Procedural Control of Construction Engineering

Extract from the free document "Construction Engineering - A Guide to Temporary Works & BS 5975:2019" (Free Download link below)

https://lnkd.in/e5sZuepM

4   Procedural Control of Construction Engineering

The basic premise or idea for procedural control of Construction Engineering is not to add extra paperwork for paperwork’s sake and not to increase administration for no real benefit, it is to ensure there is clear demonstrable management of Construction Engineering on site for the safety of all parties involved.

The level of procedural control (or paperwork) is to be in line with the complexity and volume of Construction Engineering being undertaken therefore one size does not fit all and is also another reason why BS 5975 cannot be interpreted and just read word for word as highlighted in the Foreword of this document.

For example, if we consider a small contractor who builds residential houses and employs ten individuals, undertaking similar repetitive work compared to a contractor that employs thousands of individuals and builds power stations we can clearly see the requirements for procedural control of Construction Engineering is going to be vastly different.

The latter contractor will find that the information in BS 5975 is very relevant to them, and they can clearly see the application while the former contractor will see BS 5975 as being way past anything they undertake.

4.1   Example Small Contractor building residential houses

If we look at the contractor building residential houses, that contractor may have a Construction Engineering Procedure document that is just a few pages long. The procedure may highlight what Construction Engineering is briefly, briefly highlight appointments and responsibility of the Construction Engineering Coordinator and Construction Engineering Supervisor, have the Construction Engineering Design Categorisation (0 to 3) and Implementation Risk (Very Low ot High) tables and highlight the Construction Engineering Register, that would be sufficient. This company Construction Engineering Procedure may be less than ten pages and if suitably experienced and competent in this work the company director maybe the Designated Individual.

A site manager or project manager within the company may be appointed as the Construction Engineering Coordinator. Or if the volume of work means the Designated Individual is also managing the work on site and no one else is suitable the Designated Individual maybe the most experienced and competent for the role and appoint themself as the Construction Engineering Coordinator. The company Construction Engineering Procedure must highlight and allow this situation.

Ultimately as long as there is a suitably experienced and competent individual undertaking the Construction Engineering Coordinator role with a formal appointment so they and everyone else on site know they are the responsible Construction Engineering Coordinator that is the basic requirement of BS 5975.

On site this Construction Engineering Coordinator may have some heras fencing (or similar) for the site boundary, some signs on timber posts, some simple low height concrete pours, occasional use of acrow props (or similar) for temporary supports during construction, access scaffold provided by a scaffold company, some minor excavations, etc. All relatively straightforward and relatively low risk Construction Engineering and very much repeated for each house build project undertaken.

This Construction Engineering Coordinator may have a simple Construction Engineering Register with simple line items for: -

·        Heras fencing (or similar) installed and used as per the manufacturer’s guidelines, Category 0 Construction Engineering Design with a Construction Engineering Implementation Risk of Very Low

·        Acrow prop (or similar) installed and used as per the manufacturer’s guidelines, Category 0 Construction Engineering Design with a Construction Engineering Implementation Risk of Very Low

·        Access Scaffold provided by Scaffold Contractor and all TG20 designs therefore CAT 1 or less and with a Construction Engineering Implementation Risk of Very Low as the experienced Scaffold Contractor installs and removes as required. NOTING: - Refer to the Scaffold Inspectors Scaffold Register for further details

This level of information is probably repeated on each project this contractor undertakes.

It is to be noted that for something like the Acrow prop to be a line item like this in the Construction Engineering Register the Permanent Works Designer must do what is required from them in the CDM regulations and show on their fit for construction drawing where they assumed a prop is required and what load is assumed to be taken by that prop and they can state prop designed and provided by others. Provided the prop load and length required etc. is within the standard application tables for that prop and does not require any further design it can be simply recorded as a CAT 0 line item on the register as stated above.

The Scaffold access can easily be covered like this if it is TG20 standard solution as this is a Category 1 design. It is a Category 1 design as a suitably competent person must use the TG20 software for the correct selection of the design and use of the scaffold so as a result it is a basic Cat 1 design as opposed to a Cat 0 design which is just where you read and select straight from a table, etc. with less selection or competence required.

If the contractor employs the Scaffold Contractor to provide a Scaffold Inspector to undertake the required 7 day inspections as required under the Working At Height Regulations then it would be suitable for the Construction Engineering Coordinator on site to appoint that Scaffold Inspector as a Construction Engineering Supervisor with the appointment clearly highlighting this is only for the access scaffold on site. As the Working At Height regulations require the Scaffold Inspector to keep a Scaffold Register there is no need to copy and repeat this information in the Construction Engineering Register but just place a line item in the register as noted in the third bullet point above.

For this contractors work those three line items in the Construction Engineering Register probably cover the majority of the Construction Engineering they undertake on site and it can be seen that this is not too onerous and should be relatively straightforward and easy to replicate on future projects.

For the remaining items of Construction Engineering mentioned earlier which are: -

·        Signs on timber posts

·        Simple low height concrete pours

·        Minor excavations

The contractor could approach a small Construction Engineering Design Consultant to ask for a standard detail drawing for each of these line items so the contractor can then use those details as standard solutions on all their projects in the future.

For the signs on timber posts the contractor could tell the designer the type of timber they use, the height they want the signs and allow variation in height if required, the size of the signs, etc. and get a simple drawing showing this as a standard detail. This one drawing should be all that is required for all uses provided the drawing allows for all variations and then a single line item can be placed in the Construction Engineering register to record this on all projects as required.

For the simple low level concrete pours the contractor could tell the designer the minimum and maximum height of concrete pour they undertake on site, assuming it is single sided formwork with no through ties. Highlight to the designer the materials that are used for this work and any specific way the site team would prefer to construct the formwork, etc. The designer should be able to provide a simple drawing showing this formwork as a standard detail. This one drawing should be all that is required for all uses provided the drawing allows for all variations and then a single line item can be placed in the Construction Engineering register to record this on all projects as required.

A similar process can be followed for minor excavations to get a simple drawing showing a standard detail.

From this the contractor should have all Construction Engineering on site suitably recorded and with suitable designs and controls in place in line with all requirements of BS 5975 and the CDM Regulations. This can be carried on to all future projects and used as required.

This then ensures everyone on site is clear as to what is required and the site team will have suitable drawings with details they can follow for the safe construction on site, etc.

Now if the site has a visit by a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Inspector it will be clear and evident to the Inspector that there are suitable and sufficient Construction Engineering management and controls in place.

On the other hand, if the HSE Inspector arrives on site and there are open excavations, scaffold, acrow props, etc. present and being used and no one on site can explain any controls in place or know who is responsible for these items to confirm they are being used correctly it maybe a different conversation. Of course, this all depends on the level of risk present on site with any of these Construction Engineering items.

4.1.1  Why would a small Contractor pay a designer for a standard solution Drawing?

As a small contractor a question on this maybe why should I pay for a Construction Engineering Design Consultant to undertake a standard solution for let’s say my formwork? Again, this depends on what level of risk we are talking about and the competency of the site team.

It is to be noted that the heights mentioned below are not prescriptive and these are just used as examples, there is no set cut off height for a design or not a design.

If the contractor let’s say never undertakes a concrete pour above 0.15m in height and this is always at ground level, then the author would say a design would not make any real sense and the details of the formwork could be recorded in the Risk Assessment and Method Statement (RAMS) for this work and those RAMS used on al projects. In essence the design details are recorded in the RAMS and are just a record of the solution provided by suitably experienced and competent site personnel. A Construction Engineering Register could have a line item highlighting this is covered in the RAMS.

On the other hand, if the contractor regularly undertakes concrete pours of let’s say more than 1m then it may be beneficial to have a standard detail drawing for the site team to reference. It is at this point the contractor might say “why should I pay for a design for this?”

To try to answer that question let’s assume the design including the drawing costs the contractor a one-time fee of £1,500 (this is just a random number so please do not question the value, that is not the point of this discussion). The contractor does not see a point in paying this when he has an experienced site team suitably delivering the work on site safely and to programme.

Lets imagine the contractor has a very experienced site supervisor who has done this work for years and does it to a very high standard and never compromises safety or quality and this individual always oversees this work on site. From this it is safe to assume if this individual is present there will be no issues.

As with all sites there are less experienced individuals on site learning and building their competence and experience. These individuals work closely with the experienced supervisor and absorb the supervisors experience to learn. One day the supervisor must go to another site and starts the less experienced individuals building some formwork, the supervisor gives some instruction and must leave to go to the other site. The individuals left building the formwork do the very best they can, but they have no drawing or reference to work from, so they carry on making some assumptions.

The supervisor returns at the end of the day and finds there are some mistakes, and the formwork must be rebuilt. Through no one’s fault and with everyone trying their best to do a good job there is now a days work wasted that the contractor must cover the cost of. Now imagine this happens on other sites and maybe for different lengths of time, i.e., an hour of rework here, a half a day there, etc.

In this situation the £1,500 cost for the design may not be that bad a price when you add up the possible reduction in rework if the site team had something to reference when they were not sure of a point.

This assumes that the experienced supervisor can see the mistakes before the formwork is loaded with concrete and there are no formwork failures which would result in safety issues and more costs to the contractor.

Another answer to the contractor’s question of “why should I pay for a design for this?” consider the situation where the HSE Inspector is on site asking questions regarding the safe management of Construction Engineering on site and the site team spend half a day going through the Inspectors points to satisfy the Inspector. This half a day could possibly be reduced to an hour if the site team could point the Inspector to a standard detail drawing etc.

This is just to try and give an example and this is used for discussion and is not to be used as a black and white reference as to what is required on site.

#constructionengineering #engineering #engineer #engineers #engineeringdesign #civil #civilengineering #civilengineer #civilengineers #structuralengineering #structural #structuraldesign #structuralengineer #constructionuk #construction #constructionmanagement #twf #temporaryworks #BS5975 #3RM #building #networking #jobs #work #contractors #share #ice #istructe #imeche