BIM IN ASSET MANAGEMENT MONTHLY FORUM 14-05-2025
RICHARD FREER I’m going to start the meeting with a brainwave of George’s. We’re a community of experts, you’re all experts in your individual fields be definition. But where does an expert go to get advice, or confirmation, or just an outside opinion? Where do you actually go to? Because you’re not supposed to need it because you’re an expert. For example, an HRB, we know that the definition of an HRB is a higher-risk building. Not high-risk because the powers that be have decided that saying high-risk is a bit intimidating to residents, so it’s better to say higher-risk. Now, that’s not to say that a high-rise building, which surprisingly some people actually do believe that is still the case.
Is it a complex building? What does that even mean, a complex building? Our community, we’r probably in the top 5-10% of the industry in terms of knowledge. Which sounds possibly a bit of an outlandish thing to say, but you’re all here because you want to impart knowledge or get knowledge. That’s why you’re actually here, you want to be kept informed. Well, obviously the variations around this stuff, not everyone is going to know everything. But collectively as a group we probably do. There’s probably very few questions that somebody could ask that somebody in our community couldn’t answer.
So, George has had a good idea. George belongs to a group called BIM for beers. They’re not a big group, but they’re very active, particularly on the beer front. He thinks that it’s a good idea if we set up one for BIMinAM for our community, where people can go and just put up a question in a non-judgmental place (nobody is going to say that you should know that). And there will be somebody out there in our community who will in all likelihood can answer that question. So, the plan is to set up a WhatsApp group. So, if you’re interested in joining that and becoming involved in that, put WhatsApp in the chat and we’ll get back to you.
We have a couple of polls that we’re doing today. Poll number 1 is in the chat now…click on that, there are 5 short questions. It’s anonymous, it gives us the wisdom of crowds. How well does your CEO/FD understand their duties under the Building Safety Act? There are various percentages for you to make a judgment on that. How confident are you that your current projects will deliver accurate and complete Regulation 38 info?
GEORGE STEVENSON This is all completely anonymous. We’re just trying to get a feel for the awareness in the industry so that we understand what level of work is needed to bring the rest of the industry up to your levels of awareness.
RICHARD FREER Number 3, my organisation regularly checks that the contents of the fire & emergency file are accurate and will be updated with any changes. Is that true about your organisation? Number 4, I am confident that the H&S and O&M information about my building is accurate and will be updated with any changes. Again, yes or no, are you confident of that statement? And the last one, should a fire risk assessment include a check that the information in the fire & emergency information and secure information box is complete and correct? Yes or no. Moving swiftly on, Damien Ward from Checkmate is going to give us a quick overview on delays at Gateways.
DAMIEN WARD I did have a colleague that was joining…
GAVIN SLATTERY I have joined…if you want to launch the presentation I’ll just give a quick intro. We’re going to give a quick whistle-stop tour through our experiences of Gateway 2. Just to give a bit of background, Checkmate Fire are a passive fire protection business. We do fire door remediation, replacements and fire stopping to buildings. 95% of what we do is in occupied buildings, rather than new build buildings, so our experiences are talking about occupied buildings rather than new build. Damien’s going to give you a bit of background as to the Gateway 2 applications we’ve progressed so far and I’m going to talk about the challenges and experiences that we’ve had to date.
DAMIEN WARD We presented this last week at our trade association ASFP\s annual general meeting and I think it went down quite well. The Building Safety Regulator were present there. Where we’re up to as a business as a specialist contractor in passive fire protection and we’ve submitted 5 building control applications to the Building Safety Regulator since Gateway 2 was open. Three of those applications have been approved. Two of them are still awaiting a decision, although we have now been in contact directly with those two projects with the lead from the BSR. And at the moment, touch wood, none of them have been rejected.
So, that’s where we’re up to as a business in terms of volume of applications. The types of applications, as a contractor in passive fire protection the applications that we’ve put in have been for specific tasks within the building. So, it’s been fire stopping to existing compartmentation lines, or it’s been fire door remediation or repairs. Or it’s been full wholesale replacement of existing fire doors within those buildings. The terms of value across those 5 HRB applications is somewhere in the region of £6 million. We’ll go onto the times later, but those are budgets that were set between ourselves and clients in 2024.
In terms of scopes, what was the scope of that project. It was all within the communal areas. So, it was focused on the protection of escape routes and they were overall existing occupied buildings. In terms of size, there was anything between 200-2000 residents within the buildings. The delivery, there was a mixture of delivery for these applications. Some of these applications were completed with the benefit of having a detailed itemised line-by-line inspection report that Checkmate did in advance of the application. But some of them were, to use the terms of certified effects? 10mins 48secs, there was no inspection in advance. It as more a scope of the works that needed to be carried out in terms of quantities.
I suppose the keynotes specifically in relation to our applications is that there was no amendments to any existing fire strategy that was in place. There was no changes to any door or fire compartmentation wall ratings and we didn’t move any compartmentation lines as part of these applications. Timing wise, since we submitted our first application and those three that were returned with the approval, that’s taken 26 weeks, on average. The remaining 2 that we’re awaiting the final pieces of feedback, we think that will take another four weeks. So, we’re about one week into that now so I think that we’re about three weeks away from getting those last two approved. And that will take it to 30 weeks in total.
I think that some of the frustrations that we’ve had as a business is where we know about firer safety issues for these buildings. Residents are at risk, the client wants to do the right thing and get on and do the work. But there is this big long delay between submitting the application and getting the approval which is one part of the delay. But if you think back to all of the work that you need to do before you submit the application. Obviously you need to understand what the issue is, the size of the issue. You need to quantify it, you need to do your inspections. You need to then review the findings of that inspection. You then need to start trying to put budgets in place with your board.
Once you’ve got those approvals, you then submit your application and then you’ve got your 26-30 week delay. These are all real concerns that we have around the time that it has taken from identifying an issue to making that issue safe. And there’s issues in some of these projects that we’ve had where the client is now having to reduce the scope. So, the budgetary challenges that were approved in 2024 are now getting taken away or they’re getting reduced. And it leaves that client in a really difficult position of how they get their building at the point where they want to, where it’s a compliant safe building to live in.
And the other thing that we as a business still don’t know for all of the applications that we p8t through, the costs. So, the BSR has a schedule of rates that they apply when reviewing the applications as part of their wider multidisciplinary team and we’ve yet to receive a single invoice for any of those costs. We brought that up with the Building Safety Regulator last week and there wasn’t really much you could say, I think we just have to sit and wait and see what those additional costs are.
That’s been a snapshot of where we’re up to. I think the next couple of slides is more about the key challenges in understanding takeaways that we gleaned from our experience specifically within this Gateway 2 challenge.
GAVIN SLATTERY Certainly there was a period of learning how to complete the applications, what’s expected of an applications, and that’s more pre-validation stage to make sure that these applications were completed correctly. I think there is definitely a comment here about the way that the questioning is put for Gateway 2 applications very much lean towards new build, rather than occupied buildings. And also very much focused on a wide range of trades working in these buildings, rather than very specific trades. Very much a lot of what’s required in the Gateway 2 we considered as business as usual for our business.
We’re a third-party accredited business doing these works, governed by our third-party schemes. So, in our operating system the Checkmate way, a lot of these items were covered. There were areas that weren’t and there were areas specific to high-risk buildings that we need to alter our standard operating procedures. I think a really interesting piece is how prepared clients were for this. Do our clients understand their obligations? Do they understand what they need to prepare and put in place just for us to be able to put a validation through under the Building Control application process?
So, it’s not to be underestimated how clients need to be in terms of fire strategies in place, drawings in place, up-to-date information on their buildings. And a consistency in the approach to answers. We’ve done 4 or 5 applications in exactly the same way and we definitely had challenges in terms of what was approved and not approved, in very, very different ways of responses from the Building Safety Regulator when we were following a very clear process. So, although the applications were very similar in nature, just different buildings, the questioning that we got back from the Building Safety Regulator were very varied and not consistent.
The respected restricted method of applications, it sounds simple but the file name formatting you’re only allowed to submit PDFs. It was very difficult, very limited uploads that you could put through the system, it became quite cumbersome to put an application in. And our applications were relatively simple compared to a new build application. I’ve just mentioned identical applications, the same supporting information with very different levels of queries through that validation process. And then during the validation process when you submit a BCA, you don’t get anybody to talk to. It is very much one-way traffic, getting that information in, so you don’t know whether you’ve been validated for many weeks.
And when it comes back, you don’t actually have anyone to talk to explain the project. So, that regulatory lead comes in a little bit late. Levels of detail not relevant for application. How wide a road is outside an existing HRB, the drainage on an HRB, not relevant to our application at all, but processes that we needed to go through to get validation. And then our view of it was that there’s not enough competency or consistency of regulatory leads. That was evident in the questioning that was coming back around standard fire stopping surveys and details that we were putting forward, it was very clear that the people reviewing the applications didn’t have the ability or capacity to review at the right levels.
Extension requests coming through constantly, kind of every 4 weeks, asking for an extension, but nothing happening between those extension requests. So, very challenging in terms of the client expectations. And then if we needed to do a change because things change over time, it’s 26 weeks. in one particular case the PD changed on a contract, how do we change during an application? So, some challenges there. Then the kind of final piece is key learnings. Although the application process doesn’t allow you to, is very restrictive in terms of what you can update, add a document that signposts everything.
So, add a document that shows the Building Safety Regulator exactly where you’re putting information. Especially if you’re providing information that you know that you’re going to be requested at some point, but perhaps isn’t in the first application questions. Find and fix, rather than the full survey, potentially a simplified solution for occupied buildings to actually get an application through. And it sounds silly, but there’s less for the BSR to review. There isn’t a full survey for them to review, it’s just a scope to review. Having a very clearly defined scope of requirements that’s very clear to the BSR early on as to what we’re doing in that building and what the outcome will be.
I think the BSR offering an actual Teams meeting early in the process is very useful and will help massively. And assigning regulatory leads to large clients or contractors that are used to the type of work that they’re applying for. So, fire stopping experts, fire door experts being involved from the regulatory point of view very early on. And then the view from us as an accredited passive fire business potentially having some kind of fast track application process. Everything we do in that building, if we’re not effecting the compartment lines, if we’re not changing the fire strategy, should improve the fire safety in that building. So, it’s about having a quicker process potentially for the passive fire, and maybe even the active fire, industry.
GAVIN SLATTERY This is the final summary, the process is better. We’re reassured by the HSE that the speed of applications is better, some of the issues around staffing have been improved. And we’re fully behind the process, but there’s definitely improvements to be made from both HSE and contractors in terms of the standard of their applications that they put in.
RICHARD FREER So, going in the right direction, but not there yet.
GAVIN SLATTERY I think that’s a reasonable summary.
RICHARD FREER We’ve got a couple of questions, Florentina Punga.
FLORENTINA PUNGA It’s not necessarily a question. Last week I’ve been on the CAPE? 20mins 27secs course and basically I had some off the book conversations with the trainers that were there, some of them clearly working for local authorities building control, or for private companies. And what they say is that HSE, the Regulator has not paid their bills, they owe them money since probably last year. And a lot of them, they refuse now the Regulator when they come to them to ask can you review, can you work with us as part of the Gateway submissions.
So, I don’t know how improved the process of collaboration between the Regulator and the other approved inspectors is, but clearly it’s not ther because what I hear is that many of them do not want to work with the Regulator externally because they don’t pay them, basically.
GAVIN SLATTERY And I think that’s very important because there’s multidisciplinary teams, the HSE were saying that was the challenge in terms of getting the right competent staff to assist. Paying bills may help.
SYPRIAN A PITKIN My question is, you said in the keynotes that when you said no amendment to the fire strategy. Are you referring that is it that you did not make any amendments or they are querying? Or are you saying that there are no amendments to the fire strategy to be made? And if there are no amendments to the fire strategy to be made, did you submit a fire safety statement outlining on the back of that fire strategy outlining the works to be undertaken?
Because I’m finding that to be a challenge at the moment in some projects where, like you say Gavin, there is no amendment to the fire strategy and they think that you don’t need to submit anything.So, can you just elaborate on that.
DAMIEN WARD Yeah, so the fire strategy that was in place was a retrospective one. It was written post build completion and it was written in terms of how this building needed to be working, obviously in the case of an emergency, for it to be safe. So, the strategy was fine. The issue was that the building didn’t comply to the strategy so i.e. if a 60-minute compartment line is required, as per the strategy, and we look at the 60-minute compartment line and it’s got defects, well, we need to bring that building up to the level of that fire strategy. And yes, we did have to submit compliance statements for all of the functional requirements of the building regs across AD, B for example. We also had to look at Approved Document A as well for structural.
FLORENTINA PUNGA And then the building would have a building safety case which the client must update anyway, after all of these works. And keeping it in line and updated with all of the information from your works to make sure that their building safety case, at any given point in time, is in line with how the building is and operates. And is not a year old or two years old or god knows how old. But in terms of compliance, have you obtained all of these compliance declarations from maybe a structural consultant? Or it was just you that had made the specifications and produced that design aspect of the project?
DAMIEN WARD For the structural part of it, we did that ourselves. we understand the works that we do and we understand the impact of our works on the structural capacity of the building, so we did that ourselves.
GEORGE STEVENSON Basically, I’m going to go through what we’re now looking to do n terms of the Golden Thread Taskforce. Because as Richard said earlier, what we’ve got in the room here in our group is probably the top 5% of people in the industry who are aware of what is needed under the Golden Thread. So, our big challenge is to persuade the other 95% how important this is. And to that end, what we’ve done is created a presentation that we’re going to share with you, as Golden Thread Task Group members, to actually promote that to your clients, and also to your senior managers.
Because i’m not prejudging what the results of the poll are going to be, but I think it’s likely that a lot of the people will have responded that their directors don’t see this as being a priority. I may be wrong about that, but I think it’s quite serious. So, what i’m showing you now is something that’s a presentation that we’ve put together as a group, I’d like you feedback on to see if you want to use it as part of your delivery because we’ve created that. I attended a conference last week, which is where I met Gavin and Damien, at the ASFP. And Neil Collins from the Building Safety Regulator was there.
And one of the things that I picked up from that was that 80% of the submissions aren’t for new build, they’re for remedial works. And that seems to have surprised the Regulator as to how much was going on. And Neil said it was quite shocking what was happening under the radar that hadn’t been there. And he said that some of the applications, 44% of them, were being rejected because people hadn’t even provided the documents that were listed on the website. Which is staggering when you consider the importance of that’s happening. But he also said that the industry is best placed to write the guidance.
That’s what we’re hoping to do here, to be able to come up with an industry led initiative to actually say what good looks like, so best practice, and that’s what I’m going to go onto. I also attended a Bureau Veritas? 28mins meeting last night and these are people that work for the Regulator, I don’t know if they’ve been paid, Florentina. But what was interesting was that well over 50% of them are being rejected based on fire safety. So, I’m going to be looking at what i’m going to go through here on fire safety.It’s not obviously everything, but it’s something that I wanted to mention.
Tim Galloway from the HSE said 75% of applications at Gateway 2 are being rejected based on missing or flawed information, which is surprising. But anybody involved in asset management won’t be that surprised because in most cases FMs have to commission surveys to go and survey a building that’s just been completed to find out what was installed in it. And obviously the Golden Thread was put together to try and eliminate a lot of that, (a lot of people misunderstand the Golden Thread) but we’ve been involved in the Golden Thread right from the start and we really do understand it.
So, what we’ve got within our community is people that have already signed up to say that they want to be part of this and they want to share their knowledge. And if you are interested in getting involved, and you’re not on that list, then please email us and let us know. What we’re doing is creating a badge of assessment to make you Golden Thread aware. So, this is for clients ideally to say that you’re aware and probably committed and interested in it. What we’re doing at the moment, the Golden Thread group have been using digital asset capture 360 photos and comparing that with the O&M information.
So here, for example, what this is doing here is identifying that this is information from the secure information box. And this is telling you that’s a solid wall, whereas in fact the 260 photo has picked up that it’s definitely not a solid wall. So, that’s a really dangerous thing from a fire brigade’s perspective. And that’s the sort of validation that we think needs to happen. And in this particular case there was four different options in terms of the internal floor layouts. Which one’s right? Does it matter which one you give to the fire brigade? I think probably that it does. The other aspect of this is what they’re doing is using 360 photos to go round and tag the 360 photos with the assets that they can see.
This is going to be immensely useful from a safety case perspective, but also to be able to say which AOVs have got actuators and what type they are. And where are the smoke detectors. And also to be able to use the 360 photos, which we think is a really very, very low cost and simple way of navigating around this, to be able to say where are the information about dry risers, for example. This remembers where the dry risers are, so you just click on the schedule and it takes you to them. So, if you’re interested in getting involved in the digital aspect capture put ‘digital aspect capture’ in the chat and Barry and Chris Aldridge will pick that up later.
I think one of the challenges is that in many cases we’ve got the regulations, but people are paying lip service to them to a certain extent, and trying to find the most cost effective way to get around them. But then what happens if we do that? What we’ve been doing within BIM4Housing for years is this is a Miro board that you can join with. And it’s there to be able to actually get people collaboratively to identify what’s needed. And if you’re interested in that we can connect you with it, you can get access to it from the BIM4Housing website. What we’ve also been doing, this is where I think we’ve got credibility with the HSE to say that we could be an industry specifier, is that we’ve taken that knowledge, we’ve been running workshops for the last 2-3 years.
And we’ve got deep dive information on all of the principal fire critical assets. So, sprinkler systems, AOVs, fire doors. We’ve done a consistent thing of saying what do we need to know about assets? What risk does it mitigate? What do people do to it to stop it from working? So, we’ve done this for all of these asset types. Worked out what the component parts are and also lists of the records, if you’re interested in this there’s a real deep dive that you can pick up and use. So, what do we need to know about the construction and installation of fire doors?
And then we’ve also built this with the team, we’ve had over a hundred people involved in this initiative to create a standardised fire door inspection. This is all available as part of what we’re doing. This was for fire doors with a simple way of working this through and then we’re currently doing something for fire stopping and cavity barriers. And by doing that it means that we can hopefully stop or reduce the delays that are taking place at the moment because there’s just not enough information. So, what should we do about it really? Well, part of it is to look at the building as a complete whole.
So the Golden Thread, not simply as individual components, it’s how they work together. And using this on the basis of saying if a fire breaks out in a kitchen what are the measures that are in place to stop it from spreading. Now, there’s compartmentation, but compartmentation is actually made up of a number of different critical assets. And if any one of them fails then the whole compartment fails, so therefore just doing fire door inspections isn’t good enough. We also need to look at the other systems that need to kick in to protect against that. So, this is this Golden Thread thinking that we need to get people to buy into.
And the other thing is being able to federate information that is being created in a range of different tools and applications. But then making it so that the product information and also the location of that space, or the location of that asset and which spaces it’s protecting, are coordinated. So, the location of things becomes critical. And therefore if we’ve got software applications that are being used for inspection, then they’re all referring back to the same unique asset. So, they all need to be referencing the same information. And it’s also a matter of saying well, there’s supposed to be an as-built plan of the building with all of those elements in it.
And the legislation requires clients to confirm that they’ve received that information. We don’t think that people are actually checking adequately because it’s really, really hard to check and we’re going to come on to that a bit later. But these are legal requirements and if people sign that declaration and it’s not right, then they’ve committed a criminal act. Now, it may be that they’re not being prosecuted at the moment, but the person that actually signs that and the organisation are liable, my understanding is that it’s for 15 years. i may be wrong about that, but it’s certainly a long term commitment.
So why do we need to know, for example, where fire dampers are? Part of the reason for that is that if, for example, there’s a fire and that piece of ductwork collapses, you need to make sure that there’s a breakaway joint so that it doesn’t pull it out of the wall. Now, people cleverer than me know this, but what this is doing is illustrating how a model can be used to identify where the fire dampers are, but in a very simple way to be able to locate them. So, here we’ve got the different fire dampers, so the product information. This is a good example of a range of different software applications working together to pull together the Golden Thread information.
In this case we’ve got where all of those dampers are. So, this is something that can simply be identified as what space that fire damper is protecting. And we can then go from there into a location of where that particular asset is and the 360 photo takes you to it. Now, that we think is a really important part of the process. And we’ve got integrated in here all of the documents. So, it means that the connection between the different elements is being addressed. The challenge is if that information is put into an O&M manual and it’s not connected up, then it’s like being given a pile of jigsaw pieces without the box lid. And the problem with that is that people just sign them off.
So, the way in which we’re addressing that is to make it so that the asset information model which is made up of all of this disconnected information can then be federated. So, rather than it being disconnected and people having to manually go and find things, and Florentina was telling me yesterday her brain melted when she was having to do this. What we’re doing is how can we check to make sure that we’ve got all of the information. And therefore glue it all together in a way that then can be verified, again using 360 photos. There’s nothing about BIM here, this is all about just information and referencing documents and information properly.
And we can build on that because government standards that I wasn’t aware of these until recently, they’re really. So actually going down to the level of details to standardise the way that floors are all called. On projects that we’ve been reviewing we find that the floor names, basic stuff, are different. Exactly the same with the information about the assets. So, there is a structure here that we can follow and adopt and that’s really where we’re going with this, to be able to make it so that from a Golden Thread perspective clients have got a simple way of saying where is that AOV, what system is it part of, what’s the product, who installed it etc.
And this is the sort of methodology we want to get to. And then it means that clients can have a dashboard of what information is missing so that they can focus on collecting it. We’ve been through this process now with all of the major fire industry associations and they’re all onboard with it. So, what we really want to do is get more people involved in this process. We want to provide the tolls and the templates and the methodologies for you as a collective or individually to carry out this sort of service.
BERNARD HORNUNG We, as scientific instrument makers, can help tremendously because we have the technology to do an awful lot of things which at the moment think cannot be done.
GEORGE STEVENSON just before we move into that, if there is anybody in the group. What we’re expecting, some client organisations are probably at Gateway 2, maybe Gateway 3, and they’re probably going to be concerned about whether they’ve got the right information that they need to be able to get through the Gateways. Now, rather than waiting until they’ve actually made a submission and then being rejected and then having to go through that cycle, the proposition that we’re making is that if clients wish to let us know that they’d like to be put in touch with people that can do that type of audit, then that would be great.
So, fi you’re a client and that’s something that would interest you, having somebody independent from your project team to actually do that review. Because one of the challenges is that everybody that’s in the project team, including probably yourselves, everybody is trying to get a certificate of completion. And therefore everybody is under pressure to just sign stuff off and it becomes a nightmare afterwards. What we’re saying is that if we can do an initial audit of your information. And it won’t be us that’s doing it, it will be members of the Taskforce. So, what we want to do is have clients and also people who are willing and interested in offering the service.
And when people have gone through that process we can give them a Golden Thread aware badge, as it were. So, if you’re interested in being on the supply side of that, providing those consultancy services, or you’re interested in being on the client side of things, could you put that into the chat.
RICHARD FREER Right, digital handover and templates, which is Paul Oakley.
PAUL OAKLEY George has asked me to take you through a case study in terms of what I’ve been doing on a significant construction project, supposedly by award winning contractors with their BIM processes. With top information management consultants supporting them and all of the ISO 19650 requirements that you can think of in terms of this documentation. But it’s typical in terms of what’s happened, you’ve got three buildings, but the architect started off with one big Revit file. So therefore each discipline just produced one big Revit file.
But they actually didn’t consider that those three buildings are three different facilities, and basically provided one big COBie file and one massive zip file containing all of the documentation on those three buildings. And none of the documentation contained any metadata which was of any use to it. So, they didn’t consider that basically each building is a separate facility, handed over differently, different uses and managed independently by the FM teams looking after them. The other issue was the documents they provided was a record of the project archive. They didn’t identify specifically what the documents that were required for the asset management team to maintain and operate the building.
So, out of about 17,000 files delivered there was about a thousand that were concrete cube test files, plus various other things. Which may need to be there in the project archive, but they’re not there as a requirement for up-to-date asset management. The folder naming, there was three buildings, so they started off with things like fabric building 1, 2, 3. And then you had the consultants such as architects and under that you had buildings 1, 2, 3 and electrical building 1, 2, 3 etc. And each of the work packages. So, you had building 1, 2, 3 at multiple levels throughout the folder structures.
Which created these absolutely enormous path lengths which created a whole series of different issues in terms of how you try and extract it. And there was big problems with actually a lot of the files being delivered because when they extracted them out of the CDE, a lot of the files were left behind because of the failures of the path naming etc. Another issue was naming of the work packages. The work packages were named based upon the company that had done them. But then they named the O&Ms Projectname_O&M.pdf, so it told you absolutely nothing about what that O&M was actually dealing with in terms of which work package.
So, that was one of the other things, to actually go through and actually identify those. And even on the front covers of the O&Ms for the work packages, it told you the company name but it didn’t tell you what it was dealing with. The export from the CDE, they provided all of this as part of the zip file, but it took the 19650 type identifier, added the description plus the status and the revisions. Things like the status text was things like this CR construction record or A5 suitable for RIBA Stage 5 approval. These were all tacked on to the file name with the massive big path, we were blowing out the 256 characters, creating all sorts of issues there.
The descriptions that they use, it had things like commas and alpha sans? 49mins 25secs in them, so again we couldn’t actually put them back in to zips to upload them. We had to end up manually going through and renaming things or running scripts to deal with that because of the naming conventions that we used. So, we took this whole task in terms of how we broke the documentations down into different buildings. We changed the work packages and structured those so that there were names so you actually know what you were looking for. We used a utility to basically go through all of the folders, extract the data with a bit of coding that we wrote, and create our own Excel file.
So we could then basically go through, store the old name and the new name against things and a new folder structure. And then we’ve also decomposed the file identifiers. So, under the BS or the ISO 19650, we know where there is a -A, basically that’s architecture etc. We knew that ZX01 was building 1, O4 was level 4. So, from the coding fields we could actually put some metadata against the files. We also knew where the description was, in terms of the length of those for particular file names. And we could also get the file types, so if we knew it was a dwg we know it’s a drawing file. So, this basically allowed us to add to the metadata to deal with it.
so, we’ve gone through 17,000-odd files, restructured the whole project using these utilities and time, and hopefully now we’ve got a much better chance of being able to find information. The information that we trust because we’ve no longer got all of the duplicates that were all over the place. And there was even multiple revisions of the same files sometimes, but we’ve still kept the history and the audit trail.
GEORGE STEVENSON The principle idea here is that these are the sorts of tools, processes and utilities that the members of the consulting group of the Golden Thread Taskforce will have access to. So, if you are a data geek that are interested in doing that, then we can share that with you, put ‘data management’ into the chat.
AHMED HELMY ABDELMAGID I just wanted to ask a couple of things. Why isn’t this included in the IDP? And why isn’t workflows imposed on the CDE for the transition of a project information model to an asset information model, where the exact purpose of that is to stop things such as that ever being received in this manner?
PAUL OAKLEY I think the big issue on those is these are sort of the typical things under BS 1192, the naming conventions and stuff. The stuff like that now seems to have been forgotten under ISO 19650. But I think that a lot of the issue was the naming of files from say the architects and design teams was dealt with, but when it came to the subcontractors. And the big issue was descriptions when they’re putting the stuff into the CDE, that’s where a lot of the special characters seem to have been put in. When they exported the format that they exported from the CDE, where they included the description, that created a lot of the problems.
BRIAN McKENNA Paul, you mentioned COBie, did you get COBie data in spreadsheet formats that could be machine-readable consumed into a system database that can support COBie?
PAUL OAKLEY Yes, we did.
ANA MATIC A fantastic presentation, Paul, I just wanted to agree with everything that you were saying. The reason why this happens is that obviously during construction everyone is naming things because of however it fits them to do it. And unless there is a very strict information manager onboard who is looking both at what the client needs to receive, and also what the team needs to be doing. And then translating between those two and making sure that everyone does what they need to be doing, none of this will happen.
So, even if we have the best standards in place, you do need to have a mum in place, a person who is looking at everyone and saying no, no, you need to do this like this because the client wants this. And also the client wants to know…
RICHARD FREER We’re going to move swiftly on to Cliff who’s got a case study on digital handover.
CLIFF KNEALE I’m an information manager, so you might want to call me mum from now on I like that. The scenario is that you’re the client and you’ve been asked to confirm receipt of the golden information at handover. We’re also going to be looking at the Regulation 38 information specifically for emergency lighting. So, I’m just going to take you through what that actually involves at the coalface, if you’ve been asked to either build a Golden Thread on somebody’s behalf, or whether you’ve just been asked to confirm that you have everything.
So, one of the challenges is that the documents aren’t all as-builts. Sometimes they’re marked up as as-builts, but they’re full of notes. Now, this is the door schedule and some of these notes are asking for things like are there smoke seals on this door. That’s quite an important question, we don’t know whether it’s been answered or not. So, you might be able to confirm that you’ve got this document, but is it correct? Here’s another example of the same document. I have to say a lot of these things are small, but they add up to death by a thousand cuts when you’re trying to actually get organised.
So, we have spelling mistakes, so if you were looking for the life safety tray using OCR, it wouldn’t find it within this drawing because safety is spelt incorrectly. Anything about the retained facade, that’s spelt incorrectly. Schemastic, instead of schematic, so you won’t find these drawings either if you’re trying to find them. Also, inside documents you have location to be confirmed depending on CBRE review, so has that been answered or not, has the location been confirmed? We also have notes inside technical transmittals, don’t know whether they’ve been resolved. The same here, more examples.
And also Paul touched on it earlier, when you’re downloading files, if the file name path name is to long it will stop downloading it. But you might just get the file path, but the file will actually be empty, so that’s another difficulty. Also, sometimes you’re given information, maybe a login to a system. And when you go to the system you find that you’ve got to find your way around the folder naming convention, the file naming convention and you’ll find that there are zip files. It looks pretty simple when you open that, but you might find that this zip file contains zip files as well.
And those zip files will contain trees and folder structures inside there with files and you’ve got to unpick it all and peel it all apart and put it all back together again. So, there were about 40 zip files on this particular project. And the system that we were downloading from didn’t allow you to download zip files in bulk, so they all had to be downloaded individually and unzipped individually. We also had challenges with inconsistency folder structure and folder naming conventions, I know that Paul has just touched on that. So, here’s a few examples, we’ve got proposed level 01 and here we’ve got it the other way around.
We’ve got the ground floor and then level. We’ve got here first floor level and here we’ve got second floor level. And then second level 2. So, you can’t just find everything pertaining to a particular level just by doing a simple search, you’re only going to get some of the information. Also, when it comes down to fire stopping, we noted that whilst the drawings actually indicated where the fire stopping was, it wasn’t clear which product you would use in that location. We found 9 different products, but it’s unclear as to which product to use where. On the reflected ceiling plan, we noticed that it’s very illegible.
There’s an emergency light just underneath here somewhere, so in order to find that you’re going to have to open the document, zoom in and pan around so that it’s almost very large on the screen. So, unclear obscured information is another problem. Even though I’m zoomed right in now you can just about read the fact that there’s an emergency exit light there. We’ve also got difficulties with there’s a document number here, and that’s the document and this file is attached to it. And when you download all of the information from some of these systems you’re not sure whether you’re actually getting all of the information.
Because some of it is embedded, some of it is linked. So, it might say that you’ve got 1,500 files, by the time that you’ve downloaded it you might only have a thousand. Or you might have 2,000. So, you can never really be sure whether or not you have all of the information about the building. So, this little bit is focused specifically on Regulation 38. Let’s say you were working for a housing association and you were asked to make yourself familiar with this building and find out about the emergency lighting. So, you might start off with the fire safety manual which would tell you the emergency lighting. To look for it you need to look at the fire strategy, MEP consultants specifications, electrical lighting record drawings, architect’s reflected ceiling plan, the health & safety file.
And for testing and commissioning you need to go here, for associated record drawings you need to go here. And for installer’s details, installer competence, product details, specifications and any assumptions you need to look in this package. So, you need to refer to 8 different locations for 13 different pieces of information, just for one system. This is what this looks like, you go into the system and you type in fire strategy or emergency lighting and you’ll find some information in some of the documents. Once you’ve found the document you then open it and you get little snippets of information.
You might find a specification, this is all about British Standards that need to be met. Again, snippets of information and this is just searching for emergency lighting. This is also a tender issue, is that correct? Should we be looking at a tender issue at handover? Maybe this needs to be updated. When you’re looking at the specifications you do start to get some images, so it starts to make a little bit more sense. Emergency backup, so you might want to assume that that is emergency light. You can make the assumption that it is, but maybe it isn’t, maybe it’s just a backup that’s emergency. And then you find something here, so this looks like an emergency exit sign to me, so maybe that’s it.
But without actually knowing, you’re just going to be confronted with maybe hundreds of different lights and it’s for you to determine which ones are actually part of the emergency lighting system. So, looking at the record drawings now for MEP, we’re going into the health & safety file. it lists out the drawings, and there are no drawings title the emergency lighting. Again, back on through the reflected ceiling plan, the next place to look (again we’ve looked at this a little bit earlier), so you’ve got to zoom right in to find anything. Then you find something that’s quite useful, it’s a schedule of testing and commissioning and it does mention emergency lighting here.
But it doesn’t actually give you anymore information other than whether or not it’s been tested. So, you start to look into the next section that you’re directed to from the fire safety manual is the electrical testing and commissioning. And you start to piece together these document references, 6.12. If you look carefully at the document reference here you can see SO2 section CO2 612. And after a while of looking at it you think OK, so that’s what that document is there and there it is. So, you have to do quite a lot of reading and squinting and lots of cups of coffee to get through this, believe you me. You open it up and you’ve got the emergency lighting certificate.
And then you’ve got this reference here and the type and a drawing number here as well. So, you think OK, I’m going to go off and look for these types and these drawing numbers. You know, this is my first day at work with this new housing association and I think I’m going to give my notice in already. Electrical testing and commissioning. I’m just putting myself in the shoes of somebody who has just started with a new company and they’ve been told to get their head around this building. So, you scroll down and you see these drawings which have been photocopied and scanned in, all of the pages are wobbly.
Once again, if you’re allowed to rotate it you can rotate it. In this case, you weren’t allowed to rotate it, you had to scroll using the zoom bar, left and right, up and down. Until you finally, you’ve gone all of the way around the drawing and found out that these two were the emergency lights. Again, it’s this tender issue, it’s not as-built, what does ID GF04 relate to? That’s unclear. It opens up in portrait, it can’t be changed to landscape. Again, the same sort of scenario. You’re still just trying to find out where is the emergency lighting in this building and you’re opening up more information.
So here we’re got a lighting certificate, section 6.98 emergency lighting certificate, and it’s upside down. And I can’t read this writing, I probably would struggle even if it was the right way up. So, here we’ve got the emergency lighting certificate, so that’s good. Where are we now? We’re looking for the associated record drawings, my comment is why are there not a list of relevant drawings. I’m often asked is there a list of drawings, is there a list of equipment? The answer is yes, but there’s not a full list or a master list. So, you’ve got to go into different documents to find different lists, but nowhere is the whole list in one master list so that you can check off against it.
So, only one return for emergency voice control and it’s not emergency lighting. Again, I’m just looking inside the drawing register and record drawings, I’m looking for emergency lighting drawing, I can’t find any easily. Installer details, none were found, installer competence, none were found. And we’re going through looking for exit signage of stairs, stairs and exits often have emergency lighting, maybe that will give me a clue. And, lo and behold, I stumbled across this product data for this particular light and it rings a bell. I saw that earlier in the specifications, so it looks like I’m on to a good thing. But again, I’m not quite sure where these product types tie into it all.
This is the lighting system O&M manual which was found in this list. Now, in the O&M manual I then find the equipment schedule. Now, in the fire safety manual there was no mention of the O&M manual. So it’s only because I stumble across it whilst looking for the other information that I was pointed towards that I found the O&M manual. When I looked in here there’s an asset reference which is type exit 1 and that tells me it’s an Orlight and there’s the supply product number. And operating instructions also in the O&M manual, and manufacturer’s literature is also in the O&M manual.
So, lighting systems in the O&M manual, this is all part of it, maintenance information, fault finding procedures and recommended spares. So, that’s all of the information that was found on that. I did also stumble across this drawing which wasn’t listed anywhere, but opened it up and it actually has got the electrical services basement lighting layout. It's not the emergency lighting, so it’s all in one layout. So, if you were looking for emergency lighting you wouldn’t find it. And when you zoom in to this drawing you start to see exit 1, this is the sign. You see this little code here, B2E, these are these codes here.
So finally you start to, the lights come on and you’re like OK, now I get it. So basically this is the manufacturer’s way of referring to this item and this is the drawing that you find it on. But it take quite a long while to get there. So, some possible solutions to these. It’s not easy, this whole thing, but I can see a lot of improvement and everybody is trying now to use file naming conventions. But unfortunately they are being used in different ways by different people, so it’s inconsistently wrong rather than consistently wrong. So this is a file naming convention based on ISO 19650 annex 2021, which is a big improvement on the previous version.
Because it puts the functional breakdown further up the tree which means you can now have things like emergency lighting, you can package things together. So, you’ve got the main project, sub-project, building services engineer, section 61 emergency lighting for Level 1. It's a drawing, the discipline is electrical and there’s the drawing number. So, this would be the file naming convention. Ideally, this would be circulated at the very beginning of the project which is not hard to do. It’s an Excel spreadsheet, easy to circulate, easy to understand. Everybody signs up to this, they all produce their task or master information delivery plan.
So, when they’re asked what information they’ll be delivering, they come up with their code based on the previous slide and then they submit that. And then that all gets put into the master information delivery plan which sits at the top of the tree. And when you’ve got your database you look at the master information delivery plan and you can check off against everything that’s actually in that database. So, this is basically a cornerstone of ISO 19650. Another way to do it is to tag the information and put it all into a project information model. So, here’s the project information model that we’ve put it into.
This particular project, you look for documents. This information was eventually brought into the database and everything was tagged with emergency lighting, obviously if it was emergency lighting, and then it found 37 items within a split second. So, we’re working towards a Sharepoint into a database which is much easier.
RICHARD FREER So, if you want to join the digital handover workstream, put ‘digital’ or ‘handover’ in the chat. Just to refresh, if you want to join George’s Golden Thread Taskforce put ‘Taskforce’ in the chat. And if you want to join the WhatsApp group put ‘WhatsApp’ in the chat. The link for the second poll is in the chat. Question 1, should the fire and emergency information include a floor plan with the locations of all of the safety critical assets? Number 2, should the fire and emergency information include a schedule of the safety critical assets and what product models are used?
Number 3, do you need to inform the Regulator when a fire door is replaced? Number 4, how frequently do we need to check that the automatic opening vents are operational? 12-monthly, 6-monthly, 3-monthly, 1-monthly, weekly or daily? And the last one, do you believe that an independent third-party should check that adequate safety critical information is provided and is being maintained? Ok, let’s move on now to the Digital Asset Capture workstream, which if you want to join that put ‘DAC’ in the chat.
BARRY BASSNETT We did a workshop a few weeks ago on 360 imagery and that’s provoked quite a lot of response and conversation. So, what we’re planning to do is organise another workshop, looking at comparing different data capture technologies and techniques. When you’re commissioning this work you’ll probably get lots of survey companies saying they need to do it with X, Y and Z. And what we’re going to try and do is give you a sanity check on the pros and cons of those. And what you need to be asking them specifically to do if you’ve got a number of assets that you need to survey to get that data into your systems.
So, we’ll be doing a workshop and we’ll circulate details about that in the coming weeks, but if you’d like to put ‘data capture workshop’ in the chat so we know that you’re interested and we can send you the relevant information that would be great. Lots of things that we’ll be looking at, 360 versus Lidar versus measured building surveys versus all sorts of things. And just trying to give you a sanity check on what you can expect and what you should be asking from, or if you want to do it yourself and you[re thinking about what solutions may be out there. It will be a bit of a whistle-stop thing, but we think it’s valuable that people know and understand what they’re getting themselves into. And can make some sensible grownup choices about what you can do.
What has been pointed out to me is that obviously there is an awful lot of buildings that don’t fall within the BIM stock. It would be interesting to know how many buildings have got BIM models in them anyway where we could extract some of this information. But the majority of people seem to be working on buildings that are 20 years old, so quite often it’s 2D, and even 2D that’s not absolutely correct, so that’s what this workshop is focusing on, how we can generate the information that you can work on. In the meantime, if anybody has got any questions I’m always here to answer those.
GEORGE STEVENSON What I was just showing there, that’s Andy Cumberpatch from one of the Golden Thread group. Andy’s been experimenting with Lidar and 360, so basically Barry and Chris Aldridge there are supporting him on that. So, what we’re doing is trying to look at the best way of using Lidar to create floor plans that then we can add 360 photos to. So, this is the sort of support that if you’re up for the digital asset capture workshop, Barry can go through this methodology and show you the different technologies that can be used to do that. But also how it can be done very simply.
BARRY BASSNETT Yeah, that’s sort of the point, there’s an awful lot of myth and legend and you’re relying on a lot of the sales people who are not necessarily au fait with what we’re trying to do. So, it’s more of a sanity check on what technology is there, how much it should cost you, what the implications in the back office work. It’s not just about walking around with a camera on your head, it’s what you do in order to get those systems and organise them.
But it’s a key part of what we’re trying to do, unless you’ve got a way of capturing the data of what’s out there all of this is conjecture. You’ve got to find a way of relating it to something. And doing the assessments, whether that’s onsite or remotely. So, that’s what we’re going to be focusing on, and to see as many people as we can there because the more we can get out there doing it, the more clean information and better case studies we’re going to have to take and talk to our clients about.
GEORGE STEVENSON We’ve also got a few 360 cameras that we’ve been loaning out to building safety managers, for example. So, they’ve been using them to start to become familiar with the process of capturing asset data, 360 asset information. So, if that’s something that you’re interested in then just reach out and we’ll include you in that pilot.
RICHARD FREER Let’s go straight in to the results of the first poll which I found very interesting. How well does your CEO/FD understand their duties under the Building Safety Act? And just over half of the people said 75-100%. So, almost half of the respondents thought 50% or below, that’s a bit scary.
GEORGE STEVENSON I’m almost quite encouraged by that, if that’s actually the case.
RICHARD FREER How confident are you that your current projects will deliver accurate and complete Regulation 38 information? And over half are 50% or below on that one. My organisation regularly checks that the contents of the fire & emergency file are accurate and will be updated with any changes. Again, just over half, 35 yes, 26 no. And the next one, I’m confident that the H&S and O&M information about my building is accurate and will be updated with any changes. That’s pretty conclusive, 42 no’s and 16 yeses. And the last one on this first poll, should a fire risk assessment include a check that the information in the fire & emergency information and secure information box is complete and correct? That was overwhelming on this one, yes, it should. I’d be interested in the three that said no, actually.
Let’s go onto the second poll. Should the fire & emergency information include a floor plan with the locations of all of the safety critical assets? Everybody said yes on that one. Should the fire & emergency information include a schedule of the safety critical assets and what product models are installed? And again, a totally overwhelming, almost unanimous yes. Number 3, do you need to inform the Regulator when a fire door is replaced? 23 yes and 28 no, so that’s very balanced. What’s the answer to that, George?
GEORGE STEVENSON I’ve been told that it is necessary. But that’s the whole point of this community. And I think the other thing is the big question is it depends, it’s the old challenge that we’ve got. It will depend on what the responsible person requires of the team.
SYPRIAN A PITKIN I’ve approached the BSR on a number of occasions on this with the HRBs and it’s simply they’re saying yes. If you just explain it, the difference between maintenance repair and if it has been changed. So, if the fire door has been changed yes, you need to report it. If you’re adding components that wasn’t tested on a fire door yes, you need to report it. So, the answer is yes.
GEORGE STEVENSON That’s what I understood. Does anybody that has a contrary view want to contribute there?
RICHARD FREER Let’s have a no speak out.
TOM OULTON It’s not a no, it’s a question. What’s the difference between replaced and changed? Because replaced could be a like-for-like replacement, so ultimately there is no change. But changed is a different product.
GEORGE STEVENSON My understanding is, and you’re probably right, you’re more knowledgeable in these things than me probably, but my understanding is that if something is replaced, unless it’s absolutely the same, which is probably unlikely…I’ve been told that it does need to be reported. Even if, it might be that it’s done as an emergency repair, but you’ve still got to let them know.
KEVIN BAYLISS Wouldn’t it be a notifiable change if it was the same? So, for example, you’re telling them that this is the case because it’s like-for-like, if that was the case. Because you’re just notifying the BSR, it’s not saying you’ve got to stop doing it. I think that’s only if we’d notified it’s like a major change. And then non-HRBs wouldn’t have that issue I guess, because you’d have to do that through Building Control in a different route.
RICHARD FREER Let’s look at number 4, how frequently do we need to check that the automatic opening vents are operational? 12-monthly, 6-monthly. The most popular is 6-monthly, but it’s pretty spread around the middle. What’s the correct answer to that, George?
GEORGE STEVENSON I’ve been told by the smoke control experts that it should be weekly. Because it should be the same as the fire alarm tests. Martin is an expert in this.
MARTIN OATES I put a note on the chat. The recent SCA document guidance on maintenance, firstly to meet the Fire Safety Act, that’s now monthly legally. But then if you look at the SCA guide, that will go down to daily, weekly, monthly checks as well. So, I think you’ll probably find if you look into the SCA guide it might well say weekly, but monthly is the legal requirement under the Fire Safety Act.
GEORGE STEVENSON And that’s maintenance is it, Martin? So, my understanding is that a building safety manager, for example, should be checking, just like they check the fire alarm system is working, they should also at the same time check to make sure that the AOVs working.
MARTIN OATES Yeah, it’s probably worth having a look at the guide, but it’s the differential between the competencies. So, a competent maintainer will be the monthly, 6-monthly is when they have to have a certified maintainer. So, it will be monthly as a minimum by a competent maintainer. That doesn’t have to be fully qualified like SDI19, for instance.
GEORGE STEVENSON So, the key point about that is this is a good example of our expert group coming up with the best practice example of saying under these circumstances this is what should happen. So, that’s what we’re trying to do.
MARTIN OATES Yeah, it’s absolutely laid out in the recently published Smoke Control Association guide which is on their resources section.
RICHARD FREER Number 5, I believe that an independent third-party should check that adequate safety critical information is provided and is being maintained. Yes 39, no 13.
GEORGE STEVENSON So, that’s broadly opening up a useful, that’s a market for us as a collective we’ve got much stronger pull if we’ve got a best practice standard that we’ve all signed up to. So, there’s then, we’re taking away the opinions side of things, we’ve got the collective wisdom of the team. I’m really focusing on Regulation 38 because I’m trying to remove any sort of complication on it. So, that’s where we’re going with it.
RICHRAD FREER I’ll just remind you again, if you want to join the DAC workshop put ‘DAC workshop’. If you want to join the DAC group workstream put ‘DAC’. If you want to join digital handover put ‘digital’. If you want to join George’s Golden Thread Taskforce put ‘Taskforce’. And if you want to join the WhatsApp group put ‘WhatsApp’.
GEORGE STEVENSON Does everybody think this has been a worthwhile session?
SYPRIAN A PITKIN Yes, it was, it was very worthwhile.
GEORGE STEVENSON Barry has got a suggestion to make, about doing more of a detailed Q&A workshop.
BARRY BASSNETT I was just thinking obviously this is a fabulous forum, but there’s an awful lot of unanswered questions and things we go away and think about. I’m just thinking, floating the idea of actually maybe this is a forum we can actually do it as a face-to-face thing. Having a conference of a day or 2 days to organise and go into these things in more depth, because it’s obviously something that’s incredibly important. Not just within our community, but also to extend and do missionary work to the other, as George says, 95% of the market who are either not interested, or don’t know what they don’t know, which is probably a fairer idea.
It’s just something to float the idea, obviously this is incredibly valuable, but I was thinking if we all got together in one room for a couple of days and were able to interrogate these experts, that might be something to think about.
GEORGE STEVENSON Yeah, and I think the first step on that is probably to get the WhatsApp group going.
BARRY BASSNETT Yeah, maybe that’s a way of doing it. But I’m looking at this, I’m sort of new and expanding my knowledge in trying to think how this is relevant. And there’s just an incredible resource here. I’ve just come back from a very similar conference in Prague where we were talking about 3D and it was fabulous, we met so many different and interesting people. It would be great to think we could do something in the UK. Just to float that idea round, I’m not volunteering to put my hands up to organise it, but just something to bear in mind and think about it. I think it could be incredibly useful.
GEORGE STEVENSON The poll that we’ve actually done there is going to give us some very interesting results that we can feed back to the Regulator. Does anybody have any objection to us feeding that back? It’s all anonymous, but I think this is a really worthwhile thing to let them know.
CHAT
Simon Collery (External) Wednesday 03:38 pm
Regarding question 5, do FRA surveyors have access to the SIB?
Syprian A Pitkin (External) Wednesday 03:47 pm
Question, Key notes: When you said no amendments to the fire strategy, did the you submit a fire safety statement outlining the works to be undertaken?
Assumpta Bekeny (External) Wednesday 03:58 pm
Did you have to submit a safety case report with the application?
Damien Ward (External) Wednesday 04:09 pm
no not for our applications
Florentina Punga (External) Wednesday 04:06 pm
I have always said that the HSF should not be left for Stage 5-6 to be done, should be started in Stage 3 with identifying the client requirements and then building up that HSF template (which can just as well talk to the GT of information) and start adding information from design stages(finishes, specification for performance, outline strategies, Fire strategy, etc) and then build on it stage by stage, package by package. by not leaving it all for the end, the risk of big volume of information which can either be incomplete or unnecessary can be avoided and what the HSF contains is relevant and accurate and worthwhile.
Pierre Venter (External) Wednesday 04:06 pm
DAC. The proposal is that the data needs to be hosted in a central repository. The owner remains on record and versions indicate new contributions.
Houghton, Joe (Unverified) Wednesday 04:08 pm
So on Fire Doors how does your work tie into things like BM Trada which is a recognised standard for installing and maintaining doors?
Damien Ward (External) Wednesday 04:14 pm
Hi Joe, we are accredited by BM Trada, BRE/LPCB and FIRAS for installation or remediation of fire doors. Interestingly this was not a question in the application....
Pierre Venter (External) Wednesday 04:12 pm
The records of As-Constructed are never updated by the Sub-Contractor, Designer, the Contractors. That needs to be in Single Source, verified.
Barry Beavis (External) Wednesday 04:13 pm
The reference document for inspecting fire doors recommends three types of inspection. If completed correctly, it is possible to third party certify notional or nominal fire resisting doorsets in accordance with BRE LPCB 1197 based on criticality and frequency of use.
Ahmed Helmy Abdelmagid (Unverified) Wednesday 04:14 pm
unfortunately, fms 002 conflicts with iso 19650. Also Govs004 is actually being pulled back as it has not had the full agreement from government bodies, its a good start to standardise information requirements from public bodies
Brian McKenna (External) Wednesday 04:14 pm
can you send a link to this gov site please
Praveen Vijayasimhan (External) Wednesday 04:15 pm
This approach is very effective. I forsee BSR at Gateway 3 or building certification stage asking a narrative to demonstrate as built work is in accordance with approved design. the 360 photo is very helpful. Is there going to a performa to capture them in a timely manner.
Gareth Grimes (External) Wednesday 04:17 pm
Our Building Safety Advisory team at Clarke Banks offer that audit George Stevenson
Phull, Pav Singh (External) Wednesday 04:18 pm
George please can we think about the next steps for the golden thread including integrating sensors in the building to mitigate risks including asset protection including life safety.
Alozie Ohuonu (Unverified) Wednesday 04:19 pm
Hi George - can you share the government standards and this pres? Love the focus on Cobie/Revit principles
jay mcdonagh (External) Wednesday 04:20 pm
Yes, would like to register as a supplier of FRA's for all building types, in cluding HRRB's and higher-risk buildings. We are BAFE SP205 registered with our assessors on the Tier 3 IFSM register. Advanced Safety Plus Ltd, jay@asafetyp.co.uk / www.asafetyp.co.uk
Pierre Venter (External) Wednesday 04:20 pm
Duplicate files and folders, versions are scrambled. Bad Data management
Rogers, Steven J. (External) Wednesday 04:25 pm
Do you address the issue with the BIM Model ?
jay mcdonagh (External) Wednesday 04:26 pm
We have developed a 450+ powerpoint presentation on BSA2022, which we use to educate our clients. It goes down very well. If you are interested, please contact me. We are an accredited NEBOSH learning partner and I am a qualified tutoir as well as a Chartered H&S consultant and Tier 3 fire risk assessor.
Rogers, Steven J. (External) Wednesday 04:27 pm
Paul Oakley Did you sort the BIM model out also ?
Paul Oakley (External) Wednesday 04:31 pm
Yes
Bayliss, Kevin (Unverified) Wednesday 04:28 pm
Agree IM is important but Doc C are critical too. It's critical that The AP agrees the golden thread and asset requirements at the start.
Paul Oakley (External) Wednesday 04:30 pm
I have been dealing with the BIM model, picking up the issues for the last 6 months.
jay mcdonagh (External) Wednesday 04:31 pm
IF anyone is interested, we have a 450+ slide presentation covering the Building Safety Act 2022, which we use to educate our clients. We are NEBOSH gold standard learning partner. IF so, please contact Jay McDonagh, ASPL.
Bayliss, Kevin (Unverified) Wednesday 04:33 pm
The CDE should stop upload documents that don't comply with naming standards, or can be set up to do that. Its our experience its important that a Doc controler should ensure that doc are correct uploaded.
Pierre Venter (External) Wednesday 04:36 pm
@Bayliss, Kevin The CDE Platforms are not providing that verification as in ACC, it needs to be a separate action, done regularly, Power Tools and Office 365, could monitor that with some programming.
Philip Hannabuss (External) Wednesday 04:39 pm
some of the CDEs are providing this function but in some cases the clients do not ask for it to be configured.. against SME Advise
Arva Arsiwala (External) Wednesday 04:34 pm
Do you think all this can be resolved if the information is embedded in the models rather than drawings or documents
Stewart Bailey (External) Wednesday 04:36 pm
It is certainly a good option going forward. Click on an element in the BIM model and then see all the documentation
Paul Oakley (External) Wednesday 04:38 pm
Need to differentiate between project specific data, in the model, and industry information (Product data etc) which should be available, but not not stored and managed within the project.
Pierre Venter (External) Wednesday 04:39 pm
Make the connections between all containers, Models, Data and documents. Paths, versions and Naming standards in a Database rather than a Folder system.
Paul Oakley (External) Wednesday 04:35 pm
Items such as Product data sheets, Test Certificates etc, fall outside normal container naming conventions. Difference between Project specific containers and other documentation!
Stewart Bailey (External) Wednesday 04:39 pm
we know there's a huge problem - what is the solution?
Peter Salisbury (External) Wednesday 04:40 pm
Technology solutions are fantastic but won't ever solve this in isolation. At the heart of these issues is the need for genuine culture change across the sector. There is a "that wil do" attitude from so many contractors, employers agents and indeed HA Development teams who are keen to move onto the next job. Until we can get to a position where this lack of attention to detail around Reg 38 and handover generally, it's going to be hard to improve.
Niki Okala (External) Wednesday 04:41 pm
Edited. I agree. It is largely left to each stakeholder or party to deal with this as they see fit
Pierre Venter (External) Wednesday 04:41 pm
Philip, It's the Client requirement to be briefed on the impact of non-availability. A database of files, data and documents is the only way.
Dan O'Gorman (External) Wednesday 04:44 pm
Excellent Presentation that highlights seems to indicate that it is easier to build a multi-story building than capture, catalogue and produce documents and useful attributes of the Core Maintainable Assets in a format that FM, Operations and First Responders can easily access in the case of an emergency. All should be articulated in the OIR, AIR, AIM and confirmed in the PEP by the parties to the contract all to ISO 19650.
Bayliss, Kevin (Unverified) Wednesday 04:44 pm
We have used Projectwise with ACC or BIM360 to control the documents that will do that, I also seem to remember last time I used a Asite they picked up last revision and was better at that.
Gareth Grimes (External) Wednesday 04:44 pm
If anyone is interested I have 11 "Simplifying guides" from 1.Simplifying the Golden thread - 2.BS9991:2024 - 3.Building Safety Case Reports - also have written a book called "Simplifying Building Safety" and all the online & PDFs are free.
Syprian A Pitkin (External) Wednesday 04:47 pm
I take it you are talking about HRB?
Martin Oates (SE Controls UK) (Unverified) Wednesday 04:49 pm
The recently published SCA guide on smoke ventilation system maintenance confirms the frequency, competency and regime for natural, mechanical, car park and pressurised systems.
Pierre Venter (External) Wednesday 04:51 pm
NDA issues with current projects. I'm looking at anonymised content for references, especially for performance matters, and raise awareness of the state of projects.
Afam Unaka (External) Wednesday 04:53 pm
Can I come my own 360 camera?
Barry (Unverified) Wednesday 04:53 pm
Yes Afam
Pierre Venter (External) Wednesday 04:55 pm
All these captures need to be accessible by councils, local authorities. An incremental process that starts benefitting many areas. How that happens, needs to look at Dubai BIM/GIS processes
Bex Gibson (External) Wednesday 04:56 pm
It's Yes! For a replacement
Peter Salisbury (External) Wednesday 04:57 pm
I was at A BSR webinar and they confirmed that it was a definitive yes for BSR Building Control on fire door replacements...
Andy Cumberpatch (External) Wednesday 04:57 pm
If its a like for like, do we still need to inform
Bex Gibson (External) Wednesday 04:58 pm
The issue is the risk of fire spread whilst changing. And that's why it needs to go through the process
Houghton, Joe (Unverified) Wednesday 04:58 pm
The change is to do with tenants changing a front door without realising it was to be a fire door
Gareth Grimes (External) Wednesday 04:58 pm
Is that in the single or multiple context ?
Bex Gibson (External) Wednesday 04:58 pm
A replacement, even if exactly the same, needs to be reported
Geofrey Gage (External) Wednesday 05:03 pm
single door can be an emergency application
Andy Cumberpatch (External) Wednesday 04:59 pm
Thanks
Peter Salisbury (External) Wednesday 05:00 pm
Fire Safety England Regulations 2022 demand a monthly check of critical firefighting equipment.
Bex Gibson (External) Wednesday 05:00 pm
Weekly for operational checks
Pierre Venter (External) Wednesday 05:01 pm
How do that for hundreds of items, and the cost?
Andy Cumberpatch (External) Wednesday 05:03 pm
Agree with this George
Andy Cumberpatch (External) Wednesday 05:04 pm
100% yes
Daniel Sheridan (External) Wednesday 05:04 pm
But then has to go through the process etc after install, with rational
Ahmed Helmy Abdelmagid (Unverified) Wednesday 05:04 pm
Yes 100%
jay mcdonagh (External) Wednesday 05:04 pm
We are compiling a competency register for PDs / PCs / BSMs under PAS9671/2/3 criteria and standards - www.aocdm.org. Anyone interested? Jay McDonagh, jay@asafetyp.co.uk - ASP Ltd
Phil Thompson (External) Wednesday 05:05 pm
Some of the form questions were anecdotal, shouldn't we be focusing on fact based metrics?
Pierre Venter (External) Wednesday 05:06 pm
Barry (Unverified) We need to use technology to get the lessons learned recorded and then use it for a Knowledgebase, later in AI.
Phil Thompson (External) Wednesday 05:06 pm
George Stevenson Are you setting up a "Community" on WhatsApp, with sub groups?
Pierre Venter (External) Wednesday 05:06 pm
Barry (Unverified) Have a look at the NIMA body for the technology
Rogers, Steven J. (External) Wednesday 05:11 pm
Did you have to split all of the disciplines into separate models ? I cant see how the model could have been created as a All in one Model unless they loaded all the models into one and then did a bind and then issued that mode to the client which is crazy