anyone in the project process actually know who owns the design? That is a big one.<\/p>\n

GEORGE You\u2019d think, as a layperson, that should be the principal designer.<\/p>\n

IAIN That\u2019s laid down in the design responsibility matrix, clearly the plan of works tells us that.<\/p>\n

PAUL It\u2019s a funny one, it\u2019s a bit like saying\u2026I hear this all the time, in defense of architectural practices it\u2019s a bit like they\u2019re the designer of the wall. And you go, great, so the designer of the wall without any knowledge of how any product is designed and specified to go within it, because it\u2019s all CDP. It\u2019s the irony of it.<\/p>\n

IAIN Isn\u2019t that where the designer, so you\u2019ve got the principal designer and the designer, the designer then has to create the next tier, the design responsibility matrix should be a tiered thing. So, if that\u2019s the case you\u2019ve got the principal designer sets down the overarching design responsibility matrix and the people responsible therein have to create their own design\u2026it becomes a cascading document, doesn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n

PAUL I think the theory and the practice are slightly different, not taking anything away from what you said because you\u2019re absolutely right. The issue comes down to if you\u2019ve got a principal designer, and my biggest fear is that they don\u2019t understand all of these products and how they bolt together as a system. To be frank it takes 10 to 12 years to become a building control officer and they don\u2019t necessarily understand it all either because it\u2019s just so complex. The crux is that if you\u2019ve got someone that\u2019s responsible for the mechanical design of the ventilation system they\u2019ve got to be responsible for every single component in it. They cant just go the dampers are CDP, let\u2019s face it, the AHU? 59mins 19secs is CDP, the BMS is CDP and you go it\u2019s just fragmented. Then who is bringing it back into one system approach? That\u2019s where it all kind of falls down.<\/p>\n

IAIN I could find lawyers that couldn\u2019t even tell you who\u2019s designing what, because of the way the contracts are managing it, it\u2019s very unclear if you look at what people are signing up to, what their contractual responsibility for design is.<\/p>\n

PAUL It\u2019s like I said at the start, I\u2019ve seen one recently with a ventilation system which is extracting smoke and when you start looking at all the people that are involved in it it\u2019s not appropriate, possibly, for what it was supposed to have been doing and no one has actually spotted it because it\u2019s fragmented. It\u2019s really hard to get how you can control an industry to bring it all together because no one is actually doing it. And I don\u2019t think the PDs will be able to.<\/p>\n

IAIN All the PDs can realistically do is specify the process by which it happens afterwards because they\u2019re not responsible for the build, they\u2019re responsible for setting a framework for the build and then at the end my assumption is they\u2019re responsible for where you\u2019ve got your CDM safety pack in CDM they\u2019ll be responsible for overseeing the building safety pack i.e. the O&M to ensure the information has been effectively handed across, so that the principle of their design is being maintained throughout. That\u2019s the best we can ask them to do, they\u2019re not going to able to get into all of the detail, so that\u2019s when the principal contractor steps up and they are then responsible for making sure that these things are being managed in the process.<\/p>\n

PAUL When you look at it there isn\u2019t a process that\u2019s actually out there that tells people how to handle this information between parties, that\u2019s half the battle that\u2019s going wrong because the complexity of it is not actually discussed. Even for doors, the amount of times I see procurement programmes where they\u2019re procuring the doors and you go, well, is the security package let yet? No. Good luck with that one then, next. You look at it and laugh and go has everyone gone through the whole walking route of the building to see what doors are powered or not powered, what security they\u2019ve got on them, because it\u2019s CDM by an MEP contractor and this is a recipe for disaster.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Yeah, certainly Abloy would be all over that in terms of how you\u2019re doing your escape process.<\/p>\n

IAIN But they\u2019re not in the contract anyway, they\u2019ve got a contract to supply someone at the end of it.<\/p>\n

PAUL That\u2019s right. I went out on a job the other day, we\u2019re doing a cause and effect test, I\u2019m walking past doors in certain common areas and they\u2019re all powering open all over the place and I\u2019m like you do know that they shouldn\u2019t be doing anything but sitting in a static state? Really. It\u2019s crazy. If you\u2019ve got doors that are powered, fire doors, you don\u2019t want them powering open in a fire because then the compartmentation is gone. It sounds blooming obvious, but it\u2019s like lighting control, the lights to come back on to full light. If you\u2019ve got a door and you\u2019ve got a security system and you\u2019ve got a fire alarm interface where is the interface. Is it like machine acts where it\u2019s got to be a hardwired input to the device causing it to go open or are you trying to do it over a security system which involves layers and layers of non-life safety critical cabling. It\u2019s that kind of approach that doesn\u2019t always get fully considered because it\u2019s so fragmented by CDP.<\/p>\n

IAIN I know this isn\u2019t how the world works, but realistically looking at the way it should work is the principal designer should lay out the process for that to be determined. That\u2019s where the design responsibility matrix comes in and then the design responsibility matrix at principal designer level should identify what\u2019s covered by that and then what additional information and processes need to follow in order to complete that matrix when additional information is pumped in. It\u2019s just a badly managed document from the outset and we\u2019re still not really getting on top of that one, there\u2019s a lot of stuff at the bottom end, but there\u2019s not a lot of pressure at the top end to get that bit from it.<\/p>\n

GEORGE From a software point of view, Iain, would it be useful trying to figure out whether you could have a design responsibility matrix by back to the BIM model. So, in other words, you\u2019ve actually got a way of allocating responsibilities at different stages to different people. Would that be useful?<\/p>\n

IAIN It would, but that brings you back to the system product component issue, so who\u2019s responsible for what part of that within that\u2026This is why I keep coming back to this system-based approach thing. The actual question is who is the fabricator of that part of the building because it\u2019s the fabricator that pulls all of that together and then under what instruction are they operating. is that fabricator talking any design responsibility or no design responsibility and you\u2019ve just got to work it back that way. But who fabricates is for me always the missing link. I\u2019ve got a half-written paper on it but I just keep getting lost, it\u2019s quite hard to articulate in places. It\u2019s almost every example you think of there\u2019s another one, because nothing is bespoke, nothing is systemised it becomes\u2026door sets are probably the easiest ones to think about. A structured approach to the design responsibility matrix has got to be the answer.<\/p>\n

MARTIN Is that not tied up with information exchange?<\/p>\n

IAIN Sort of, but BS8644 is the key one.<\/p>\n

MARTIN Yeah, if you can get that right at the beginning, who\u2019s going to exchange what information at what stage, that covers off your design responsibility matrix, you\u2019ve nailed it at the beginning.<\/p>\n

IAIN It does, but I don\u2019t think 8644 is a standard you can just take off and apply, it\u2019s a process that you\u2019ve got to think about for each job. We had that at the roundtable, George, people saying it\u2019s just recommended, well, stick it in the bloody specification then it\u2019s a rule.<\/p>\n

PAUL And that\u2019s why I talk about microbiology and water quality all the time because the guide for that ends up being used as a standard and it\u2019s not, it\u2019s a guide.<\/p>\n

IAIN Again if you read all the BIM stuff it sort of does dictate that this stuff\u2019s done, it\u2019s all the various roles in BIM and the processes and the myriad of different standards that come together to make up\u2026Everyone gets lost in the technology rather than the basics of working out who\u2019s doing what, who\u2019s responsible. Again, it\u2019s where the contractual stuff, this is where procurement and contracting, because Paul is right about the contractor design proportions, but what happens is people think about it for a bit, realise they haven\u2019t got time and whack it in a contract and move on. And some of the design clauses we see people signing up to are horrendous, 169 pages of amendments of standard form contracts, these are responsible for everything.<\/p>\n

PAUL It\u2019s horrific because they end up singing up back-to-back where they\u2019re responsible for the adequacy of the whole design. Then you\u2019re stuck because you\u2019ve got interdependencies like security for the doors, DDA for the doors. I\u2019ve seen jobs where people have procured fire and smoke curtains only to realise that the curtain they\u2019re procuring doesn\u2019t have an earth rating to it, because actually it doesn\u2019t exist for that size. How has it got to the point where they\u2019ve even ordered it? That\u2019s part of the battle with it, with all these different guides that are out there no one wants to deal with the core issue that the subjectology in its own right, including doors because they\u2019re complicated and all the components have got CE marks as well.<\/p>\n

Unless you go for the whole shebang of doing proper scheduling of where this stuff sits and what it\u2019s actually there to protect against and classifying it accordingly, you\u2019re already on a hiding to nothing because you\u2019ve identified all the interdependencies of that package. You know what you said earlier, Iain, someone turns around and says, well, I can\u2019t procure the doors yet, why is that? Because you haven\u2019t got the security and the rest of it, but you\u2019re making me responsible for the adequacy of that door, then I ain\u2019t procuring it, you\u2019d be off the job tomorrow, wouldn\u2019t you? They\u2019d be like this guy is a nonconformist, get rid of him.<\/p>\n

GEORGE One of the things I\u2019ve been trying to do, you know my sort of mission to get the product library established. We\u2019ve got reasonable interest from quite a few manufacturers who are willing to put data sheets and things like that on. But the other part of the equation is to try and record also what the specification is that that particular product is satisfying, because that\u2019s an important part of the regulations. I was telling Iain that I was talking with MBS, Steven Hammill, at Digital Construction Week, just to see how we could have\u2026let\u2019s say, we\u2019ve just been talking about doors and doors are probably much easier from MBS Chorus\u2019 perspective. I said to Steve can we get even a reference to the specification, I think they often use the term keynotes that are put in BIM models and things to reference back to the spec. he said the problem is that an MBS specification can be 1500-2000 pages, so how do you identify what, because it\u2019s a specification I guess for the building.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a matter of them pulling out what is the specification of that door in that context and I don\u2019t understand enough about specifications to actually make sense of that. I was telling Iain that Steven was interested and willing to consider it, but whether we could bet maybe even an index on the specification, because to some extent if you\u2019ve got a specification that\u2019s 1500 pages as long as you can reference it properly and pull back that particular specification for that door in that location then that could be acceptable. Does anybody have a view? Because without having the specification, that\u2019s the whole part of the point about the golden thread, isn\u2019t it? having a specification that you can then, what was the intended requirement of that door in that particular context.<\/p>\n

IAIN It\u2019s a backwards way of thinking about it though, isn\u2019t it? Because the other way around is what do I need it to do and how do I achieve that.<\/p>\n

MARTIN Pure performance spec and details spec, isn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n

IAIN And this is where you get the mix of the two becomes more difficult, you initially need a performance specification and then you need to technical design to go through and work out how you achieve that. But again, because it\u2019s not a linear process it\u2019s all just done in microcosm, once you\u2019ve got that original document laid out it\u2019s far too much information, everything ends up cascaded, diluted and conflicting and it\u2019s just a mess.<\/p>\n

MARTIN If you start off with a performance spec you have to iterate, don\u2019t you, to a solution and then you lose the track.<\/p>\n

PAUL You\u2019ve all seen the stuff I did on dampers, I\u2019ve done it for pipes and a few others. (shares screen<\/em>). Trying to make complex simpler is the only way to do it. If you take pipework, this is all the things for one pipe through one wall that you actually need to go to someone like Hilti or Rockwool with to get them to give you the seal type that you need. And you go that\u2019s just pipework and it\u2019s things such as the jointing method, where that jointing method is in relation to the wall, whether you need continuously sustained insulation for thermal vapours or whether you can do something locally just for heat transfer or whether you can do it this way. You can\u2019t determine that unless you know actually what the fluid temperatures of the materials and things are, it\u2019s impossible.<\/p>\n

Then you\u2019ve got to consider is it n the hole with other stuff or not because the aim is if you can\u2026the way I try to look at it is that if a pipe\u2019s doing drainage, it\u2019s got a builders regulation for how you deal with the drainage in the first instance, that bits got to be right. Because if yo u end up with big risers up buildings that are 30 floors, they\u2019re gonna go we want cast steel with certain types of joints on it to go down the building. Then you go, oh great, they\u2019ve put it in a riser with drywall and full size with a hollow floor, there\u2019s nothing there. You go, well, what are you going to anchor and bear it against? They go, well, you can\u2019t so you can\u2019t use that, you\u2019ve got to use a different system, you might go for a high-pressure plastic like a HDPE. But it actually might be that the wall\u2019s incorrect, you need a wall there that is solid concrete or block on 2 or 3 sides to get your anchoring as you go down the building.<\/p>\n

All of these things have got to come into this thing here so you know what type of pipe it was meant to be for its inherent purpose before you then get on to the fire seal of it and the manufacturer can tell you how they\u2019re going to deal with it. You\u2019ve got to do it that way. If you\u2019re gonna deal with a specification for it you\u2019ve got to have this bit first of all to do the net bit. What we\u2019re doing is we\u2019re going it\u2019s combustible or non-combustible and we\u2019re relying on someone like a great fire stopping company like LDD or CLM to go away and determine what type of stuff you want for your pipe. That just doesn\u2019t ring right for me. It\u2019s the same with the dampers, you\u2019ve got to understand the space risk again, you\u2019ve got to understand the space risk for this because there may be occasions where you\u2019re doing lab work or something else where you can\u2019t use certain types of materials like stainless steel and things like that because of the fumigation risks, you might have to go for plastics.<\/p>\n

You\u2019ve got to have a method to give people the way of going what should it have been originally and what\u2019s been selected to meet that condition. Until you get to that point, as you said. George with the list you sent before, this is what you\u2019d end up having in the BIM asset model, but the templates don\u2019t exist for it yet. But this is what you have, and that\u2019s the flaw with 8644, it doesn\u2019t do this. That\u2019s the only way I can work it out, I\u2019m still working on fire resistants ducts at the moment. All these subjects are complicated in their own right, even doors, what are you protecting against, you\u2019re protecting against the security risk as well, a functionality risk for people, the user, so some might need, then you can start looking at what the fire risk is with it. We\u2019re trying to look at the fire risk at the moment, not the functionality of it, but the functionality comes back to haunt on the fire risk type of the door. Looking at it in a code, part B is the last bit that you do, do the first bit first and then you choose the appropriate product to meet the part B risk at the end.<\/p>\n

IAIN Paul, have you done anything to look at the\u2026because everything is done bespoke every time it\u2019s like every decision has been made every time and that\u2019s part of the issue. If you took this to a manufacturing environment you\u2019d solve these problems once and you\u2019d do it that way repeatedly. That\u2019s the big challenge. The systemised approach to building starts to assume that you start to make consistent decisions as a business, so main contractors would almost have their firm method of build.<\/p>\n

PAUL Yeah, I agree. The only issue for me is who\u2019s in the zoo. So, you\u2019ve got people doing these who\u2019ve got their own interests at heart, people building the walls, people doing all these other things, they actually don\u2019t understand how what they\u2019re doing can effect the wall or this can actually effect that via the wall. That door might be tested in gypsum that they think they want to use, but actually I\u2019ve got flues involved and need a blockwork wall and suddenly the door is not good. It\u2019s those inter-relationships that you\u2019ve got to somehow get everyone to the point where before you put that in a wall with all of these components in it you know all of these need to house them and you can choose the right wall and the right component to meet all of it. That\u2019s the jigsaw puzzle.<\/p>\n

IAIN But we rebuild that jigsaw puzzle almost every single time.<\/p>\n

PAUL We do. And I\u2019m not sure you\u2019ll ever change that, to be honest, because\u2026well, maybe with 10 billion pounds and everyone testing every single variant that can ever be built in the world then maybe you will, but that\u2019s a bit in the long grass at the moment. It\u2019s just getting the same sort of thing for that to apply to the others. I\u2019m still working on the others, the pipework one is horrific because when you start looking at pipework you\u2019re laying it bare. You\u2019ve got different materials, makes it a different connection type which means it\u2019s a different seal type. No one\u2019s really looking at it like that.<\/p>\n

GEORGE You might say that the solution to this is MMC, but that doesn\u2019t seem to be working, does it?<\/p>\n

PAUL You\u2019d have to consider all this stuff in the prefab before, if this was modules of rooms, then you\u2019ve got joint methods where you\u2019re connecting the next room onto it you end up with this UC connection if you\u2019re not careful, if they\u2019re not like a welded or a solid steel flange connection. If it\u2019s all like push fit then you are possibly in the UC world. If the seal wasn\u2019t tested UC and it\u2019s CC then it\u2019s not appropriate, you might have to retest all of those seals to prove the materiality, it becomes very difficult. As I tried to do there, if you went to Hilti or Rockwool and say actually that\u2019s what I need for that one condition. The if you can build them all up by where it\u2019s located in a wall with all the different ones you\u2019ve got by that indicator where it is and you can schedule it out and go I\u2019ve got all this stuff, all these different materials and properties, in that one wall, then you\u2019ve got almost 100% chance of actually getting the right seal for all of those different materials. I can\u2019t see how else you\u2019re going to do it.<\/p>\n

The one from Basa cable types is CCA, BCA, all these different cable resistance ratings that you\u2019ve got for classification of reaction to fire and you\u2019ve got acidity and other stuff to it, I\u2019ve never heard of it, I\u2019ve been going through it all because I\u2019ve got to try and schedule that out next in a similar diagram. It\u2019s really not as simple as everyone is trying to make it, you\u2019ve got to get the complex, then try and break it into a simplistic way for people to understand it. And as you said, Iain. you\u2019ve then got to get them to pass that information around at the right time. It\u2019s a big cultural shock, I think.<\/p>\n

MARTIN Not one we\u2019re going to solve by Friday.<\/p>\n

PAUL No, it\u2019s not. Friday next year, same time.<\/p>\n

GEORGE We were doing something last week on carbon and most carbon information that\u2019s available is on concrete, but most of the things that can actually make a difference to building services. And getting embodied carbon information, for example, on a pump is nigh on impossible because you\u2019ve got a very complex assembly of elements.<\/p>\n

PAUL We looked at it about 2 years ago, we went through it with the guys who were doing TM65 which is a good read. It\u2019s about embodied carbon in mechanical electrical. Whatever figures you do get, there\u2019s 2 assess methods you can use on EPD and they\u2019re like rocking horse poo, EPDs for plant and stuff. You can be plus and minus 1000%, 2000% either way, you don\u2019t know where you are with it because where\u2019s the cable been mined, where\u2019s it been refined and milled, how\u2019s it been extruded, how\u2019s it been wrapped. All the supply chain handed before it gets to you is nigh on impossible to put a figure against it.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Yeah, people are guessing at the moment.<\/p>\n

ADDENDUM<\/strong><\/p>\n

CHAT<\/p>\n

Iain Mcilwee<\/strong><\/p>\n

https:\/\/researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk\/documents\/CBP-8482\/CBP-8482.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Contractual Workstream Meeting 12-06-2023 PAUL \u2026it\u2019s been designed in such a way that you can\u2019t actually run anything through the building and it\u2019s on-site and everyone\u2019s starting to realise. It\u2019s a bit of a nightmare when you get to that stage. GEORGE What\u2019s the implication of that? PAUL We\u2019re still seeing it, when people design…<\/p>\n

Read More<\/span>+<\/i><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-246","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nCONTRACTUAL WORKSTREAM MEETING 12-06-2023 - IQ Contractual<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/contractual-workstream-meeting-12-06-2023\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"CONTRACTUAL WORKSTREAM MEETING 12-06-2023 - IQ Contractual\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Contractual Workstream Meeting 12-06-2023 PAUL \u2026it\u2019s been designed in such a way that you can\u2019t actually run anything through the building and it\u2019s on-site and everyone\u2019s starting to realise. It\u2019s a bit of a nightmare when you get to that stage. GEORGE What\u2019s the implication of that? PAUL We\u2019re still seeing it, when people design…Read More+\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/contractual-workstream-meeting-12-06-2023\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"IQ Contractual\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-06-26T15:44:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"45 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/iq-contractual\\\/contractual-workstream-meeting-12-06-2023\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/iq-contractual\\\/contractual-workstream-meeting-12-06-2023\\\/\",\"name\":\"CONTRACTUAL WORKSTREAM MEETING 12-06-2023 - IQ Contractual\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/iq-contractual\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2023-06-26T15:34:33+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-06-26T15:44:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/iq-contractual\\\/contractual-workstream-meeting-12-06-2023\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/iq-contractual\\\/contractual-workstream-meeting-12-06-2023\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/iq-contractual\\\/contractual-workstream-meeting-12-06-2023\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/iq-contractual\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"CONTRACTUAL WORKSTREAM MEETING 12-06-2023\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/iq-contractual\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/iq-contractual\\\/\",\"name\":\"IQ Contractual\",\"description\":\"IQ Contractual Workstreams\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/iq-contractual\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"CONTRACTUAL WORKSTREAM MEETING 12-06-2023 - IQ Contractual","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/contractual-workstream-meeting-12-06-2023\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"CONTRACTUAL WORKSTREAM MEETING 12-06-2023 - IQ Contractual","og_description":"Contractual Workstream Meeting 12-06-2023 PAUL \u2026it\u2019s been designed in such a way that you can\u2019t actually run anything through the building and it\u2019s on-site and everyone\u2019s starting to realise. It\u2019s a bit of a nightmare when you get to that stage. GEORGE What\u2019s the implication of that? PAUL We\u2019re still seeing it, when people design…Read More+","og_url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/contractual-workstream-meeting-12-06-2023\/","og_site_name":"IQ Contractual","article_modified_time":"2023-06-26T15:44:37+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"45 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/contractual-workstream-meeting-12-06-2023\/","url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/contractual-workstream-meeting-12-06-2023\/","name":"CONTRACTUAL WORKSTREAM MEETING 12-06-2023 - IQ Contractual","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/#website"},"datePublished":"2023-06-26T15:34:33+00:00","dateModified":"2023-06-26T15:44:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/contractual-workstream-meeting-12-06-2023\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/contractual-workstream-meeting-12-06-2023\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/contractual-workstream-meeting-12-06-2023\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"CONTRACTUAL WORKSTREAM MEETING 12-06-2023"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/#website","url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/","name":"IQ Contractual","description":"IQ Contractual Workstreams","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/246","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=246"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/246\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":249,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/246\/revisions\/249"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=246"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=246"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/iq-contractual\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=246"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}