The economic downturn has chipped away at the confidence of some contractors, designers and CDM coordinators, who are now less prepared to challenge clients over project demands than they might have been when the economy was in good shape.
This is one of the key findings from a major evaluation of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007, carried out on behalf of the HSE by Frontline Consultants.
When the Regulations came into force in April 2007, it was agreed that, following a period of operation, they would be evaluated to establish: to what extent they had met their objectives; and the cost implications for the construction industry of compliance. Completion of the evaluation by April 2012 was also a recommendation of the Löfstedt Report, which emphasised the need for a clearer expression of duties, a reduction of bureaucracy, and tailored guidance for small projects.
According to the report’s authors, the results of the evaluation show that:
On this final point, the report emphasises the negative impact of the recession on good practice. Industry stakeholders questioned as part of the evaluation told the researchers that when tendering for work, offering the lowest price was often more important than having specific competence.
Respondents also noted that both budgets and timescales were being reduced as part of the procurement process and, as a result, effort was being focused primarily on the core activities of ‘getting the work done’, rather than the values expressed in CDM of coordination and cooperation.
“In the current economic climate, purchasers have the upper hand,” the report’s authors concluded. “This can lead to contractors, designers and coordinators being unwilling to challenge a client’s demands. As a result, actions can be implemented that are not compatible with either the spirit or letter of CDM 2007 – for example, starting work without the appointment of a coordinator, or starting work on site without the required preconstruction information, or planning.
The report also highlights that CDM has had little effect on reducing paperwork and bureaucracy – despite one of the legislation’s key objectives being to simplify the assessment of competence for both individuals and organisations.
Respondents expressed concerns about the proliferation of competence assessment schemes, specifically that:
Concerns were also expressed that some organisations were trying to use clauses in contracts to wriggle out of their CDM responsibilities – seemingly unaware that the requirements of CDM 2007 are based in criminal law and outweigh any requirements in contracts between duty-holders.
The report makes no recommendations for changes to CDM 2007, but the HSE notes that the evidence it contains will inform policy development in this area.
A spokeswoman told SHP: “HSE will consider the evaluation of the CDM 2007 research report alongside the other Government reviews of legislation and the Löfstedt recommendations. Any proposed changes to the current regulations would be subject to HSE Board approval and open to extensive public consultation.”
The report is available at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr920.htm
I spoke directly with the HSE in 2007 and asked when are they going to start issuing PN’s to clients and CDMC’s when accidents occur on sites due to significant reduction in build programme. I have not seen one yet!! Clients will continue to bully principle contractors into reducing build programmes to suit themselves and CDMC’s will never support the PC.
What support do we safety advisors get when we have to investigate accidents as a result?
In my experience, the majority of Clients understands their project firstly from a cost point of view and then the design from a business model point of view. CDM simply falls way outside the scope of what they are interested in and is seen as a bureaucratic process that involves the rest of the project team.
As a CDM-C I find that I am often appointed late, work is mainly won on protracted negotiation of fees, scope of the work is never negotiated and competence never discussed.
Bob,
Unfortunately we are still at the stage of the game where we (as CDM-Cs) are mostly measured on our fees, rather than our competence and the scope of our proposed work. Most Clients see CDM as a delegated project role which falls deep within the project team and will not see that they are connected.
Only once in the last 4 years have ever been asked a question by a client relating to competency outlined Appendix 5 of the ACOP for the 2007 CDM Regulations.
the requirements of CDM 2007 are based in criminal law.
Thats an astounding statement. How many CDMC prosecutions have been instigated to date?
Why did Wates not get charged with CDM offences when they ignored CDM requirement, thus causing the collapse of undesigned TW injuring 7 subbies?
I have interviewd CDMC`s under caution, and to my knowledge none of them were charged, yet evidence clearly demonstrated failings?
CDM places strict duties and should be enforced in criminal law as required
5.4% responce rate from Duty Holders is hardly inspiring for an evaluation of a Regulatory Requirement.
I wonder if WATES took part in this evaluation?
Given that those that bothered to respond, were of the of the opinion that duties are understood, the issue of TW design compliance not being upheld by either WATES or the CDMC becomes more evident?
If caught speeding, I get nicked.
A CDMC consorts to injury through being an ass, and he is not even considered worthy or criminal neglect? LOL
I once interviewed a CDMC and enquired why he had ignored most of the regulatory requirement placed upon him as the designated duty holder. No excuse given.
He was requested to respond in writing conveying improvement made thereafter.
In reply he inadvertently forwarded a copy of his invoice (£40.00/hr + Milage) to his Client for the time he was interviewed (3hrs)
Bloody cheek, he was interviewed because he had failed to do what he should have done for the fee in the first place. Astounded
My concern regarding the CDMC and Wates, is Design, i.e the design of temporary work which was indused by the initial design requiring the use of TW.
People involved in the construction process really should know their job and these muppets involved in this scenario obviuosly did not and that includes the CDMC for failing to indentify the initial risk at design stage.
If you take the money then do the job for which you are paid and accountable for.
If the Client is an ass find another one.
CDMC Duties:
CDM ACoP article 87 – Proper consideration of the H&S implications of the design and maintenance of the structure. (This includes concept designs)
Therefore they have a duty to make sure that tasks undertaken by the PC and Sub Contractors in regard to the design are both planned for and undertaken with due diligence, this includes a SSoW.
Most CDMC`s fail in this task as design is often ill thought out when assessing the method of work and maintenance of the project thereafter.
I was working as an IOC at HSE when I interviewed the CDMC in question. My PI suggested that I change jobs. I was clearly undervalued.
I know not if he was paid, it was purely an observation of the type of bandits that I met, whom deguise themselves as CDMC`s..
Additionally, he was the QS as well. And when asked how much had been allowed for scaffold in the bill, he had know idea? Odd that?
Probably explians why there was none provided. (BEWARE THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST COMES TO MIND)
So the failure of a CDMC to do nothing to address thier Client`s failure and Designers failure is acceptable then?
Might as well do away with the CDMC with that attitude?
Maybe WATES feel the same way, had the CDMC done thier job then they would not have cocked up, and 7 chaps would not have been dropped by undesigned and overloaded TW?
Maybe they should have blamed the Client for the lack of time it takes to understand that TW requires design, maybe the budget did not allow for TW?
I fancy chicken pie, but have no chicken. I use a stock cube and pretend its chicken pie.
My daughter comes home from school and asks is that chicken pie?
Do I say no, its got no chicken in it, or do I lie and say yes, becauses she won`t no any different?
Its a moral dilema, but nobody paid me to make a chicken pie?
And a stock cube can`t kill me or her.
So the fee now determines the deligence observed by the CDMC, I thought the duties imposed on the CDMC were determined by Law and not the fee recieved.
Now I know whom to blame. The uneducated Client is responsible for all evils due to the lack of funds he has commited?
I would not recommend this defence in court. Having appointed a CDMC the Client is directed by thier input. Refer to the ACoP as stated previously.
The fact that CDM is constantly breached as you describe, only reinforces the arguement for enforcement.
CDM does not eliminate or conrol risk if Duty Holders fail to observe thier duties. (It can increase / compound risk)
CDM requires a collective approach, hence varied Duty Holder complaince requirement.
The persistant breaches you describe were constntly witnessed by me as an HSE Inspector, and Notices were issued.
However, no prosecutions were brought? Not my choice I may add.
The CDMC is responsible for assessing the safe buildability of designs. This role does not cease once the project commences.
Late design changes are also to be assessed for any imposed risk brought about by such design change.
Refer to ACoP articles 103,104 & 105. Design and buildability is to be assessed by the CDMC to ensure that risk is designed out and or suitably controlled by the SSoW adopted. Assessment of safe maintenance is included in this duty.
The Client where they are not experienced in construction must use the skills and knowledge of the CDM-C for guidance to ensure the project is managed safely?
Therein lies the problem.
I think it is important to remember that health and safety managment on site is the responsibility of the principal contractor. Not of the the CDMC or the Client who are not required under the CDM regulations to visit site during the construction phase.
Yes CDMC’s and clients play an important role in accident reduction through making sure the correct information is issued, time for planning, checking the construction phase plan, checking competence etc.
However the client has all the power especially in the current climate. If the client fails to appoint a CDMC until the job has started they can’t do their job properly. If the client refuses to have surveys done due to cost the PC can’t. If the client can seperate the job into two phases to get out of notification some do.
As the article states the client is king – pays the designers, CDMC and contractors. They hold the purse strings & dictate the H&S attitude and resources for the project.
I do not act as a CDMC but I do work for a principal contractor who regularly take the ‘commercial decision’ to do the job, despite knowing that all the CDM duties by the client and CDMC have not been met. The fact is, as the article implies, the recession has forced contractors to either work under these conditions or go out of business.
The CDMC cannot do a lot about risks at design stage if they are not appointed until construction work starts, which seems to be happening more and more.
Not yet read the report, but the summary is much what I expected, you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to know what is going on in CDM projects. It is interesting to note that the recession has played a significant part in undermining the regulations.
Clients, particularly those who own the infrastructure, are getting away with murder and contractors dare not rebuke them. Until the HSE start to enforce the CDM Regs with ENs and prosecutions nothing will change – over to you Judith.
i hope the CDM-C was never paid for the interview. I would have threatened to report the matter with his industry association and/ or HSE if he did not withdraw his invoice – not just a bloody cheek, but a liberty!
In my experience I have found no CPP in place, lack of suitable pre-construction information, evidence of competence and so on. The CDM Regs are constantly abused, mostly by clients, but when it suits their purpose they invoke all manner of interventions.
The CDM regs are far from perfect, but if they are breached on a regular basis then they are of no use whatsoever.
Peter, I cannot completely agree with you, the CDM Regs explicitly and implicitly place duties on all parties in terms of health, safety and welfare arrangements . The Client where they are not experienced in construction must use the skills and knowledge of the CDM-C for guidance to ensure the project is managed safely – see Reg 9 (54) of the ACoP. It is incumbent upon the Client to ensure they appoint a suitable CDM-C and the CDM-C advises the Client of its duties.
Unfortunately the CDM Regs impose duties on the CDM-C but absolutely no authority to ensure he can fulfill those duties. As an “expert advisor” to the Client, he can only “inform” the Client of any H&S failings (if allowed on site to observe them), but once construction has started the PC can run the site any way he sees fit , with or without the connivance of the Client. Client’s only recourse is to remove PC from job and reappoint (starting the whole process off again)
You don’t normally see prosecutions for a breach of Regulation until 4-5 years after they become effective. Most prosecutions will take 2 years to come to court, there is a generally “agreed” period of around 18 months for industry practice to catch up with the changes in the law, and as the prosecution would be a test case, HSE is reluctant to prosecute anything but “cut & dried” cases. By my reckoning you should start to see prosecutions under CDM from now onwards