Building standards - compliance plan manager role: development of scope

2. CPM Role and Responsibilities

1. This chapter outlines the views of the PBG and interviewed stakeholders on matters relating to the scope, remit and potential liability of the CPM role, as well as what should be deemed outside scope of the CPM’s duties. The findings relating to CPM responsibilities, supported by the desk research and two virtual meetings with the Professional Body Group (PBG) guiding this work, have directly informed the corresponding sections of the CPM Role Document (chapter 6).

2.1 Scope, remit and liability

1. The PBG, along with stakeholders interviewed for the research, sees the CPM role as a guardian of construction projects for HRBs, with a key role to demonstrate the achievement of compliance under the Building (Scotland) Act 2003; reduce the risk of non-compliance during construction and once a building project is complete; and exercise all reasonable skill and care to ensure process and procedural compliance is followed during a construction project.

2. In doing so, PBG members stressed that the CPM should operate primarily in a managerial and coordinating capacity, being inquisitorial and functionally independent, to ensure all the necessary processes and procedures to support achievement of compliance are in place and operational.

3. It should be noted that the Scottish Government, through the introduction of the CPM role, does not intend for existing compliance responsibilities held by other building project stakeholders to be transferred to the CPM, for example the contractor’s obligation to ensure that construction matches approved drawings and that (for example) loads/cables are designed to suit.

4. With the above factors in mind, the PBG emphasised the need to establish the limitation of liability for the CPM. Several stakeholders interviewed for the research echoed this and mentioned that the limit of liability of the CPM role ought to be legally defined to ensure clear lines of accountability and no confusion vis-à-vis the responsibilities of other roles.

5. It is generally felt that the CPM role should be responsible for demonstrating the achievement of compliance, rather than being accountable for the work undertaken by other project stakeholders to meet compliance requirements; furthermore, that the CPM role should be primarily about coordination, oversight and information management, i.e. ensuring the process of achieving compliance takes place, for which they are dependent on other project stakeholders.

6. A wider built environment stakeholder pointed out that the CPM should be responsible for compliance information and its completeness, that it has been produced by people competent enough to do so, that sufficient care has been taken, and that it has been checked.

7. There is a general acceptance that the CPM “cannot be a master of everything” and could not be expected to know or take responsibility for completed work to a granular level, such as that which might be required of a Clerk of Works.

“What we're taking is a proportionate approach that recognises that there's only so much somebody can sensibly do.”

Professional body

“If the CPM has to check every piece of work the contractor does, this spills over into other roles like independent quality assurance. I don’t think the CPM should be going out on site and doing inspections as this is a huge role that crosses over into other roles. The CPM is just one strand of that compliance assurance.”

Wider built environment stakeholder

“For the CPM to have full responsibility for construction compliance, they would need to be on site every day to watch every detail of work being completed and sign it off, but this isn’t really plausible.”

Local authority verifier

8. Several stakeholders believe the CPM role will help to demonstrate that the approved design is implemented as intended during the construction stage of a project, with one industry professional of the view that this is currently a “missing ingredient” in building projects. Another professional body sees the CPM as encapsulating the roles of principal designer and principal contractor in one, and a local authority views the CPM as a link between the client, contractor and regulators.

9. Stakeholders consider it very important to have a clearly (pre)defined set of rules around what is expected of different roles on a building project and that the CPM should ensure this takes place. For example, one local authority mentioned the need to distinguish between who is responsible for quality issues (such as standard of workmanship) and regulatory issues, with the CPM’s remit being focused on the latter.

“The responsibilities of the CPM and contractors needs to be outlined in contracts to inform the client of each party’s responsibilities, and to define what each party is liable and responsible for.”

Local authority verifier

10. One professional body suggested that the CPM should take responsibility to ensure an adequate design team is appointed, although this goes beyond the level of responsibility originally intended for the CPM. Another raised the point that design teams could theoretically make last minute changes, meaning they would need to inform the CPM of any relevant changes or respond to requests made by the CPM. It is not intended that the CPM undertakes detailed independent searches to find this out for themselves.

11. In relation to Construction Compliance Notification Plans (CCNPs), a local authority raised the issue that notifications of staged construction work to the verifier do not always take place as required, which the CPM would have a key responsibility to make sure they happen.

12. Questions were raised around how fault would be apportioned in certain cases and whether there would be a right of appeal, for example by designers, should a CPM determine that compliance has not been achieved. It should be noted that the verifier would ultimately determine whether compliance has been achieved, and that the question of fault would be a separate legal matter.

“The CPM should not take the blame for the contractor’s failings – the CPM is more of a manager, and there will be scenarios where they will not be informed of everything, so cannot claim full liability. “

Professional body

“The designer has professional indemnity insurance and has the responsibility to get the design right.”

Professional body

13. A small number of interviewees suggested that CPMs should be appointed by and accountable to the public sector. Not all jobs that fall within the remit of HRBs will be public sector projects, raising a question mark over whether this would be a reasonable expectation. Indeed it is the intention that the CPM be appointed by the RP/building owner.

2.2 Outside scope

1. Stakeholders mentioned the following as being potentially out of scope for the CPM:

• Supervision of contractors to agreed quality assurance standards and/or codes set by contractual arrangement, their company, trade association or professional body;
• Giving advice/making recommendations about aspects of design, except in relation to overcoming a compliance risk, for example using innovative techniques;
• Steering and directing contractors in undertaking their existing duties;
• Non-safety critical aspects of a project (except where these are a building regulation requirement); and
• Stopping a construction project or taking enforcement action, although the CPM should seek a resolution in the first instance in representing the RP, and has a duty inform the verifier of any compliance concerns, failures or infractions.