Building standards - compliance plan manager role: development of scope

7. Conclusions and Forward Considerations

7.1 Conclusions

CPM role and responsibilities

1. Through an iterative process of desk research, stakeholder interviews and the steer of an expert PBG, the research has developed and reached broad consensus on the role, responsibilities, competences and other pre-requisites required of the CPM, including specific elements deemed outside scope of the role. These are set out in detail in the form of a CPM Role Document in chapter 5. It is intended for this document to be taken forward on a standalone basis and adapted/further developed as a national template job description/person specification.

2. It will be important that implementation of the CPM role responds to fundamental concerns raised by Professor John Cole in the Independent Inquiry into the Construction of Scottish Schools (2017), in particular the need to ensure informed, independent scrutiny where public safety is at greatest risk from any a building failure, and to ensure the RP does not lose sight of their ultimate legal responsibility for compliance under the Building (Scotland) Act 2003.

3. On that basis, it is considered extremely important that the CPM is independent, impartial and not subject to any conflicts of interest or undue influence from other project stakeholders. Consideration should therefore be given to standardising the terms of CPM appointment by the RP, to be approved by the BSD and protected by Statute as an independent function.

4. The latter would need to involve due consideration to who appoints the CPM; who pays for the CPM; how the CPM could be removed if needed; how checks would be undertaken to ensure that there is no coercion or conflicts of interest at play; and how independence can be guaranteed when any qualified building professional could also be looking for work in many other areas. The risk of a hidden conflict of interest might still be present, even if the CPM were to be appointed by the RP or the verifier.

5. Another important component of developing the CPM role relates to the limitation of liability of the CPM in relation to other project stakeholders, which will be crucial for all project stakeholders on a HRB to understand. This will also be needed by PII providers in determining whether coverage can be offered and a risk level determined. This is inherent in the wording of the CPM Role Document, but further development work is recommended (noting the possible issues set out below) to ensure this is as clearly defined and articulated as possible within the CHB and in contractual documents.

6. Firstly, there is the question of whether or not the CPM should be responsible and accountable for ensuring the achievement of compliance. By not placing full responsibility for compliance on the CPM, the effect could be to stoke confusion and introduce another layer of bureaucracy and complexity into building projects without attaching final and substantive accountability for its achievement. The CPM would appear to be effectively acting as guarantor for other decision-makers, with the possible risk of significant legal complications should an accident or other building failure occur.

7. There are a number of well-justified reasons (section 2.1) for full compliance responsibility on the CPM being problematic. It is therefore proposed that the CPM takes responsibility for demonstrating the achievement of compliance under the Building (Scotland) Act 2003; reducing the risk of non-compliance during construction and once a building project is complete; and exercising all reasonable skill and care to ensure process and procedural compliance is followed during a construction project. The CPM role would therefore be primarily oriented around coordination, oversight and information management. On that basis, existing responsibilities and liabilities associated with compliance held by other project stakeholders would not be transferred in any way to the CPM.

8. The proposed approach is considered ‘proportionate’. For it to work effectively, the CPM’s role would need to be legally defined and they would need to be able to communicate clearly to other project stakeholders what changes are needed to overcome compliance shortcomings and to help encourage a culture of collective responsibility in that regard. This would be encouraged by the fact that, without the CPM's satisfaction with the information as presented to them, and that the CP has been fully discharged, the building owner and likewise the contractor would not be able to apply for the legal completion of the building through the completion certificate process.

9. In terms of appointing the CPM, whilst the backstop should be that the RP appoints the CPM no later than the pre-application assessment stage, the emphasis should be as soon as possible after planning permission has been granted. This is in the interests of risk mitigation and to ensure the CPM is fully involved in key decisions, such as being satisfied with the appointment of a suitable multidisciplinary design team.

CPM competences, pre-requisites and implementation considerations

10. Despite key facets of the CPM role being managerial and coordinating, involving oversight and information management, the research has identified an extensive suite of pre-requisite requirements spanning essential and desirable experience; as well as regulatory, technical, contractual and cross-cutting competences. In short, stakeholders consider it important that the CPM can demonstrate a breadth and depth of knowledge in potentially quite specialist areas of design and construction. This leads to a risk that the requirements could go beyond what any one individual would be equipped to undertake; and that the role could therefore be perceived as unattractive to some potential applicants.

11. To address this challenge, there is favourability to the CPM being formed as an entity, for example with one nominated individual assigned to a project but able to draw on the expertise of others in the organisation on the knowledge and expertise required. This would be similar to the current Certification of Design and Certification of Construction schemes through approved bodies, coordinators and individual certifiers. There is also an acknowledged need not to be overly prescriptive as regards minimum qualifications and length of prior experience, and instead consider each applicant on the merits of demonstrable competences and experience, backed up by current membership of a relevant professional body.

12. The market for the role is potentially broad, with a range of building design professionals (e.g. architects, building engineers and surveyors), as well as those with experience of working in relation to building standards and compliance, being the most likely candidates. Whilst Chartered membership of a relevant professional body is seen as an important pre-requisite, stakeholders are favourable to not being overly prescriptive around the number of years’ prior experience so as not to limit the market.

13. These factors point to there being sufficient capacity to take on the role across Scotland, although the research has identified a number of variables that make it difficult at this stage to quantify the likely dynamics of market supply versus demand, notably:

(1) Scale, complexity, duration and geographical distribution of HRB projects and what each of those would mean in terms of the CPM time demand;

(2) How far CPMs would be prepared to travel;

(3) How many professionals in the market would consider themselves to have built up sufficient experience, knowledge and skills to meet the requirements of the CPM role document;

(4) The perceived attractiveness of the CPM role within the market, factoring in likely remuneration balanced against the proposed responsibilities, competences and limitation of liability.

Professional Indemnity Insurance

14. Based on the views of insurance industry stakeholders, the introduction of the CPM role has the potential to reduce the overall risk associated with HRB projects, although that risk level could be affected up or down by factors such as the liability extended to the CPM; what the CPM would be held responsible for if the building had a fault; level of detail in the building regulations; building height; and coverage needed in relation to fire safety/use of cladding.

15. Whilst engagement with insurance representatives reveals a greatly reduced appetite to provide PII since the Grenfell Tower fire, this could potentially be worked through by providing assurances to the insurance industry on the important question of limitation of liability.

16. The majority of stakeholders interviewed for the research favour PII being mandated in legislation, although a third feel this could be left to the market. For HRBs there is a general acceptance that the RP would drive the requirement for CPMs to have PII, although it may be prudent to set this in legislation to avoid the risk of this being potentially missed given the severity of the potential consequences otherwise.

Compliance Handbook

17. A wide range of considerations have been identified as to what the CHB could potentially encompass (covered in section 6.1) with some mixed views as to how detailed this would need to be and how it is intended to be used. Of key importance will be ensuring clarity on the role and scope of the CPM for all project stakeholders (drawing and expanding on the CPM Role Document) and how this will affect and influence the responsibilities of other project stakeholders.

18. It will be important that the CHB is piloted and tested once developed to ensure it is fit for purpose, and that it takes a form that is easily updateable with version control.

Competency scheme, national register and standardisation

19. In the interests of ensuring trust and confidence in the role, as well as keeping in mind the need to protect the public interest, there is strong support for developing a bespoke scheme and ‘badge’ for the CPM role, backed up by an electronic register of CPMs.

20. Proposals for what a scheme should incorporate and options for how it could be developed and managed are set out in section 6.2. PBG members indicated an openness to different options, with no clear preferred approach. 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. Expertise and input would inevitably be needed from professional bodies to developing the scheme.

21. The current Certification Register, in particular the SER Scheme, is considered a good model for a possible CPM Register and could act as a ‘front end’ to the scheme and maintained in a similar way to the Certification Register scheme.

22. Finally, the PBG and interviewed stakeholders are broadly unfavourable to pursuing a BSI PAS standard for the CPM role, mainly given the role’s restriction to Scotland and likely small number of applicants in relation to other PAS schemes, which could prove to be obstacles.

7.2 Forward considerations

1. The research findings provide a basis for the following:

(1) As development and implementation of the CPM role continues, maintain sight of core concept priorities, notably that the RP, who has ultimate legal responsibility for compliance, is not at risk of placing overreliance on project stakeholders who are themselves at risk of making mistakes; and that the introduction of the CPM role secures meaningful and fully independent scrutiny of work;

(2) Develop an implementation framework for the CPM role, comprising all pre-requisite information, guidance and supporting initiatives to be put in place and key actors to be involved. Include a timescale for piloting, evaluating and then rolling out the CPM role, including a transitional period as appropriate to allow time for the role to bed in and teething problems to be identified/overcome;

(3) Establish a programme of routing development meetings with the involvement of PBG members (who contributed to guiding this project) and the wider Compliance Plan Working Group, for continuity;

(4) Refine and hone the CPM Job Role Document, including a clearly defined and standalone statement on the limitation of liability for the CPM, reflecting on the issues set out in section 7.1 (Conclusions);

(5) Put in place suitable safeguards to minimise the risk of a conflict of interest in situations where the CPM cannot be fully independent of other project stakeholders (e.g. where the RP is also the builder/contractor). This might include a mandatory declaration of such a scenario to the verifier and how the risk of any conflict of interest will be mitigated;

(6) Consider the CPM role being open to entities and (through those entities) individuals to provide confidence in the collective range of knowledge and skills;

(7) Consider standardising the terms of CPM appointment by the RP, to be protected by Statute as an independent function. Due consideration will be needed as to:

• Who pays for the CPM;
• The extent of the CPM’s authority over decisions taken by the RP;
• How to ensure the CPM’s competence and adherence to contractual obligations and conduct expectations, especially where the RP – who is ultimately responsible for compliance – is not a compliance expert and puts their trust into the CPM;
• How the RP can go about replacing a CPM if there are concerns such as those mentioned above, noting that a CPM must be in place for the duration of a HRB project;
• How checks would be undertaken to ensure that there is no coercion or conflicts of interest at play;
• How independence can be guaranteed when any qualified building professional could also be looking for work in many other areas (the risk of a hidden conflict of interest might still be present, even if the CPM were to be appointed by the RP or the verifier).

(8) Take a decision on whether PII should be made a statutory requirement or left to market demand;

(9) Undertake further development work for the CP and CHB, drawing and building on considerations set out in section 6.1;

(10) Initiate the development of a CPM scheme and electronic Register of CPMs, by engaging with relevant professional bodies and other stakeholders and drawing on proposals and options set out in sections 6.2 and 6.3; and

(11) Consider implementing the CPM role in a pilot capacity, for example in a particular local authority area/region to get a better understanding of the likely resource and time demand, knock-on impact on wider work undertaken by those holding the CPM role, and other possible implementation issues.