Digital Handover Workstream Meeting 29-01-2025

DIGITAL HANDOVER WORKSTREAM MEETING 29-01-2025

GEORGE STEVENSON We’ve got an interesting group here. We had a very successful session last week on digital asset capture. I’ll just explain, for anybody that’s not been involved with BIM4Housing and BIM In Asset Management what we’re doing. We’ve got working groups for particular things that are general across the piece, we’ve got three working groups looking at fire safety critical assets, PFI which we’ve got coming up on the 11th of February which is looking at PFI and PFI hand-back and the particular requirements of that. And we’ve also got the international group which is looking at how we can export our expertise to projects overseas and we’ve already got some strong interest from Hong Kong.

And then we’ve already held workstreams which are task and finish groups, that’s the different between a working group and a workstream. `And we’ve already completed digital records, business case, there’s some more to be done to that, and also interoperability which is a very big topic that we’ve had a group working on. The ones that we’re doing at the moment is this group which is standardising technical submittals and O&Ms to improve digital handover. Digital asset capture which is the one that we did last week and also the golden thread which we’ve got this afternoon. Impact is one that’s coming up in a couple of weeks’ time, that’s really looking at what the impact is of the poor asset information.

So, I’d urge you to look at that because that’s actually going to contribute quite a lot to the business case and also help you understand how you can save money. I’m going to go back to a few years ago, in 2018 we produced this because a lot of people don’t understand that what tends to happen on projects, even BIM projects, the BIM models are often just design models. There is some work using BIM during construction, but a lot of the information is produced using drawings and schedules and therefore we end up with a gap in the data, digital information, towards the end of the process. So, we end up with having to capture that information retrospectively, whereas what we need to do is to try and structure it, even if it’s documents, to add enough intelligence to them to be able to be using.

So, the purpose of this group is to look at knowledge sharing and how can we really look at things in a more holistic way rather than as individual silos. And the whole thing, the session that we’re running this afternoon on the golden thread, we’re trying to help people understand that it’s not just whether they’ve got really good information on fire doors, for example, it’s actually looking at a complete system. And the way in which we’re considering that is if you’ve got a scenario where maybe a fire breaks out in a kitchen, what are the various different things that need to be in place to prevent smoke from spreading, for example. And therefore you need good compartmentation and that means all of the elements that go to make up that compartment need to perform.

The same with smoke control, detection and probably signage as well. So, all of those things need to be in place, so we need to look at things in a more holistic way. So therefore, when we’re then pulling together information maybe on a fire door, we need to look at that in the context of the product that was used and also which spaces is it protecting. So therefore, when you’re doing inspections you’re using whatever software is involved, that that information is all glued together. And in part we’ve been doing over the last 3 years is getting together subject matter experts to actually help us understand what is needed for automatic opening vents or smoke dampers. And as a collaboration, this is the sort of thing that we’re trying to encourage.

We produce things like this which is the standardised way of doing fire door inspections. This has been borrowed from work that was done by other members of the team in healthcare, it’s been applied to residential, but we’ve got some good examples there of how to work. And this is one that’s coming up which is on dampers, fire stopping and cavity barriers. So, if you’re interested in any of this we can work together. We also are using this environment to share experience of dealing with the Regulator and also how should the regulations be interpreted. Because they’re not explicit in many cases, it’s down to the professional teams to interpret them.

So what we’ve done is we’ve created a Miro board which you can all have access to for free and you can see how different people are then interpreting that information. And one of the topics that I find that’s interesting and isn’t really understood by some people is the importance of the fire & emergency file and what needs to be in there in terms of the information. And now this is, certainly for HRBs it’s now required that a formal declaration is provided (this is my interpretation). And also the contractor has got to confirm that they’ve actually provided all of the information. And what information, from an asset management point of view, we’re looking at these things that we’ve just taken directly out of the approved document. And the whole point about this is to be able to manage that process through.

So, what we’re looking for in this is feedback from you as a group in terms of what information is needed. What we find is that people need different information for different purposes. So, everybody is looking for the information that they need, but it’s a matter of how easy is it to find it. And part of the way of doing that is to be able to add intelligence to documents so that they are more easily found. It’s not a matter of whether there is a folder, for example, for all of the documents needed for all of the fire & emergency file, they’re actually probably going to be pulled from a number of different places. Paul Oakley is going to explain how we’re working that through at the moment.

So, what we’re trying to do is make sure that we’ve got a record of what was specified, what was actually installed, who installed it, who commissioned and maintained it, when was it replaced, and by doing that we end up with something that is then more manageable. But one of the biggest challenges is that O&M folders are structured by work package. There’s often no dynamic connection to the models. Now, that is happening in the industry, but it’s not universal, so we need to then make that more easily done. The product information seems to be collected uniquely each time, whereas there’s economies of scale that could make that much easier.

And also we want to make it so products can be more easily compared so that we can also identify what is a suitable product for a particular purpose. And part of that is having structured information and this is the way COBie works, so what we’re trying to do now is align what we’re doing, have been for some time with COBie which is the international standard for what we’re talking about today which is digital handover information. And therefore we can have some process whereby we might have BIM models, CAD data, COBie information, O&Ms and 360 photos, but because they’re not connected there’s an enormous amount of manual checking that needs to be done.

So, what we’re trying to do is make this so that we can pull this together and then remove a lot of the silos that currently are thwarting us having something that is right. I’m going to hand over to Paul Oakley to just explain what we’re doing there, but we’ve already got some strong support from the industry from both landlords, construction companies. We’ve got some software companies that have agreed to work on the basis of more standardisation. And part of the process is then to say we’ve got information requirements that can then be tested against manufacturer’s product information so that then the product that is being proposed under the new Gateway process should be then tested so that people can easily compare the products that are being proposed as alternatives.

And then we can then have a situation where we can look at what the key information is that needs to be compared and then find ways of picking which product is going to be suitable. Then, to be able to track that through procurement and into delivery, installation, so that we can end up with a digital O&M that can then be used for years to come in handover.

KEVIN BAYLISS I put a comment in about the first point you made about the Regulation 38. We’re doing a lot of stuff with Wolverhampton about because we’re putting stuff to the Regulator at the moment and we’re working a lot on, we set up a task force on golden thread and the BSA and things like that. So, as part of that just one thing to recognise is the fact that it is the BSA’s PD responsibility to make sure that letter as formal on the golden thread to say from the accountable person to say that is suitable for handover in terms of managing the safety. And then also they will have a responsibility to make sure the stuff that’s on the golden thread for HRBs would be required to be on the system and is appropriately recorded.

My second point was then looking at the change in technical subs bit is the fact that obviously where HRBs are concerned, which is a bit more complicated than most, what we do at Wolverhampton, for example, as part of an HRB process there is a change control plan under the Gateway, it’s part of the submission for Gateway 2, for example, which is typically Stage 4 before we start construction. That essentially would say there’s a plan in place and then during the construction period and so on, and anything post Gateway 2 submission to the Regulator would say here’s the change, it’s either a minor, major, or a notified one. And he notes change so if there is some changes to consider how they look at it as part of that change control, they’re looking at possible a database of some kind to potentially house that change control plan.

So therefore it goes through a number of levels of workflow. So then it would go to the client before a decision, say there is a contract and say actually I would like to change this product to that product, but that wasn’t the product that was utilised at the point of the submission. What would happen is, it would then go to various people such as the client and maybe some technical advisor. It’s within that client to say this is what you need to change, actually will it have a major change, is that product the same? Will that impact and have to do another approval process with the Regulator, a change notice approval that could then take 3 months because it’s a major change or not. So, that’s something to consider in the technical subs bit for HRBs.

GEORGE STEVENSON Definitely, thank you. Colin, you’ve made the point about the Regulation 38 and the fire & emergency file. Could you expand on that please?

COLIN BLATCHFORD Yes I can and my point is that they’re not the same thing. I noticed on one of your slides it says fire & emergency file Regulation 38, so it’s just important to separate the two. They have distinct purposes.

GEORGE STEVENSON Definitely, and actually that’s the point. What we’re trying to do, the slide itself was showing how you can tag a document with information that allows it to be grouped together for a purpose.

COLIN BLATCHFORD OK, that’s fine. Regulation 38 has been around for some time, it’s not often complied with, but now there is a bit more of a focus on it. I think that it’s just important, in the way in which you create your digital system to ensure that the information is being captured correctly and sent to the right people in the right format so that they can use it and understand it, that’s OK. The purposes of each of these pieces of transactions should be clear and actually clear within the design and construction team and the client team. So that it is then in turn clear for the Regulator, if they ask you questions about it. So, I think that’s the critical thing, there is also this end user of the Regulator, they want to see that you're doing the right things at the right time.

So, being clear and not conflating different things, yes, the data might well be the same, it might be shared across different platforms for different purposes, but rally being clear that this information satisfies this particular regulation. And obviously Regulation 38, I’m presuming you’re not referring to the fire safety information for high-risk buildings. I’m just making that clarification as well because Regulation 38 of the building regulations 2010 is dis=applied for high-risk buildings, so it doesn’t apply to high-risk buildings. You have to look at Part 4 of the high-risk buildings procedures regulations which outlines not only the fire safety information, but other information as well which forms part of that golden thread submission.

So, it’s just really being critically clear and what I find is there’s so much information and so much change throughout industry and throughout all of these new regulations that it’s often things are not quite as detailed as they should be. Or they refer to Regulation 38 when actually they mean something else. So, just being absolutely critically clear on the purpose of the information. So, just for the avoidance of any doubt, Regulation 38 of the building regulations 2010 is dis-applied for high risk buildings and you have to apply the other building regulations. Ironically and rather annoyingly, that’s still Regulation 38 in the HRB procedures regulations, but just for the avoidance of any doubt.

GEORGE STEVENSON Just to clarify my understanding of that, the information that might be used to satisfy the Regulation 38 submission still needs to be provided.

COLIN BLATCHFORD It does, but it goes a little bit further than that, so it’s not quite the same in isolation. And of course remember that there is a difference between Regulation 38 in building regulations 2010, that requirement to provide that information only applies in very limited circumstances. So, if you’re building a new building, if you’re extending an existing building or you’re affecting a material change of use where Part B imposes a requirement. So, it’s not a requirement, forget HRBs for a minute, it’s not a requirement for the rest of the building stock in every circumstance of the building regulations, so just be very clear about that as well.

GEORGE STEVENSON But that’s the submission, that’s what you’re talking about.

COLIN BLATCHFORD Well, the transfer of information to the responsible person, what do you mean by the submission? Because this is another bit that’s often misinterpreted.

GEORGE STEVENSON If we boil it down to say that part of the, you're the expert on this Colin, I’m just listening to what people have been interpreting from their experience. And that is that the information about, for example, where the fire stopping is, whether the fire dampers, what fire dampers were installed and where are they. Those sorts of basic things are required for all buildings.

COLIN BLATCHFORD Well, it depends on the type of building work that you’re doing and this is the other misconception is that if you’re building a brand new office building, yes, of course that information is requited. If you’re making internal alterations to an existing office building, then that information isn’t a requirement of building regulations. So, that piece of the jigsaw isn’t required at that point. So, it’s really important just to understand that, it’s not applicable in all cases.

GEORGE STEVENSON But surely you’re not saying that it isn’t required that a building owner should know where their fire dampers are.

COLIN BLATCHFORD Well, there’s a difference between, what you’re putting in front of me there is a different scenario. It doesn’t matter whether it’s required for the management of that building of whether it’s not. I’m just saying that under the building regulations which is the pieces of information or the legislation that building inspectors can enforce, there are limited times when that information is a requirement. So, you might say as a building owner I absolutely need to know that to manage this building effectively. Fine, the you have that contractual obligation, you have that arrangement with whoever is doing the work to understand that.

But I’m just saying there’s a difference between what building inspectors can ask for and what you as a building owner might wish for. So, that’s the important separation, just be clear about that, it’s not always crystal clear and there’s a lot of chatter about oh, it’s a requirement of building regulations, why aren’t you doing it? Well, sometimes it’s not a requirement of building regulations in which case it’s up to you, that’s a different arrangement, a different transaction between the two parties or the relevant parties. That’s all that I’m saying.

GEORGE STEVENSON Understood, thank you.

KEVIN BAYLISS On that, sort of fitting in between those two scenarios, for example. We were talking about golden thread and the HRBs from the CLC? 22mins 55secs did this thing about digital and the golden thread. And as part of that you would have a requirement to demonstrate as designers and you’d do this normally. So, to me this new regime is all about culture, so cultural changes that there would have been a possession a long time ago which is wrong is the fact that oh, Building Control says this therefore as a designer that’s all covered, that’s all fine, whereas actually that’s not true. The true fact is that you’re still responsible as a designer and you're always the case, so if it went to court and all of that kind fo stuff, just because building regs said something it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t have done some things.

So, I think the other thing to think about is, and very much in BSA and the new regime, is getting a culture to say actually you should have a compliance register as you go through those things. So, it’s not necessarily just about whether somebody says that you should do this as a requirement, this is about the responsibilities of the designers and those duty holders, what they’re responsible for to make sure that that is compliant in their design and the same with construction in terms of their build. So to me, that culture change, so it’s not just about maintenance, it’s also about understanding that people need to understand ownership in terms of from a designer point of view, for example, for their compliance and that culture.

So, I just wanted to distinguish the fact that we can’t ignore the fact there’s that responsibility irrespective of whether building regs say this. The designers themselves have to understand that if they’re talking about fire dampers, for example, have they considered those elements, have they thought about the fire strategy, have they demonstrated how they’ve done that. And where HRBs are concerned that’s something that you would have to demonstrate, from my understanding of it. I know that HRBs are slightly different.

COLIN BLATCHFORD I understand the point completely, I think there is also a bit of a, I’ll just come back on that very slightly is that the whole piece around building regulations and duty holders, principal designers, principal contractors, designers and contractors, is all related to compliance with the building regulations, and that’s it. So, if the building regulations don’t comply you don’t need to comply with them, if you see what I mean. Now, that’s incumbent on those designers and contractors and principal designers and principal contractors knowing when the building regulations apply and when they don’t.

And I think that’s the big step that we don’t have in industry at the moment is that actually, nobody goes back to the source legislation and says hang on a second, what is the work that I’m doing? Is ti building work? If it is building work, what regulations apply and what should I be doing and recording? Whether it’s an HRB or a non-HRB. And if that step was undertaken first by everybody then we’d probably be in a much stronger position culture wise from industry. So, just to clarify that I would say that yes, you have all of these duty holders under CDM which is a different piece of legislation, we all understand that. And we have a different new set of duty holders under building regulations, so it’s specifically for compliance with building regulations.

So, it’s just really important to make that distinction that if building regulations don’t apply then none of this requirement around the golden thread for HRBs or any other things to do with the building regulations applies either. So, it’s just people need to go back and read the source legislation which is part of the conversation I was having with Ian online over LinkedIn is that actually go back to the law, read the law first and then understand when and where you have to do certain things. So, if you’re not touching the fire dampers to an existing office building, but you’re making some alterations to an office, why do you need to worry about the fire dampers?

GEORGE STEVENSON Well, we should worry about the fire dampers because they’re a safety critical asset and therefore if you don’t know what they are, where they are which quite frankly this is very, very common.

COLIN BLATCHFORD But that’s a different question.

GEORGE STEVENSON It’s not about building regs, I agree and I think that’s really helpful. The important thing for this group is to look at things from a point of view of what information do you need to run the buildings effectively and safely.

KEVIN BAYLISS Can I make two points. So, if it doesn’t affect the building regs if somebody happened to somebody’s safety because from a design you haven’t done something that you should have done, irrespective of the regulations, you still need to be thinking about that. Because just because it doesn’t effect a regulation but you’ve done something on your design that has affected somebody’s life then I still think that’s a consideration as a duty holder when you’re doing the design. I think the other point was when I mentioned about the CLC in terms of the golden thread of HRBs, it does recognise from my understanding that it’s not just actually you need this for regulation, you need this for building regulations.

It also recognises that actually there’s maintenance elements that will be beneficial to be in the golden thread to enable for people to maintenance. And the golden thread is about being able to make those decisions by gathering the right information at the right time for the client to make the right decisions. Not necessarily just for compliance, but also being able through the golden thread to be able to do that. And I think it does recognise that in that document from the CLC.

COLIN BLATCHFORD I think I agree, CDM picks up your first point quite clearly and in terms of the golden thread, arguably this one is often another one that’s a bit complex and it does get sort of conflated is that there probably are two or three golden threads in reality. And yes, it’s all about safety, yes, it’s about people, of course it is, but golden thread for the building regulations compliance piece is one part, but that changes from that point of occupation into golden thread for the management and occupation of those people in the building being kept safe. So, it changes at that point and you drag information from one to the other and go back to the building regulations piece if you need it for other things when things change with the building, of course it does.

All I’m trying to get across is that the starting point for this conversation, both yesterday and today, was Regulation 38. Well, that’s a building regulation so firstly let’s all go back and read when it applies and then understand the purpose of it and then you can make the decisions as to what information should be in it. And that should be done by the designers and contractors, the building inspector shouldn’t be telling8 you or anyone else here what to do, you should already know that. And if you don’t know that then we revert back to one of the other regulations around competence and have a separate discussion.

RICHARD WHITTAKER That’s a very interesting conversation. I just wanted to put from a client’s perspective, or from my perspective as a client’s representative, I need one vehicle that encapsulates all of these points. And it goes through the compliance and the legislation and through the occupation, but also about efficient and effective asset management. Because if I haven’t got easy access to the information as a single data source then it costs more to carry out repairs, maintenance, refurbishments in the future. So, there are three strands to this that should all come out of one place.

GEORGE STEVENSON I certainly agree with that. When you say one place, it might be a federation of many different systems, but they’re all talking to each other.

RICHARD WHITTAKER Yes, I think the simplest example I can think of is it’s like a folder structure. You have a folder structure that is many to one, and it’s a many to one solution: one source, many contributors.

KEVIN BAYLISS I was just going to go on what you just said, George, the golden thread is likely to be a collection of platforms that all work together to hold that golden thread right from the start of a building, right until its knocking down. So to me the compliance would be part of that golden thread, the design work originally would be part of that golden thread, how it’s managed on that site and then it’s just about how you pull that together and that’s recorded. So, I think that’s where the accountable person on an existing building which we know is really important because that golden thread might mean different things. They understand the building better because it’s occupied and so on. It’s one golden thread, but there’s probably lots of parts to that golden thread, but it’s kept on a number of platforms.

GEORGE STEVENSON Could I just reach out to a couple of people that I know are interested in this sort of area. Toby, have you got some thoughts on this? Because I recall us speaking in the past, you’ve got some very practical experience of running these buildings.

TOBY GILDEN The golden thread is absolutely key obviously and as Colin alluded to earlier, particularly Regulation 38, we know it’s been in place for a really, really long time. But I think clients haven’t held developers to account, they haven’t demanded that the quality of the data that’s been presented has been good enough. And developers for so long have just got away with it. I had a meeting with a developer last week to say this is a legal requirement, why aren’t you doing it? And they said well, we’ve never had to do it before. I said you have had to do it, you just haven’t done it. So, I think we as the client need to steer the change, write it into the contracts to make…we know it’s a legal requirement, but I think for so long we’ve been so blasé about health & safety packs and Regulation 38, just paper files being dumped in a plant room somewhere, that’s the norm.

That’s what I’ve witnessed. I’ve only been working for this organisation for a year and I’m going to these buildings and why, why do we not have this information. I think we need to be steering the change, we need to be holding them to account and we need to have so much more involvement. We can’t just get a site agent in to be like cool, you guys crack on, because that’s what we’ve done for so long. And I think attending things like this and everyone increasing their knowledge and understanding. We know what the requirements are as a desktop sort of exercise, but the actual real world practical implications, people don’t seem still to understand that these are legal requirements, it’s not new, it’s been a legal requirement for a really long time, why aren’t we doing it?

So, I’m in agreement and I think that everyone has got a long journey to go, but I think we need to be steering the change, we need to be demanding this isn’t good enough. Because you front load the effort and it’s just going to make things so much easier down the line.

GEORGE STEVENSON I agree, Toby. I think one of the things that we’ve learned over the last few years is the shocking level of handover information that has actually been accepted. And the challenge with that is that when you then do need to find out what asset information you’ve got in the buildings, it’s an enormous task, it becomes very, very expensive to do retrospectively. So therefore I think part of that is it needs to be done, we need to recognise that and structure it. Paul you work for a client as well, don’t you? Have you got anything to contribute on this?

PAUL WOMACK No, it’s a bit of an eye opener what I’m listening to and I’m sort of looking at Regulation 38 and thought applied to all buildings where the registry form fire order occurred as well in buildings.

GEORGE STEVENSON I must admit, that’s what I’d been told as well and if you Google it. I think it’s important, we should basically say that whether, as Colin’s saying, whether it actually formally falls under the role of the building inspector to check that or not, I think it’s an important thing to ensure that you’ve got it. The information that is required under Regulation 38, I can’t think of any reason why the landlord shouldn’t be expecting that that is being delivered.

PAUL WOMACK Absolutely, my concern is with the older historic buildings is when you’ve got the plans documentation which was all done in paper, it’s no longer available, it has been filed away safely. And I think this is the key stuff that we’re missing and potentially we should be investing in having a modern up-to-date plans available. We have the plans for the SIB boxes which is fine, but we don’t have your fire department/compartmentation? buildings telling you that that 30/60/90/120 etc.

GEORGE STEVENSON I think that’s actually the point, whether it falls under something that Building Control would do, or whether it’s down to somebody else.

RICHARD WHITTAKER Just to reinforce Toby’s point about getting the information and getting it across and that sort of thing. We can make reference to it in employer’s information requirements, but what we do need to do is confirm what we require. And that’s where the standardisation of this group comes in, in terms of defining what’s required. But then it needs an add-on to the contract in terms of scheduled amendment that confirms if it’s not provided within a reasonable time scale or a defined time scale, then we reserve the right to contract to people to carry it out and contra charge those really expensive costs that you’ve just talked about, George.

GEORGE STEVENSON Yeah absolutely, just building on that, the point that I’ve made about COBie is important on that because COBie actually requires the information to be provided incrementally during the life of the project, And when I say a project, it’s not just about new build, it’s about any handover information. So, that could be just replacing fire doors, for example, that is a project that then the information should be being provided on. And I think the critically is that it needs to be done progressively because if you leave it to the end then that’s an issue.

NEIL BAILEY Just listening to comments about the O&M manuals being stashed away. (shares screen). Toby was commenting on this, this is a project that we’re due to start, all budget related. Basically, these are 400 O&M manuals on paper, we’re going to scan them and digitise them to make them accessible. I haven’t got pictures of the other cabinets, there’s 21 drawing cabinets that have got drawings rolled up all over the place as well. Looking at 13,000 drawings in this project, this is in a basement plant room and nobody every goes there. And as you can see when they do they just open it up and chuck it around. So, I think there’s a lot to be done with legacy paper documentation as well, to make sure that it works.

GEORGE STEVENSON Definitely, one of the topics that we’re trying to focus on is findability and how can you find things.

NEIL BAILEY The problem with this is now this is expensive because it’s been left and left because they say well, we don’t have the budget yet. But it just gets out of control in the end and very expensive to digitise all of your records. What we’re going to do on this one is we’re going to phase it so the client can afford it over two budget periods.

COLIN BLATCHFORD What I was just going to come back on is just be a bit clearer, I no there’s a few notes in the chat. (shares screen). Just for the avoidance of any doubt with Regulation 38, if I highlight this section. Regulation 38 of the building regulations only applies if you’re doing these things to a particular building. So, that’s why I wanted to make it clear that Regulation 38 is kind of quite a small piece of the puzzle, really for a lot of existing buildings. Because if you’re undertaking material operations or you’re doing other things to an existing building, unless you’re extending it or changing the use, Regulation 38 may not actually apply under the building regulations, So, you can’t use that to sort of push forward on information. The most important piece for most existing buildings, accepting high-risk buildings, is the fire safety order which obviously puts a duty on the building owner to have an appropriate fire risk assessment.

And sometimes that requires more intrusive fire risk assessments to understand the risks inherent with their particular building which does require you to understand what’s in that building, relating to fire dampers or fire stopping or cavity barriers, or fire doors or whatever else it might be. That’s where the power sits for you as clients to insist upon this information. And equally with regards to a high-risk building, you’ve got a safety case to put together which equally requires you to understand the risks associated with your particular building. So, I think the client in all situations, the building owner in all situations, has the ability to say look, I need this information from you under these requirements, these duties I hold and that’s where you can push for the information. Regulation 38 is kind of limited to specific pieces of work.

So, for example, Regulation 38, if you were to replace the fire doors in an existing building Regulation 38 doesn’t actually apply. So, that sort of thinking that actually your push and your pressure as clients and building owners is from the risk assessment side, yes.

GEORGE STEVENSON Part of the challenge I think is that the fire risk assessments, people are going to procure fire risk assessments from assessors, I don’t know if to do a fire risk assessment you’ve got to be qualified. I suspect that lots of people are having fire risk assessments done and I know of people that are doing a fire risk assessment for buildings for £200. The point I’m making is that what we need to focus on, it’s a very helpful point that it’s not down to Building Control, for example, to do that. What’s critical is that the information that’s needed needs to be clear for whatever purpose. Whether it’s to satisfy the fire safety order which I think that’s been very helpful, what you’ve just shared there, I don’t know whether everybody else was aware of it.

The key thing is that the landlord should need to know where the fire dampers are, for example. Paul Oakley, could I ask you to explain where we’re at with the standardisation work.

PAUL OAKLEY (shares screen). This is just an example of a COBie type, in terms of it’s a boiler, it has a description on the category, it has a manufacturer identified by the company and it has a model. Now, some of the stuff that I’ve been doing with Active Plan, the issue is we are actually invalidating the COBie data that is provided in terms of we’re then linking the manufacturer and model number to actually manufacturer’s data. So, the problem that we’re finding on a lot of scenarios is that even the manufacturer is sometimes the supplier, is sometimes identified as a subcontractor and sometimes actually the manufacturer itself. So actually tracking down the product data that’s linked to that is one of the big issues.

The other problem is product data is what i define as static data. It’s identified against a manufacturer and a product and that never changes. So actually, holding that within BIM models and trying to go through the whole change mechanism, when you swap from one to another, is a total waste of time and effort. So against the COBie types here we’ve got the manufacturer’s product, but we’ve also got in this scenario the product technical specification (PTS) which was linked through that. And again, this is where the quality of the PTSs differs, somebody will give you the gypsum white book and basically take a marker and circle a few things within it. So actually the PTS is absolutely useless because you don’t know where the things are, what they’re actually talking about and actually going through to the details of what you’re trying to link to.

Or they’ll deal with hundreds and hundreds of different things within a single PTS. And so checking the quality of the things is very, very difficult. One of the things we’ve talked about is standardising the PTS format in terms of trying to get these things in a standard way in terms of trying to deal with the design information, what product was actually proposed etc. But thinking though the whole process I suddenly realised as an architect who spent 20-odd years working on residential schemes, we did a lot of work in terms of stuff we put together to actually choose the products. They may go into specification, it might be marked on a drawing or it might go into schedule or into bill of quantities and that. But often a lot of that work that was carried out was lost, it was particular individuals did that.

So actually if designers, and by designers within the requirements of the new regulatory thing, if a client is identifying that you need to use a particular product, if it’s a QS, if it’s the architect M&E, whoever it is, is making that choice or is coming from a manufacturer then you could have one of these forms pre-filled in at the design stage to actually talk about what it is, where it exists, who’s proposed it, what the key criteria is and the regulations, planning etc that all apply to that. Then that can then go through a compliance process to actually get that signed off. So then before it goes to the manufacturer these could then be pre-populated and be available for the subbies and that to then take on.

So, when they’re then looking at doing comparisons they’ve got the information about who made the original decision on it, what was the key criteria that the designers were actually considering when they chose that, to help that basis of decision making. So, this is where I think the whole sort of golden thread process that having these sorts of things in place would help. And then we move in to the construction side of the PTS which they’re then looking for information change on that and the things that come in there. So, really there’s two things: one, what do people think about that proposed process in terms of would this be the sort of thing that designers, clients etc would take up? And then it’s then getting into the details of what would be in each of those different sections.

PAUL WOMACK Isn’t this one that we looked at before and we saw one of my recommendations? I’m sure I’m not the first person to say it, though, is to have a shelf life. How long a product lasts before it needs to be changed. And then the bean counters have got an idea of how much it’s going to cost 5-10 years down the line.

PAUL OAKLEY That would be one of the key criteria of where I’ve just left gaps in it on the criteria. So, things like shelf life, replacement, whatever. But I think this is where we just need people to add additional detail on these sorts of things and maybe if we did some samples of things which had that sort of stuff filled in as opposed to just generic.

GEORGE STEVENSON What we’re trying to do here, it seems that on every single project people do this uniquely and therefore there’s a lot of wasted effort that goes into it and more of a chance of mistakes. Whereas if, pretty well every major contractor we’ve spoken to, they all operate some sort of technical submittal process. And therefore if we could standardise what’s being operated then it’s something that we could provide. Asite are on the call and other people, I think you’re quite comfortable with whatever the client wants to use in terms of formats of tech subs. And they’ve all got great tools to do the workflows involved, but in our view if we can standardise some of these things it’s going to make it a lot easier for supply chains to prepare the information in a quality manner. And we’re concentrating then on making sure that the right product is being picked.

KEVIN BAYLISS Just one point, I think it’s quite useful because if you think about HRB point of view and whether they’’re doing change control, it’s part of the thing that we’ve been looking in Wolverhampton in trying to help them set up the change control plan. There is a change, it’s not sufficient to say we just think you’re going to change that, you have to give good reasoning why you change it. And then as part of that would be some research, have you researched something, And therefore this project is better because of XYZ and that’s part of the backup to that change. So, having something with that good thought process around what you did and then what you’ve then gone through actually would be beneficial for that change control process.

GEORGE STEVENSON One of the things that we’ve been working on for years from when Paul was at BRE where he was director of BIM is to actually come up with a standardised way of manufacturers describing their products. And that’s something that’s been an industry initiative that the Construction Products Association started 9 years ago. And there’s been quite a lot of resistance from product manufacturers to providing their information in an easily comparable form. Whereas if we therefore can come at things from a client perspective, from a designer’s perspective, from the contractor’s perspective, to say this is how we would like you to describe your product information.

That’s going to help considerably and make it a lot easier for people to validate whether products are suitable, but that’s a bigger point. All of this, there’s regulation coming through to support all of this. So, if you’re interested in getting involved in this technical submittal stage could you put your name in the chat to say that you’re interested in maybe doing a pilot on technical submittals. Either something where you can contribute to what it should contain and also where you’re interested in how we can deploy it. Could you go on to talk about the work that we’ve been doing with the HSE on the O&M structure?

PAUL OAKLEY (shares screen) This started off as trying to define an agreed folder structure for what we would deal with within health & safety and O&M documents in terms of what we were doing with them. The first part here, columns A and B, we were trying to deal with that and then we actually realised that a lot of what we were talking about was this could all be one big massive PDF, or it could be broken down into hundreds of different documents. So, really what we’re talking about was the content and then it depended on the extent of the size of the project or other criteria what needed to be included within this. So, it follows the sort of typical set of things, so we looked at various producers of O&M and health & safety information, we looked at the content requirements from the HSE.

And we had various discussions with them in terms of what the content should be for the various sections in terms of health & safety, residual hazards and risks, health & safety future risks, statutory reports, strategy documents and then down to fire consultants. And then the various packages or systems that come underneath those. That sort of helped define a list of content which again we want input from yourselves in terms of what’s there. The discussions with the HSE, they’re predominantly focused from the CDM type of requirements, so I think there’s gaps in terms of requirements from operations and maintenance. So there might be some additional content that’s needed from that side of things. But then the other thing, a lot of it was how we then tie this into the COBie side of things. COBie is predominantly talked about as the data, but also reference the COBie can also identify what documents.

So what we’re saying is against each type of thing, we’ve provided some pick lists. So, should these be provided as documents, should they be provided as data. And then what should be if you take the COBie element and by COBie element I mean things like is it against a facility, is it against a floor space zone, types, components, systems or against a contact. So they’re the key tabs you’d normally get on a COBie form, so when you’re identifying that you want a project description you’re saying that should be provided against the facility. And that can be provided as data and there’s actually a COBie attribute in terms of COBie.facility.description which is available to put that against.

So, we’ve been looking at all of the typical type of content you should have, some of it will be documents, others could be provided as data. Again, we want input in terms of going through the set of content, is there content that is missing? And then what sort of things should be provided as a document or part of a document? And if it is provided as data, what should be standardised attributes and properties that we’re using to do that?

PAUL WOMACK Is there too much information there? Can it go back a step to for the person who wants to have a look at it is what is the building that I’m looking at? Then if I press HRB or low-rise, whatever, then I can bring up the relevant information which is relevant to the building. And even sub-divide that to this is what I’m doing on this building and I then bring up this documentation. Because this is what you’ve got, it’s an immense amount of work, but is it too much for every building? So, by reducing it to what’s relevant to the user, it’s this type of building and I’m doing this to it and then having that information to hand.

PAUL OAKLEY On a lot of ones basically you’ll just have the health & safety file, there’s sub bits inside of it may not exist and there are several variations on the theme that take this up and down in terms of how much is done. But this was the big picture of all of the things, but I think we’re trying to basically build on from here. Even if we’re just looking at the bigger things, this is giving some idea about what we think should be inside those things. I doubt that all of these will actually be…in certain sections there will be separate documents. Some of them will just be a paragraph within the document that exists.

GEORGE STEVENSON I think the critical thing, Paul Womack, is that if you need, like I said earlier, you’ve got different people that need different information for different purposes. If you don’t provide a means by which all of that information can be held in a common environment then people will create their own. And therefore you end up with multiple sets of information. Whereas I think the point that you’re making is you want a view of the information that only provides you with what you need for a particular purpose. And that’s very standard ways that we can do that through just having well-structured data with the right sort of filters. So, I think that’s the way, the point that you’re making is absolutely right, that for most buildings you wouldn’t need anywhere near that type of detail.

But if you don’t have, for example there, emergency utility shut off points and contacts, then that will be held somewhere else. So therefore it’s best if it’s held in the same schema for us to then present the information back for different purposes. I’m particularly interested talking to the people on the call who are actually normally the people who would use the health & safety file and the O&Ms. Could we get some comment from some of those?

NEIL BAILEY (shares screen). It’s just going back to what you were saying about the health & safety files. One of the issues you get sometimes is the project is quite small. So, we just had this basic index as you can see, it covers most of the things that we were discussing already. And we find that on smaller jobs residual hazards identified by a structural engineer, there’s no structural work done, but at least the school has got this document which they can utilise in the future which covers everything. And it’s basically one document fort when somebody else starts to do work, that’s the purpose of the project health & safety file. So I’m just saying that you get small versions as well, you don’t have to put everything into one package. Obviously you’re talking about larger projects, I’m just saying on the ground that’s the kind of thing that we’re often dealing with.

Here’s an O&M manual, a high-rise building, just the mechanical side this so we just have this standard content. These key things we find are enough. If I’m honest, from doing operation & maintenance files for years, the operating procedures and maintenance procedures involves draining down heating systems and refilling a hot water or cold water system. And I do think O&M manuals need looking at a bit differently really. The person? 1hr 8mins 7secs data is in there, I can take you to different sections if you wish. But really the maintenance procedures, if you have to tell a maintenance engineer how to drain down a heating system and make sure he doesn’t switch the pumps on at the wrong time and things like that, then really I don’t think they should be touching the system.

So, the commission data is important, supply directory manufacturers literature record drawings, but I just find that they pad it out really, with operating procedures and maintenance procedures. The only benefit I can see from the maintenance procedures is that the client can develop their own schedule with a PPM.

GEORGE STEVENSON I think there’s two elements to the maintenance procedures. One is the maintenance procedures that that particular manufacturer states that could support the warranties. And then you’ve got SFG-20 which is if you like the more universal, generic standard which then probably would operate going forward, I think in both cases that information needs to be collected.

GORDON PRINGLE Just to pick up on that with regards to SFG-20 and even your M&E mechanical knowledge, operations & maintenance records. They are very static and we’re obviously moving in to an area where real live data are coming from sites, coming from systems operational data, Internet of Things, delivering live data on screen for clients through different cloud portals. And then effectively clients say OK, this is really beneficial, I want this API’d back to a combined portal that is for the building, but they granulise that data that they want from the particular expertise within the product, if you like, to granulise that back. And the long term viability of that basically allows them to check the efficiency of process in maintenance that is maybe being alleged to be carried out, but it’s actually not having an impact on the actual performance of the system.

Or it might even be detrimental for the system because better evidence is being portrayed. So, going back to Neil’s point earlier on, this whole O&M market place from that position of being static with numerous lever arch files that’s all static. We’ve got to get it to live, to live operational history and having inputted to some of the SIBs guide aim on maintenance and engineering management, there is a lot to be said for simple surveying of buildings from an operations and maintenance point of view. To go with your senses and to go with sensors that are coming into the process, but understanding what they do. And understanding how they perform and how they should be performing. And looking at when they go out of kilter. Somebody else said earlier on we need to slow down what we’re looking at. The great thing about some of the new stuff that’s on the market is it will alarm you to go and look at it and then to drill into that whole process of.

If you get a contractor to look at it and he still can’t correct it, or he doesn’t actually know what he’s looking at, it’s kind of telling you that he’s pretty incompetent to do the task that you actually want him to improve the system. So, allow the technology to take you on that journey. And that doesn’t necessarily need to be that expensive.

GEORGE STEVENSON I think the point that you’re making is a very interesting one in that all too often people are maintaining individual assets, rather than considering things as a system.

GORDON PRINGLE Some manufacturers, you know I’m a distributor, I represent numerous different manufacturers. Some manufacturers are in such a silo mentality of their product they forget that it goes into a system that is a multitude of products that operates and performs either badly, the good the bad and the ugly. Effectively, let’s look at the good, let’s learn the lessons from the good and let’s make sure that the ugly doesn’t get repeated. And that’s for every kind of sector, M&E or construction or whatever it is, but having dealt with many, many contractors and been around for a wee while, the problem that they have, some of them are making the same mistake on every single building, whether it be big or small.

Fundamentally they’re making the same mistakes, and it goes back to competence and it goes back to the age demographic. I contribute a lot to BISA through the affiliate committee, I’m not a BISA member because I’m a supplier, they’re really concerned about the age demographic. We’re not bringing in youngsters to the process. You would have had a big decision of hitting an age demographic and a competence demographic on sites. And that’s pretty scary as we move into HN task heat network technical assurance scheme that big central heating systems and water systems that are going into our homes as part of our carbon reduction policy.

They’re going to utilitise that and that’s literally putting a level of regulation on heating and hot water the like of which you’ve never seen before. And the contractors know nothing about it, as much as they know little about the building standards and regulations

GEORGE STEVENSON I’d just like to ask if you like what we’re talking about here which is the structure and content of the O&Ms and the health & safety file, if you’re interested in getting involved in a pilot or some sort of collaboration on that, could you put your name in the chat.

KEVIN BAYLISS A short point, when we were talking about health & safety files, looking at Wolverhampton for example, they did everything in O&M manuals where they put everything under health & safety file clear distinguishes. As part of that I was working with a CDM consultant, the first point would be actually you’ve got some O&M manual general information that you just want to know about that, that you can utilise and make digital. Then there is also information that’s very specific about the project at handover that this isn’t standard, this is something that you need to know specifically about this project that, OK, when you’re maintaining normally you maintain this way. However, on that project you need to have this access element because you can’t get into that access on this project for this reason. And that’s what should sit in the health & safety manual, in my mind, and then the O&M should have that typical linked data.

GEORGE STEVENSON That’s really helpful, Kevin.

PAUL WOMACK Gordon alluded to competencies, this goes back to the maintenance procedures. We’ve obviously got a duty of care and the Regulator wants competencies, how are you providing and proving competencies. If you’ve got the maintenance procedures of how to then the responsible person or the building safety manager can attend site and watch how they drain the system. They don’t have to do it, but they know they’ve got the manual and they can follow that the actions carried out by the engineer are in line with the O&M manuals. And they can tick the box, competencies, how do you prove this, I’ve attended and I watched the engineer doing draining down the system or whatever is required.

PHILIP HANNABUSS There’s been some interesting conversations, one of the things that I picked up on was regarding the static data, particularly with O&Ms and handovers. One of the things I experience at my previous company with DAN? 1hr 17mins 27secs Consulting where we used to do the operation & maintenance manuals handover, we had an electronic system for all of that, they’re all approved. But there was still an underlining requirement to submit paper copies of everything from the client. So, when that information was handed over it was a requirement that we had to hand it over in paper copies, they sat in the rooms as per the image that Neil showed earlier, and nobody then took on the access of dome? 1hr 19mins 55secs example because they didn’t want the cost of that because they had the information in paper copies.

So, I think it comes back to one of the points earlier is if there is a push from the client’s team to actually have the electronic access to this information and remove the requirements of the paper copies from some of the PLIMs? 1hr 18mins 15secs and tender documents that I’ve seen previously. That would have a massive push to have the electronic information as the live file which I totally agree, that’s how this information should be maintained and updated.

GEORGE STEVENSON Absolutely, I think in many cases there is not a recognition that the legal duty is for that information to be kept up-to-date and current.

PHILIP HANNABUSS Yeah, and as I said when it’s a requirement from the supplier of that information to be in paper copy and then people go oh, we’ve got the paper copies, we’ll turn off the systems then and that seemed to be a common thing. i don’t know if that’s still happening now, but it seems to be the case from the conversations that I’m hearing.

NEIL BAILEY (shares screen). One of the issues when you digitise or if you supply digital information as opposed to paper is this is a small manual, it’s 154 pages. But what we do, rather than just giving somebody a huge PDF you’d have your fire alarm acceptance certificate here. We put extra navigation in so it takes you back to the index page. So, you want to look at the fire alarm design certificate, you can go straight there. The important thing is you can go backwards again and navigate easily when you want to look at your product literature. So, you’ve got your MX Pro here, lots of pages here, get inside this we have navigation that takes you back to this page. And then this page ultimately takes you back to the index.

So, I think a big thing that’s needed with O&M manuals, health & safety files, is that they need to be more useable PDFs. They need this kind of intuitive navigation, I believe. And if I could just go on to one more thing…

GEORGE STEVENSON I agree with you, this is a good published way of doing it. The challenge is how would somebody keep that up-to-date? Because if it’s a published PDF file.

NEIL BAILEY That leads into what we’re doing here is it’s a little bit different than what we’re speaking about, but basically what we notice is that the building owner, somebody who is operating the building, for instance a fire door inspector that I know, he was asking for the fire risk assessment for a large shopping centre and they didn’t have it. And the new FM didn’t know where it was. And so whilst I understand the system that you’re building, the golden thread, this is a simple portal that we provide, so your fire alarm O&M, your fire risk assessment fire door inspections are here.

So, what we do with this is when it changes your fire door inspections come up. Then we have a service where we just upload it for you, or you can do it yourself. And this way everything is at your fingertips and as you can see you’ve got the mechanical and electrical O&M, it’s not on this system but you’ve got the opportunity to do that.

GEORGE STEVENSON One of the critical things I would say about this, I absolutely support the work that you’re doing in that area. What we need to do is agree how we can connect these things together though. So, a lot of the things that Paul was talking about earlier, for example using COBie, is a way that we could make those connections.

GORDON PRINGLE Just picking up the previous comments. As-fitted drawings, I’m often getting receipt of as-fitted drawings from contractors and asking for comments technically about the application of a certain product. And then you get a conversation with yeah, it’s the as-fitted drawing, but that’s not how it’s fitted. And it’s like in the name of Lord, you put as-fitted on those drawings, but it doesn’t actually reflect what’s fitted. That’s where we’re at and unfortunately that’s what happens in construction in the United Kingdom and further afield, unfortunately and we need to try and change that.

NEIL BAILEY Just on the as-fitted drawings, I receive as-fitted to put in the O&Ms from contractors. I’m not obliged to check those but I do and frequently I find it says as-fitted it’s stamped, but even in the title block it says proposed, so it’s obviously a tender drawing that’s been re-badged. And I do find that very few contractors do real as-fitted drawings and they just re-badge things. And the reason they get away with it is because nobody is tracking it. So if you were to keep tender drawings originally, they need to take at the beginning of the project that if construction drawings are issued keep them in a folder. And then the final as-fitted, you can easily check them against PDFs using something like Bluebeam, or just visually. You’d soon know whether they’re as-fitted. And I think there should be a penalty in the contract, if they’re not as-fitted you can’t handover.

PAUL OAKLEY I agree with Neil, one of the issues that obviously we have with a lot of the work that I’m doing is actually checking. The amount of supposedly as-built drawings which were marked as work in progress with that sort of SO status applied to them. And again, because nobody else has been checking the checking on the COBie and the O&Ms were doing, we’re finding so many problems because the industry has got away with nobody carrying out those checks and that is a fundamental thing that needs to happen.

GEORGE STEVENSON With this group we’re looking here at the digital handover. Last Wednesday we did a session on digital asset capture which in part answers the point that Gordon was making there. In that the digital asset capture is a way that we’ve got a record of what was actually installed. So, that’s a mechanism to help with that. And obviously the session that we’ve got this afternoon is on the golden thread which again is looking at ways that we can try and make sure that that information is fully integrated.

BENEDICTA ANETEKHAI This is a very interesting group and I’m very grateful to be here. All of those people mentioned peculiar instances where we’re still doing non BIM projects. And I don’t know if this is the experience of other people, however in my case we’re still doing lots of projects that are not BIM inclined. So, all of the handover information we’re receiving are paper based. I don’t know if there is a group that’s looking at this or if there’s a case for trying to standardise these sort of projects within this group, maybe it’s something that can be picked up later on. Because I’m sure that I’m not the only person who has this experience.

GEORGE STEVENSON The important thing to look at this, as far as we are concerned BIM means better information management. It’s not just 3D modelling and it’s not even 3D modelling, particularly for existing buildings. So, the point that you’re making is absolutely right, what you’re looking for is very much what we’re trying to satisfy. So, I think perhaps we have a separate discussion on that and then we can formulate this. Because we’ve got in this room8, people like Neil, for example, he’s doing a lot with existing documents, a lot of scanning and things like that. So, the protocols for capturing the information would be common.

BENEDICTA ANETEKHAI Just on my golden thread alone, I have a scanning project which is trying to digitise all my existing handover and O&M documents of buildings that we have acquired through mergers, because the organisation I work with have merged over time with other companies and information has gotten lost in translation and stuff like that. I have my fire strategy, my fire drawing programme which is producing drawings for buildings where we have none, no information. I also have projects that are currently new builds, ongoing, then there is a remedial project. So, it’s a lot going on and they’re all part of the same company nut just in different positions if you like, so I need all of the help that I can get.

GEORGE STEVENSON We can pick up that with you afterwards and we can also introduce you to some other landlords who are going through that same process. The process should be common for all buildings, the fact that one is under the Regulator or one is under Building Control or one is...

GORDON PRINGLE I would completely agree with you, if you allow them to have a second tier delivery service for some of your smaller buildings. HRB buildings are just a different level of regulation. They should be building every single one of them to the same quality, the same process and regulating the process rather than leaving it down to a project director sometimes on each individual project that just builds the way he wants to build it. And it’s not the way it should be.

KEVIN BAYLISS On HRBs, obviously it’s a requirement to have that golden thread, but on Wolverhampton we’re doing that across the board because it’s a matter of having that a standard way of recording the information and having that information they’ll just be able to see. Whether it be compliance, whether it be to do with maintenance, when an element needs replacing and they’ve made those informed decisions. It’s not just about that and then where HRBs are concerned you have to do that, it’s a requirement to do that. The point I was going to make was when we were saying it’s a requirement for older buildings and HRBs for example you would still even though that project may have happened, or that building may have happened beforehand, even in the transitional, now it’s all in place. And after that you’re in a point if you’re a landlord and an accountable person for an HRB you are still required to then utilise? future-wise? 1hr 31mins 23secs look at your golden thread, irrespective of the Gateway or not.

GEORGE STEVENSON Absolutely, and the other, as we’ve learned from the recent legislation they’re quite happy to go retrospectively as well. So, the fact that you think that you’ve got over the hurdle for a particular project, I don’t think they’ll have any compunction at all about going back. So, you’re absolutely right, we’ve got to do it for all buildings, albeit it needs to be done in a standardised way. Krisztina, I just thought I’d bring you in because obviously Airey Miller are doing a lot of this type of integrated work, aren’t you?

KRISZTINA DEZSI yes we are, sorry, I’m just sort of an observer. I’m very much new to this process, but I would like to gain some insight in to this and how we can streamline our handover information. We share a lot of H&S and O&M materials with our clients and I have viewpoint for projects mainly, so this is my expertise on my area and I would like to get some knowledge from this group as to how to present that in a useable format to the clients to make it available for them.

CHAT

Colin Blatchford (External) 11:11 am

The Fire and Emergency File is NOT directly related to regulation 38 - as perhaps the slide suggests

Bayliss, Kevin (Unverified) 11:12 am

The PD also has to confirm it has been recorded correctly on the Golden Thread at handover too for HRB's, including formal acceptance by the Accountable Person.

Colin Blatchford (External) 11:18 am

The golden thread information must be handed to BOTH the accountable person (BSA) and responsible person (FSO) for HRB's

Gordon Pringle (External) 11:34 am

Regulation is one thing and not best practice in many areas of building structures and Kevin's comment on expectations of CDM is very interesting.

Chris Craggs (External) 11:37 am

Question: Lever arch files and paper didn't work - simply never maintained after handover. What will be different in digital records? Who will have responsibility, be either rewarded or penalised for doing so - how audited and by who, to ensure these are up to date?

Colin Blatchford (External) 11:38 am

Correct Toby. Now as the Client, you can't get a completion certificate if reg 38 hasn't been met

Chris Craggs (External) 11:38 am

Just on legal requirement - PUWER 98 required maintenance, inspection and record-keeping - and yet there has yet to be a prosecution for non-compliance.

Chris Craggs (External) 11:39 am

I think until this is monetised and customers can see £ impact, O&M manuals will continue as they always have.

Benedicta Anetekhai (External) 11:39 am

George Stevenson you are absolutely correct

Bayliss, Kevin (Unverified) 11:40 am

Completely agree, contractor handover information generally not great in my experience. The AIR by the client is really critical as part of the contract requirements.

Benedicta Anetekhai (External) 11:42 am

So you reproduce the drawings through the likes of Calford Seadon Paul Womack who need to go and survey the blocks to produce these drawings

Jim Watts (External) 11:43 am

Understanding that you don't want the information that transfers from the builders to the Client in the format of trade / package contractors sections. Ignoring the digital models of the future. How do you want the information structured now?

Benedicta Anetekhai (External) 11:44 am

I have a scanning programme just for files like these

Javed Edahtally (External) 11:45 am

From what I have heard here, quite rightly Colin suggests that the PD and developers should be competent enough to know what information is required to satisfy regulations. Equally Toby suggests clients need to pull the necessary information from the supply chain, and of course information requirements and acceptance criteria will differ based on the nature of the built asset itself - so - can this group help define principles around what good looks like for a differing scenarios, AND how that needs to be consumed by auditors and regulators with validation and verification at its heart...

Chris Craggs (External) 11:46 am

ongoing in operation, these records will updated by a myriad of sub-contractors - and, at the end, when subbie is replaced, will be liable to pass on the records they have "kept" in a standard, future-proof format...This will need to be dictated, not left to individual initiative...

Bayliss, Kevin (Unverified) 11:48 am

Its also making the records are up to date and relevant that are scanned in so its easy to find information, and consider this rather than just everything historical.

Javed Edahtally (External) 11:49 am

Clients/building owner have the ability to ask for information due to the duty holder positions held etc. The logical next step is how best is it for client to consume this. How best can building projects and programmes to minor works deliver this information to clients in the most efficient, effective and economic manner?

Benedicta Anetekhai (External) 11:54 am

Do you mean post occupation works or projects in general?

Chris Craggs (External) 11:56 am

Interesting proposal, Paul, this must surely be critical to the whole PI Design responsibility? If there is no record, how to defend?

Gordon Pringle (External) 11:57 am

The increase in Technical Submittal data as contractors procure now is definitely increasing IMO as specification selection is bearing more consideration than was prevalent after D&B became the norm and "equal & approved" was simply a race to the bottom. Process is variable across the sector.

Neil Bailey (External) 11:59 am

That is a key part of the legacy document scanning process. We check with the client as to what buildings and departments are current. This helps us weed out irrelevant information. Basic document scanning services are cheaper but they don't have the necessary understanding of building services and how to present the data in an useful and easily accessible format.

Javed Edahtally (External) 12:00 pm

Projects ultimately serve the client and therefore the client should be considering the information generated throughout but ensure the information is fit for purpose when transferred/or when provided for review (which in part is dictated by a sensible and proactive client). I have worked in government across policing, nuclear and health security with high levels of security where, for example, the safety case is a working progressing usually throughout the project/programme. This equally applies post occupation with suppliers/minor works contractors.

Neil Bailey (External) 12:04 pm

Thanks Colin, I appreciate the clarity you brought to the Reg 38 and FEF documents going back to basics with the building regs

Benedicta Anetekhai (External) Yesterday 12:28 pm

Consultants won’t even give a Status A or B. They only give recommended Status A or B

So Contractors use whatever they can get away with too

Paul Womack (External) Yesterday 12:32 pm

Does the Golden Thread work for existing buildings especially old ones

Carey, David (External) Yesterday 12:32 pm

Yes

Paul Womack (External) Yesterday 12:33 pm

Including renaming of the old files?

Benedicta Anetekhai (External) Yesterday 12:33 pm

I developed a naming convention yes. because files can be named something like B1-GF-1 which means absolutely nothing and will not come up in a search so I use PowerApps for renaming where I have to

Philip Hannabuss (External) Yesterday 12:34 pm

Its worth nothing systems should be able to separate the filename and file reference

Benedicta Anetekhai (External) Yesterday 12:35 pm

you're assuming there are systems 🙂

Philip Hannabuss (External) Yesterday 12:35 pm

I'd be interested to see this and does what information this replaces

Neil Bailey (External) Yesterday 12:36 pm

An important part of scanning legacy paper documentation is to make the electronic file useable. We add the drawing number and then a descriptive file name. This allows files to be catalogued for easy access