Building standards - compliance plan manager role: development of scope

6. Supporting Initiatives – Considerations

1. The PBG and stakeholders interviewed for this research were invited to share views on:

• Content considerations for the proposed Compliance Handbook (CHB);
• Proposals that could be used to set a national framework for the CPM role, including competency and standards-setting;
• Favourability to the creation of a professional register for CPM and (where in favour) what such a register might look like and how it might be governed.

2. A list of considerations for each initiative are set out below. These were developed iteratively through the course of the research and validated as part of the second meeting of the PBG.

6.1 Compliance Handbook (CHB)

General content considerations

1. There are mixed views among stakeholders regarding how detailed the CHB should set out to be. Some believe it should be a short, concise document which includes CPM responsibilities, guidance on how to demonstrate compliance and how to engage with project stakeholders, e.g. designers and contractors. To that end, it would aim to avoid duplicating information held elsewhere and signpost audiences to existing relevant information.

2. Others suggest that the CHB should provide extremely detailed information, including technical and procedural guidance for the CPM. One verifier suggested that a CHB should be available for every site where a CPM is used and accessible to all site visitors, including: site plans, drawings, details, literature, fire escape strategy, and every detail of the building.

Proposed content: nature of the role

3. The CHB should consider coverage of:

• What the CPM role is about and why it has been introduced into the building standards system – paying attention to the findings from high profile building failures and the importance of independent scrutiny;
• Scope of the role, including:
  • Definition of high-risk buildings;
  • Aspects of design and construction compliance that the role is concerned with on high-risk buildings, e.g. all technical standards as opposed to just safety critical elements.
• A statement on the limitations of liability afforded to the CPM;
• Relationship between different parties involved in a building project (including those providing information and those receiving it) so all parties understand how they and the CPM are expected to interact and work together;
• What is meant by ‘independence’ and why that is important – similar to the requirements of verifiers in the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 – and making clear that employment contracts must recognise and support these requirements;
• Importance of obtaining PII and ensuring that other project stakeholders have adequate PII.

Proposed content: procedural aspects of the role

• More detail on specific aspects of the CPM role and responsibilities as set out in the separate ‘role document’, especially in relation to:
  • Pre-application assessment stage;
  • Risk mitigation;
  • Leading on/developing the draft CP; and
  • Providing supervision level of oversight to support the RP.
• Protocols for raising concerns with verifiers, for example if it is felt a project should be shut down or enforcement action taken;
• Working with others;
• Transitional arrangements and continuity of liability where there needs to be a change of CPM on a project.

Proposed content: technical requirements

• How to demonstrate compliance in relation to specific building standards, including viable inspection methods (e.g. physical/remote) and a checklist of documents/evidence suitable for demonstrating compliance;
• Specifics on inspections, factoring in the following:
  • Mirroring inspections required by the verifier and drawing on other parties’ inspections and evidence as appropriate, in order to check everything appears in order as appropriate to the construction stage before the verifier is invited to undertake their own inspections;
  • Risks associated with the integrity of the building as a whole;
  • Experience of the contractor undertaking the works and whether the contractor is found to be more or less competent than originally thought);
  • Pace of construction and how quickly works will become concealed or hard to inspect (e.g. once scaffolding removed);
  • Complexity of works (which may require greater levels of inspection);
  • Whether the works are common industry practice or innovative (the latter requiring greater inspection);
  • On repeatable items, the initial works should be inspected until the CPM is satisfied that the works are to the required standard.
• What the CP should look like^[17], founded on the principles of Reasonable Inquiry in relation to verification checking, to demonstrate that:
  • The building project ultimately complies with the building regulations;
  • The building as constructed is in accordance with the design as approved through the granting of a building warrant and any amendments; and
  • Compliance with the approved plans and details, in accordance with the building regulations;
• Format of the CP – notably that it should be in a digital format that:
  • Is accessible to the CPM, RP, designer, contractor, subcontractors, specialists and verifier; ideally shareable in real-time during the project to allow updates from all authorised parties with version/audit control;
  • Forms part of the golden thread of evidence showing how compliance has been managed, achieved and evidenced;
  • Should include details of compliance post-completion, including fire routes, protocols for future works and if the CPM should be involved, and who holds ultimate responsibilities for each aspect of the building;
  • Is transferrable to new owners and updateable where necessary throughout the life of the building, along with all referenced evidence of compliance as approved in the CP.
• Template CP and examples of completed CPs;
• Information to be contained within the CP, RPCE, VCE and risk assessment, including how to produce them.

Proposed content: performance

• Performance standards/success criteria;
• Statement of competences;
• Details of:
  • Scheme(s) (where agreed);
  • A register of approved CPMs (where developed); and
  • Underpinning professional body membership requirements;
• Continuing professional development (CPD) expectations.

Proposed content: other

• Information on enforcement;
• Links to other relevant guidance/sources of information;
• FAQs, e.g. on costs, PII, likely repercussions of non-compliance etc.

6.2 National framework and standards setting

Main suggested components

1. There is general consensus amongst stakeholders regarding what a national framework for the role should encompass. Common suggestions include qualifications and chartered membership requirement, competences, CPD roadmap, PII expectations and a training needs analysis.

2. Other suggestions cross over with suggested content for the CHB, e.g. ‘nature of the role’ and ‘procedural aspects of the role’ as mentioned above.

3. Suggested blueprints:

• Building Standards Professional Competency Framework for Verifiers;
• (draft) Building Inspector Competence Framework (BICoF) – subject to consultation at the time of writing.

Bespoke scheme

4. There is widespread support for developing a bespoke CPM scheme, including a ‘badge’ to give clients confidence. This would require consideration to how to attain and maintain accredited status.

5. The scheme must also be perceived as credible and sufficiently rigorous to secure trust, whilst not overly burdensome to lead to low demand. It should also incorporate certain flexibilities depending on professional background and route into the role.

6. Suggested components/criteria:

(1) Confirmation of Chartered or Fellow membership status of a relevant professional body;

(2) Demonstrable project portfolio audited to assess relevant competence and experience as set out in the CPM role document;

(3) Interview/test/exam with scenarios to identify faults in a building;

(4) Initial training course – design, delivery and assessment of which would need to be further developed by the scheme operator(s) in conjunction with other external training providers/assessors as appropriate;

(5) Commitment to minimum CPD requirement (hours per annum) to bring up to speed and maintain knowledge, e.g. covering building regulations, new technologies etc.;

(6) Maintenance of a diary of experience/projects worked on to support re-assessment;

(7) Feedback process and any negative comments/complaints monitored;

(8) Confirmation of adherence to a bespoke Code of Conduct;

(9) Suspension/disciplinary procedures where expectations not met.

7. A minority of interviewed stakeholders suggested developing a new ‘bolt-on’ accredited qualification for CPM role-holders.

8. There are mixed views regarding re-assessment frequency– some suggest every three to five years since a higher frequency risks being overly burdensome and could put applicants off, while others suggest more frequently e.g. once per year, depending on changes to building regulations and to be able to demonstrate that CPMs always have up-to-date knowledge.

9. Four options have emerged for how a scheme could be managed:

(1) Multiple professional bodies to cover their respective members;

(2) A single professional body with responsibility for supervising and governing the scheme as a whole;

(3) An alternative existing independent body such as the Association of Project Safety (APS);

(4) A newly formed body audited by the BSD in a similar manner to the SER Scheme.

10. PBG members indicated an openness to different options. Some leaned towards such a scheme being managed by a single body to aid consistency (the existing Association of Project Safety (APS) was suggested by several interviewees as an organisation that might be approached to take this forward). Others felt that a joined-up approach by different professional bodies, each serving its own members but working to a consistent standard, would work well.

11. Other points of consideration mentioned by interviewed stakeholders in relation to developing a scheme:

• It would likely need to draw on the expertise/input of many professional bodies given the broad range of knowledge and understanding that a CPM would likely need;
• Linked to the above point – consistency would need to be assured;
• Whether there will be enough CPMs appointed to justify more than one scheme;
• What lessons can be learned from successful and unsuccessful attempts to develop schemes.

12. On the latter point, a verifier described the structural engineering accreditation as a particular success story as a scheme for engineers designed and run by engineers. This interviewee was more critical of the Energy ‘Add On’ scheme due to not having relevant people working on it.

Standards setting

13. Stakeholders are broadly favourable to CPMs working to a consistent standard but are mostly unfavourable to the idea of pursuing the development of a BSI publicly accessible standard (PAS) for the role, e.g. similar to PAS for Principal Designers and Principal Contractors, for the following reasons:

• The BSI is unlikely to consider a PAS standard viable given the role is only applicable only to Scotland whereas BSI standards are UK-wide;
• PAS impose place strict compliance liabilities on certain roles, whereas the CPM role is intended to embed a more proportionate and shared approach through various checks and balances;
• Relatively niche market for the role;
• Low potential number of role-holders.

14. Several stakeholders favour professional bodies taking ownership of standard-setting as long as consistency can be maintained; nominating a private company (e.g. APS) or setting up a new body formed and audited by BSD in a similar manner to the SER Scheme.

15. It is worth noting that the BSI offers guidance and poses questions for organisations looking to submit standards or the preliminary standards of a PAS. The BSI’s key questions are as follows:

• Is it a product, service or process that needs to be standardised?
• Why is the standard necessary?
• For which industry(ies) is it relevant and specifically, who would use the standard?
• Which trade associations or industry bodies should be involved in its development?
• Are there currently any relevant standards or is there any relevant existing good practice guidance within the industry?
• Are there any intellectual property rights (IPR) or patent related issues related to this idea?
• What happens after the idea is submitted?

16. Further questions for the Scottish Government to consider in relation to standardisation:

• What added value would a new PAS bring?
• How are PAS used for other (similar) roles in the building standards sphere in Scotland?
• Would the standard need to be made more generic to be applicable outside of the Scottish system?

6.3 CPM Register

1. Stakeholders are largely unified in their view that a professional register of CPMs should be developed, potentially as the ‘front end’ or ‘shop window’ for the competency scheme discussed above. The main perceived benefits of such a scheme are that it would:

• Ensure transparency;
• Embed trust in the CPM role;
• Provide reassurance to PII insurers;
• Help the RP to select a CPM;
• Mitigate the risk of selecting a CPM who is not sufficiently competent;
• Allow for checks to be made on a registrant’s credentials, e.g. professional body membership, qualifications, any complaints etc.

2. A respondent against the idea of developing a CPM register questioned why this should be developed given there is no register for principal designers or independent quality assurance roles, although there is of course a register for approved certifiers of design and construction.

3. Stakeholders acknowledge that development activity will take time and would be difficult to introduce from day 1. That is of course unless implementation of the CPM role were to be held back until all such development, competency and registration activity was firmly in place.

4. Suggested options for running the register mirror the four options set out for the proposed scheme (above). An additional suggestion includes management by the building standards hub, although this may be too premature a step for the newly formed structure.

5. Sufficient capacity and resource would be needed to develop and maintain the register, including governance and auditing provisions. Stakeholders also pointed out that the register should be free to use and easy to access electronically. A similar model that could act as a useful blueprint would be the Scottish Government Certification Register.