New Building Control Regs

DOCARCH

Sarah3 wrote: »

QUOTE=DOCARCH;91877952]My engineer was the person who designed the project for us so I assume he will act as design and assigned certifier but I need to check he is a Chartered Engineer qualified to do so.

Yes...check...I would not assume. Normally, acting as Design/Assigned Certifier would or should be a separate appointment (even if the same person).

Frog Song

Regarding the new regulations.

Just got quoted €10,000 from an engineer for his services on our build.

Construction designs 3,200+vat
Prepare tender documentation 980+vat
Supervise & project manage the work 3,800+vat
Prepare BER cert & sign off 250+vat
Carry out duties of PSDP in relation to health & safety 650+vat

2,000 sq ft dormer. In Cork.

Would this be an average price or should we shop around? This is the first engineer we have met with.

MizMix

Frog song we're paying the same plus VAT on top but that's with an registered architect- we haggled hard and we agreed a price (7k) a few years back when business was very low for him so he increased costs by 3k to cover the ac and dc role. Engineers are normally cheaper but again I think we're paying well below standard for an architect. 10k seems reasonable for a full service.

miss no stars

Shop around.

Also, be very clear about what you want. If it's a standard enough house, do you really need an engineer or architect on site all day every day?

BTW, VAT is at 23%

Frog Song

miss no stars wrote: »

Shop around.

Also, be very clear about what you want. If it's a standard enough house, do you really need an engineer or architect on site all day every day?

BTW, VAT is at 23%

Thanks miss no stars.

He's not going to be on site every day, just on site visits (not sure how often) or checks signing off at different stages for the new regulations. It's a pretty standard, average dormer house just over 2,000 sq ft.

Ralphdejones

Frog Song wrote: »

Thanks miss no stars.

He's not going to be on site every day, just on site visits (not sure how often) or checks signing off at different stages for the new regulations. It's a pretty standard, average dormer house just over 2,000 sq ft.

What happens if something dodgy is done while he's not on site, who picks up the tab in a few years time when it comes to light ?

miss no stars

Ralphdejones wrote: »

What happens if something dodgy is done while he's not on site, who picks up the tab in a few years time when it comes to light ?

In fairness, it's a one off house. It doesn't get any easier.

Contractor calls engineer at all relevant stages. Engineer inspects. Contractor moves on to next stage. It's not rocket science.

Why would you pay an engineer the guts of 6k to sit around watching lads lay blocks?

Poor Uncle Tom

miss no stars wrote: »

Why would you pay an engineer the guts of 6k to sit around watching lads lay blocks?

Shouldn't the question be, why would any certifyer sign off works not seen?

miss no stars

What works aren't seen? You don't need to see every single block laid to see whether the blockwork has been laid properly. You don't need to see every reinforcing bar placed to know it's been done right - you show up and inspect the excavations and reinforcement when it's ready for pouring.

sydthebeat

miss no stars wrote: »

What works aren't seen? You don't need to see every single block laid to see whether the blockwork has been laid properly. You don't need to see every reinforcing bar placed to know it's been done right - you show up and inspect the excavations and reinforcement when it's ready for pouring.

there are estimated figures for length of time predicted to be on site...

Ralphdejones

miss no stars wrote: »

In fairness, it's a one off house. It doesn't get any easier.

Contractor calls engineer at all relevant stages. Engineer inspects. Contractor moves on to next stage. It's not rocket science.

Why would you pay an engineer the guts of 6k to sit around watching lads lay blocks?

I've seen loads of things done behind engineers backs, they can't check everything, its a game and a laugh on a lot of sites to see what you can get away with and what you can hide. I'm wondering what happens when something like that comes to light in a few years, who picks up the tab ?

Poor Uncle Tom

miss no stars wrote: »

What works aren't seen? You don't need to see every single block laid to see whether the blockwork has been laid properly. You don't need to see every reinforcing bar placed to know it's been done right - you show up and inspect the excavations and reinforcement when it's ready for pouring.

Speaking of blockwork, I like to see ALL wall ties, DPC, trays, fill, closings, bearings, cills and returns, as they are being carried out. We only get one chance to make sure moisture is not allowed across the cavity. I have found ties sloping down towards the inside, I have also found lots of dirty wall ties and sections of walling without the required number of ties. I have found VDPC's too tight to allow windows to be fitted without snipping them, cills spanning cavities, trays omitted, etc., etc and that's just since March.

Poor Uncle Tom

Ralphdejones wrote: »

who picks up the tab ?

Under the new regs it's the assigned certifyer's insurance, or at least it is until the PI Insurance companies pull the plug.

Ralphdejones

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Under the new regs it's the assigned certifyer's insurance, or at least it is until the PI Insurance companies pull the plug.

Sounds dandy, but insurance companies are nobody's fool. Insurance companies have been making loopholes and fine print for generations.

Poor Uncle Tom

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Sounds dandy, but insurance companies are nobody's fool. Insurance companies have been making loopholes and fine print for generations.

You're ok so, I guess.

miss no stars

So you're saying you all sit around on site from start to finish?

A lot of engineers would find that a little bit unneccessary tbh. Go ahead and knock yourselves out with the boredom if you want, but honestly, you don't need to be there 24/7 to make sure it's done right. Besides, if there's more than one guy on site, how do you make sure the other guy(s) aren't doing something behind your back?

Guess what? Full supervision is impossible. It cannot be done. At that rate you'd be building it yourself or standing over one guy's shoulder from start to finish. That makes you a foreman.

sydthebeat

miss no stars wrote: »

So you're saying you all sit around on site from start to finish?

A lot of engineers would find that a little bit unneccessary tbh. Go ahead and knock yourselves out with the boredom if you want, but honestly, you don't need to be there 24/7 to make sure it's done right. Besides, if there's more than one guy on site, how do you make sure the other guy(s) aren't doing something behind your back?

Guess what? Full supervision is impossible. It cannot be done. At that rate you'd be building it yourself or standing over one guy's shoulder from start to finish. That makes you a foreman.

which is exactly what the the new certificates require...

certification of other peoples work by inspection.....

Frog Song

We spoke to 3 other engineers yesterday regarding our build....none of them said they'd be on site everyday?

sydthebeat

Frog Song wrote: »

We spoke to 3 other engineers yesterday regarding our build....none of them said they'd be on site everyday?

they wont be, no one could afford that.

have a look at this, which suggest 99 hours

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/post-1-a-registered-building-surveyors-inspection-plan/

Frog Song

sydthebeat wrote: »

they wont be, no one could afford that.

have a look at this, which suggest 99 hours

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/post-1-a-registered-building-surveyors-inspection-plan/

Thanks. I thought as much but I thought you were suggesting to miss no stars there that they had to be on site every day.

miss no stars

Frog Song wrote: »

Thanks. I thought as much but I thought you were suggesting to miss no stars there that they had to be on site every day.

That's the impression I got as well. :rolleyes:

Ralphdejones

sydthebeat wrote: »

they wont be, no one could afford that.

have a look at this, which suggest 99 hours

at how much per hour ?

RITwing

Ralphdejones wrote: »

at how much per hour ?

start with annaul Salary
X to cover overheads
/ 1900 hours

For a one man band fee

Ralphdejones

RITwing wrote: »

start with annaul Salary
X to cover overheads
/ 1900 hours

For a one man band fee

So how much are you talking per hour roughly ?

RITwing

Ok let's say we have a very experienced profesional together with a recently qualified assistant. Suppose they split the time 50/50 on a project. If we say the senior guy is on €60k per year the junior on €30k - this aggrerates to €45k

( €45,000 x 3 ) / 1900 = €71/hr.

That is a sketch estimate. There will be variables depending on each case.

Ralphdejones

RITwing wrote: »

Ok let's say we have a very experienced profesional together with a recently qualified assistant. Suppose they split the time 50/50 on a project. If we say the senior guy is on €60k per year the junior on €30k - this aggrerates to €45k

( €45,000 x 3 ) / 1900 = €71/hr.

That is a sketch estimate. There will be variables depending on each case.

Sounds about right.

So that's about 7000 grand ex VAT for the 99 hours

sydthebeat

Frog Song wrote: »

Thanks. I thought as much but I thought you were suggesting to miss no stars there that they had to be on site every day.

no i was saying that thats what the wording of the certificates expect.

im making the point that thats the onerous standard expected, everything on a building site is subject to building regulations, therefore when the certifier signs off, they are signing that every design, process, workmanship and material are compliant.

obviously common sense has to apply in real world situations..... and not in the world of the civil servants who devised the system and worded the certs.

Ralphdejones

sydthebeat wrote: »

no i was saying that thats what the wording of the certificates expect.

im making the point that thats the onerous standard expected, everything on a building site is subject to building regulations, therefore when the certifier signs off, they are signing that every design, process, workmanship and material are compliant.

obviously common sense has to apply in real world situations..... and not in the world of the civil servants who devised the system and worded the certs.

Whatever the eventual practice on the ground, the courts will be going by the wording

sydthebeat

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Whatever the eventual practice on the ground, the courts will be going by the wording

... which is why the assigned certifers balls are on the block

RITwing

....until we see how the ref's apply the new rules....

Ralphdejones

sydthebeat wrote: »

... which is why the assigned certifers balls are on the block

As there is effectively no real world enforcement of the building regs in Ireland, some won't give a shyte about that though, and we're back to the situation where the cowboys can undercut the honest certifiers every time.

RITwing

and where unscrupulous developers can hire - as a staff member - a weak architect/engineer/surveyor to sign "as required"

Ralphdejones

RITwing wrote: »

and where unscrupulous developers can hire - as a staff member - a weak architect/engineer/surveyor to sign "as required"

even a 'strong' one is going to have to sign what he's told, or take a hike.

RITwing

By weak I include someone who may be severly financially damaged and therefore compromised.

As an architect you cannot pay me more / threaten to pay me less for obtaining / failing to obtain a planning permission , fire safety cert or disabled access certificate. You can after exhausting hours and hours of my time say - no cert - no fee.

Ralphdejones

RITwing wrote: »

By weak I include someone who may be severly financially damaged and therefore compromised.

As an architect you cannot pay me more / threaten to pay me less for obtaining / failing to obtain a planning permission , fire safety cert or disabled access certificate. You can after exhausting hours and hours of my time say - no cert - no fee.

There will always be a lad cheaper than you willing to sign whatever he's told, and they're the ones that'll have all the work. With no real world enforcement of the building regs by the state authorities, he who pays the piper calls the tunes, and that means the developers.

fash

Ralphdejones wrote: »

(in response to whether ACs are ltds) Most of the ones I've seen certainly are. They'd be a bit stupid not to be in this day and age.

Whoever signs the cert could be sued personally in tort anyway- even if the ltd in theory signs the cert. It's why employees of a company should never sign certs- they are potentially personally liable if the aggrieved plaintiff so wishes (e.g. if the company folds).

Edit: that's beside the point that the vets must be signed personally.

fash

sydthebeat wrote: »

It is impossible for you to say this as there has not yet been a case brought against an assigned certifier.

Plenty of cases taken against architects based on the current system though- so very possible to say.
And joining third parties or co-defendants is a very simple procedure in litigation.

fash

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Sounds about right.

So that's about 7000 grand ex VAT for the 99 hours

You'll have to double that to cover employer's prsi, sick leave, holiday pay, insurance, registration, necessary annual courses, office, accountant, electricity, rates, office overhead, etc.

RITwing

You could halve it and still much of the market will complain it is too much.

RITwing

Commencement Notices - after a massive spike earlier in the year - are falling massively in numbers now...

galwaytt

RITwing wrote: »

By weak I include someone who may be severly financially damaged and therefore compromised.

As an architect you cannot pay me more / threaten to pay me less for obtaining / failing to obtain a planning permission , fire safety cert or disabled access certificate. You can after exhausting hours and hours of my time say - no cert - no fee.

True, and we'll be getting in to the realms of no fee - no cert too.

RITwing

galwaytt wrote: »

True, and we'll be getting in to the realms of no fee - no cert too.

Well I am with Eoin O Coffaigh on this. I would not act as DC or AC under SI 9 for any fee.

Charlie-Bravo

I'm wondering would a straw pole be useful. For those in a position who can act as a DC/AC under SI9 whether or not they intend to undertake such instructions considering the liability?

Hairy mellon

AC/DC looks like completely toxic roles. On completion local authorities only looking for assigned certifier documentation (no ancillary certs needed) so single-point of responsibility

DC has to upload any changes to design before they are constructed on site. There is no mechanism in BCMS to allow access to system for separate DC.

AC+DC should be one, separate, role.

CIF certs very light and suggest compliance only with drawings- appear to be less responsibility than pre si9

Very important to stitch in proper responsibility in tender and contract documentation. Also compliance with Part D means a very onerous peperwork record must be kept by certifiers of all materials and components used in a project.

admin on this is very time-consuming.

Hairy mellon

in the vacuum due to the following:

1) no COP for BCA's (code of practice for building control authorities)
2) no standard "template" for best practice from ACEI/SCSI/RIAI
3) inadequate documentation from ACEI/SCSI/RIAI
4) uncertain insurance implications

it would seem appropriate to take a year or two off and come back when all this stuff is in place...

Gumbo

Hairy mellon wrote: »

in the vacuum due to the following:

1) no COP for BCA's (code of practice for building control authorities)2) no standard "template" for best practice from ACEI/SCSI/RIAI
3) inadequate documentation from ACEI/SCSI/RIAI
4) uncertain insurance implications

it would seem appropriate to take a year or two off and come back when all this stuff is in place...

theres a Framework for BCA's out, but its a work in progress i believe.

Hairy mellon

v1 posted up- final version due out this month

mind you draft suggests BCA's only responsible for policing "the marketing" of materials....

DOCARCH

Interesting....

'Fine Gael expert group opposed the introduction of new regulations'.

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/fine-gael-expert-group-opposed-the-introduction-of-new-regulations/

No6

DOCARCH wrote: »

Interesting....

'Fine Gael expert group opposed the introduction of new regulations'.

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/fine-gael-expert-group-opposed-the-introduction-of-new-regulations/

Ha!! they can join the club, its a pity they didn't take their minister aside and give him a good talking to!!

DOCARCH

Another very good piece/article from Eoin O'Cofaigh

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/eoin-o-cofaigh-friai-a-changing-landscape/