by Iain McIlwee | 31 Jul, 2020 | Main News Feed
FIS has updated its BIM Toolbox to embrace the principles of BS EN ISO 1950 (which supersedes BS 1192: Collaborative production of architectural, engineering and construction information. This new standard aligns the UK with International Standards and extends information management principles and requirements within a broader context of digital transformation (including construction and asset management industries), driving the consistent management of all information (whether it’s a report, a drawing or a model, etc).
This FIS BIM toolbox was originally produced back in 2015 to support specialist contractors to develop and deliver a Building Information Modelling (BIM) implementation plan, through an understanding of the key process documents that relate directly to the activities of the sector, focusing on what is required and how to deliver it.
Section A provides an introduction to BIM and considers the business case for its adoption.
Section B looks at the development of BIM capability, implementation of a BIM deployment plan and delivering on a BIM project.
The FIS BIM Toolkit also includes access to new resources to support members in completing Pre Qualification Tender information.
The ISO 19650 series combined with the launch of the UK BIM Framework extends the scope of BIM to consider all information whether it’s a construction programme, a record of a meeting, a geometrical model or a contract administration certificate, providing a more holistic framework where information is considered from the outset of a project. It relies on the following principles:
• Information requirements are defined before information is created, to aid selection of delivery teams.
• The delivery of information to meet the requirements is planned and tested.
• The delivery of information is carefully managed within a common data environment.
• The delivered information is checked against the original requirements, and either accepted or rejected accordingly.
The Toolkit also updates on key terminology to align to the UK BIM Framework as opposed to referring to concepts such as BIM Level 2, which doesn’t specify precisely what information is required, when it is required or which party should generate it.
Mark Norton, Head of BIM | UK Fit Out, Construction London & Engineering Services UK, ISG and Chair of the FIS Digital Construction Working Group stated “Whilst much attention has been on how digital solutions have transformed the way we communicate and collaborate during the COVID crisis, the truth is that the digital revolution has already been driving profound change in the construction sector in the past couple of years. BIM is a central pillar of this, effectively allowing that digital flow of essential information, the Golden Thread as Dame Judith Hackitt refers to it, to move through the supply chain. It also provides a better framework for collaboration, ensuring that essential details are not lost and that we do design and then build, pre-empting and designing out problems, not design a bit, then build a bit and waste time fighting a rear guard action, trying to make the best of it.”
FIS CEO Iain McIlwee added, “I think at times we are in danger of a bit of BIM fatigue, when I think back to 2011 and the first discussions about BIM it was the answer to everything, but nearly 10 years on we are still not seeing the full realisation of these aspirations. But we are getting closer. The recent NBS BIM Report tells us that over half of those construction professionals surveyed now use BIM on most of their projects and a resounding 85% see improvements in collaboration. Reading through this guide refreshed my hope that we are still on the right path, when you strip out all the jargon we are talking about collaboration, early engagement, clearer standards to exchange information and all of the principles intrinsic to the FIS Product Process People Quality Framework.”
You can access the FIS BIM Toolkit here
by Iain McIlwee | 31 Jul, 2020 | Main News Feed
The CLC has issued a Contracts and Disputes Survey to understand the nature and extent of commercial issues within the industry. The findings will inform a review and any updates to the CLC’s guidance and the deadline for responses is Friday 21 August.
As part of the Construction Leadership Council’s Industry Recovery Roadmap Phase 1: Reset target of minimising disruption, the CLC Disputes & Collaboration workstream have published guidance and templates (7th May and 14th July respectively) in order to support industry to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on project delivery and business resilience.
However, to set the direction of future work in this area, the CLC Disputes & Collaboration Workstream have compiled a short survey to ascertain the nature and extent of the challenges industry is currently facing.
Please help us help you, by taking the time to fill in this short set of questions about the commercial challenges you are or will be facing.
You can complete the survey here
At the same time Build UK has updated its payment performance table in line with the latest results published under the Duty to Report on Payment Practices and Performance, which show that standards of payment performance have been upheld during extremely challenging circumstances. Build UK Contractor members have maintained an average of 36 days to pay invoices in the first half of the year. On average, they now pay 92% of their invoices within 60 days and 75% within terms.
In response to feedback, Build UK’s table has been expanded with more than 40 of the industry’s largest companies, including clients, housebuilders and contractors, to provide a more coherent picture of payment practices within construction than ever before.
You can view payment performance table here.
by Clair Mooney | 31 Jul, 2020 | Main News Feed
The Grenfell Inquiry this week saw more employees from Rydon on the dock. If you don’t already subscribe I thoroughly recommend that you follow the podcasts on BBC Sounds as they come out (weekly). This week we heard from David Hughes (Site Manager), Stephen Blake (Refurbishment Director), Gary Martin (Site Manager) and Daniel Osgood (Site Manager).
The testimonies all make for uncomfortable listening and highlight real gaps in the construction process. In giving evidence Mr Osgood was asked whether he believed that his job was to ensure that work being completed by subcontractors was “compliant” – he replied he “didn’t have the training to do so”. He went on to say that he believed that “anything going on any building is fireproof” and that “all insulation was fireproof as a standard”.
The Project Manager, Gary Martin also got a grilling about foam. He was questioned around the foam selected to seal the windows – he had “assumed” that the insulation was fire resistant. Sadly it seems this assumption was incorrect and that it was wholly inappropriate waterproof seal was used to plug the gap left by the smaller windows – the product didn’t even claim fire resistance. This selection of seals and use of foams remains a real challenge throughout construction – the days of going at a gap with a heart full of hope and a can of “fireproof foam” are surely behind us.
Mr Osgood’s misconception is multi-tiered, but at its core is a concept that I have been raising in talks for the past 5 years. If I google fireproof foam, I get a myriad of results and claims, but the fact is that there is no such thing – a product can be tested for resistance to fire, but no foam is fire proof! Even when a foam is tested to be fire resistant, very close attention should be paid to the scope of use. How often have you removed a ceiling tile to find a large gap oozing orange foam (looking something like an explosion in crunchie factory!) – if you interrogate the test evidence of the foam it is likely that it has only been tested in gaps approximately 10-30mm wide.
SoundProof is another inaccurate claim, products should refer to the levels of sound absorption to reduce reverberation in a space and the sound insulation between spaces which is measured using airborne or impact sound reduction laboratory tests. Sound proofing is often used in claims where hard, dense and imperforate products are used for sound insulation, either airbourne or impact. Products used to improve the quality of sound in a space are absorbent and although they can contribute to reducing sound transmission they have different properties and are generally soft.
We are working with the Construction Products Association, as part of the Grenfell Response, to look at Marketing Integrity. An underlying principle is that performance claims should reflect the test that was carried out, i.e Sound Insulation, Sound Absorption, Fire Resistance or Reaction to Fire.
We must always remember that performance tests are very specific and not interchangeable, for example a product test evidence for reaction to fire can not be used to demonstrate compliance where fire resistance for compartmentation between dwellings is required.
The Inquiry this week is a timely reminder that the ultimate performance of an installed construction product is reliant on a number of things.
- Its intended purpose and appropriate selection and specification
- Test evidence and/or third-party certification for the product for its use
- The installation being done fully in accordance with instructions
and that any interface should be with materials that are equal to or greater than the performance of the products themselves.
Under scrutiny also, particularly in the evidence given by Stephen Blake, was the level of value engineering and impact cost led procurement had on the Grenfell project. Rydon’s bid (£9.2m) was some £700,000 lower than the nearest rival and a staggering £2.1 m less than the original choice contractor. It was within this process that Rydon and façade specialist Harley proposed aluminium composite material (ACM) in either riveted-on or cassette form as a cheaper alternatives to the zinc cladding that was originally specified for the tower (in which Rydon managed to extract greater savings than had been passed on to the client, seemingly to offset in part an error in their bid of £212k).
This substitution and the process was the subject of Mr Hughes cross examining. Mr Hughes admitted that he had approved the decision to switch to the ACM cladding system used, but despite a clause in Rydon’s contract with the Council that said: “The contractor shall not make any substitution for any materials, goods or workmanship… without the prior consent… in writing of the employer.” he did not directly consult building control, the client or the architect about the swap.
The Grenfell Inquiry Hearings will resume in September.
Details of the FIS PPP (Product Process People) Quality Framework are available here
Article by Joe Cilia, Technical Director, Finishes and Interiors Sector (FIS)
joecilia@thefis.org
by Clair Mooney | 30 Jul, 2020 | Main News Feed
Ambassadors are an important link between employers and schools. There are approximately 1400 Ambassadors currently engaged with the programme, representing over 600 employers. Sharing their knowledge of working in the construction industry, Ambassadors ensure young people are inspired and informed on their choice of career opportunities.
The service has been transferred from CITB to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Learning, as the UK’s largest provider of education and careers support in STEM. With over 30,000 Ambassadors and 19 STEM Hubs across the UK, this move will enable the programme to benefit from a wide range of opportunities and support.
This collaboration means the programme for construction can be further developed using STEM’s digital platform as the one-stop shop for all events, feedback and resources. Not only will CITB be able to gain access to events held across all UK secondary schools, but this will enable CITB to better equip Ambassadors with the right resources, making sure the industry is promoted fully and consistently.
To become a STEM Ambassador, you need to register here and select to participate in the ‘Construction and the built environment’ scheme. For guidance on how to register or manage your STEM profile, please visit Go Construct.
To commit to the scheme as an employer, please register here.
FIS would really like to see Ambassadors dedicated to the finishes and interiors sector join the STEM offer, so we have wide approach that our educational partners can easily access encouraging young people into the sector. Being a STEM Ambassador is about engaging and enthusing young people with science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Ambassadors will help encourage students to consider progression into related careers, inspiring the next generation of STEM professionals.
It offers the chance to give something back to education and the wider community, whilst giving individuals the chance to develop their own skills and improve themselves.
“Being a STEM Ambassador is probably the most satisfying aspect of my career. Inspiring kids for the future is the pinnacle of what’s possible and it’s tremendous fun too!” – Derek Langley, Product Manager at Thales.
by Clair Mooney | 30 Jul, 2020 | Main News Feed
The new scheme, designed to match job opportunities to individuals seeking employment and run by the Construction Leadership Council (CLC), went live last Friday (24 July). It’s already off to a very promising start with 482 employers currently signed up to use the scheme, and over 240 vacancies posted, with more being added every day.
If you are a business or individual looking to find out more, please visit the Talent Retention Scheme portal here.
A Covid-19 Displaced Apprentice Project team has been established by CITB; this team will be reaching out to apprentices impacted by the pandemic. They will work with Apprentices to find alternative employment where possible, or signpost them to other support services, including the Talent Retention Scheme.
Apprentices will also be supported by CITB with more practical elements, such as developing CVs and interview preparation, to provide the best possible chance at securing further employment. If you are an employer willing to take on an Apprentice that has been made redundant, register with the Talent Retention Scheme or contact CITB it’s vital the finishes and interiors sector don’t lose these people.
by Clair Mooney | 30 Jul, 2020 | Main News Feed
Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court heard that in the summer of 2015, to support the construction of the A556 bypass in Cheshire, work had started to build a pier designed to eventually support a bridge. This involved erecting a steel cage. On 3 August, two workers on a MEWP were working on the structure, when it collapsed. The cage crashed into the MEWP, causing it to fall on its side.
The first employee sustained life changing head injuries and the second a leg fracture. A third worker nearby escaped injury by moving away just in time.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found there was no temporary support for the reinforcement cage during construction of the central pier. Costain Limited was principal contractor and Brenbuild Limited was appointed by Costain to construct seven bridges and an underpass.
Costain Limited and Brenbuild Limited were both aware the cage was visibly leaning and that workers on site had raised concerns. Neither company recognised the inherent instability of the reinforcement cage or took measures to ensure the work could be carried out safely. Brenbuild Limited failed to stop work to prevent injuries from the risk of collapse and to implement control measures to prevent instability. Costain Limited failed to plan, manage and monitor construction of the central pier.
Brenbuild Limited of Parkway Business Park, Scunthorpe pleaded guilty to breaching sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £80,000 and ordered to pay costs of £21,730.11.
Costain Limited of Vanwall Business Park, Maidenhead, pleaded guilty to breaching sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £1.2million and ordered to pay costs of £21,644.51.
Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Deborah Walker said: “This incident could have been easily prevented and the risk of collapse should have been identified by both companies.
“If a suitable safe system of work had been in place, this incident would not have occurred, and the two workers would not have suffered these injuries.”
