cost as assigned certifier

kkelliher

So now that we area month into the new system has anyone yet received a cost for or issued a cost for the assigned certifier role? I have clients asking on a regular basis and i have no idea what the view is and most certifiers appear to be at odds with each other in respect to what they should charge?

DOCARCH

Pass....:pac:

Have your clients not asked any architects/engineers/surveyors for a cost?

kkelliher

DOCARCH wrote: »

Pass....:pac:

Have your clients not asked any architects/engineers/surveyors for a cost?

They have and on one particular job the incumbant architect is looking for a 45% increase in his fee (which would be over 5k), an engineer has quoted 2500 and another architect has advised that he does not see any additional requirement over what should normally have being provided in any event. It appears that no one actually knows what the position is or should be

DOCARCH

kkelliher wrote: »

...and another architect has advised that he does not see any additional requirement over what should normally have being provided in any event.

Maybe your client should fire the original architect and engage this one!

sydthebeat

kkelliher

DOCARCH wrote: »

Maybe your client should fire the original architect and engage this one!

Not his intention as the original arch is their preference but it has raised the issue more for me in terms of what to include in budgets for this item.

galwaytt

Well my acquaintance RIAI is quoting 140 extra man hours for "admin" time.....

Handsandtools

In basic there's no difference in construction process, just a each part involved has to sign certificate of compliance, what proves, that every part actually did there job and makes engineers and architects more busy.

sydthebeat

Handsandtools wrote: »

In basic there's no difference in construction process, just a each part involved has to sign certificate of compliance, what proves, that every part actually did there job and makes engineers and architects more busy.

can you translate that a bit better please? it doesnt read properly.

Handsandtools

sydthebeat wrote: »

can you translate that a bit better please? it doesnt read properly.

http://www.nationalguild.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=3&Itemid=135
You can find it here.

Penn

Handsandtools wrote: »

In basic there's no difference in construction process, just a each part involved has to sign certificate of compliance, what proves, that every part actually did there job and makes engineers and architects more busy.

I think you meant "party" rather than "part".

I agree there should be no difference in the actual construction process as everyone involved should be building to regulations anyway, but the increase in cost comes from all the additional inspections, tests, compiling documentation, increase in possible liability etc. While the building will still have to be built to the same Building Regulations, the extra work required to prove that it has been is quite substantial for all concerned.

Handsandtools

Penn wrote: »

I think you meant "party" rather than "part".

I agree there should be no difference in the actual construction process as everyone involved should be building to regulations anyway, but the increase in cost comes from all the additional inspections, tests, compiling documentation, increase in possible liability etc. While the building will still have to be built to the same Building Regulations, the extra work required to prove that it has been is quite substantial for all concerned.

That ''extra'' work should be there always. And inspections is part of it, just because no one never inspect them but charge for it don't mean now we have to pay extra for it.

4Sticks

The additional costs will be felt most keenly by those who post here a lot - self builders. This sector is accustomed to a very informal build process where documentation is more often than not very lax. The impact on other sectors - industrial / commercial where a high level of formality and documentation is the norm will be far less.

Penn

Handsandtools wrote: »

That ''extra'' work should be there always. And inspections is part of it, just because no one never inspect them but charge for it don't mean now we have to pay extra for it.

Inspections were always part of it, but now more inspections are required due to the increased liability on the assigned certifier. Before, a certain number of inspections would be made to ensure the works are being constructed in accordance to the regulations, but it was the builder's responsibility to build to the regulations. However, the new legislation means more inspections are required because the assigned certifier will likely now share some of the liability if the builder doesn't build to regulations. For the certifier, it's no longer an opinion on compliance, it's a statement of fact to the best of the certifier's ability. Which means yes, there will have to be an additional cost for the additional inspections needed for the assigned certifier to certify the build with that added liability.

sydthebeat

Handsandtools wrote: »

That ''extra'' work should be there always. And inspections is part of it, just because no one never inspect them but charge for it don't mean now we have to pay extra for it.

what should have happened versus what actually happened are completely different things.

a lot of problems actually came from solicitors accepting certificates based on final inspection only and not frequent staged inspections.

extra work = extra costs.......... simple economics.

4Sticks

5 visits @ 200 euro a pop to draw down the mortgage won't cut it anymore in other words. Where punters regard "should" be provided "should" be paid for.

Handsandtools

4Sticks wrote: »

5 visits @ 200 euro a pop to draw down the mortgage won't cut it anymore in other words. Where punters regard "should" be provided "should" be paid for.

So it should be there not just from now. It's matter of responsibility. I seen accidents happened because a lack of responsibility, You can't put your signature anywhere without being sure about it. Money can't justify everything. But I didn't say they has to work for free, I say if it cost 200 a visit than it is so and no cutting corners.

sydthebeat

Handsandtools wrote: »

So it should be there not just from now. It's matter of responsibility. I seen accidents happened because a lack of responsibility, You can't put your signature anywhere without being sure about it. Money can't justify everything. But I didn't say they has to work for free, I say if it cost 200 a visit than it is so and no cutting corners.

you really should read the code of practise and see exactly whats required.

your ubiquitous statements and generalisations dont add anything to the debate.

4Sticks

Handsandtools wrote: »

I say if it cost 200 a visit than it is so and no cutting corners.

But-would you - say it cost 200 a visit if you were a certifier? You would be kept busy.

Handsandtools

sydthebeat wrote: »

you really should read the code of practise and see exactly whats required.

your ubiquitous statements and generalisations dont add anything to the debate.

I read it from A-Z. I didn't find anything new except paperwork and self build projects.

sydthebeat

Handsandtools wrote: »

I read it from A-Z. I didn't find anything new except paperwork and self build projects.

id strongly urge you to read it again here


... as it doesnt contain the phrase "self build" or direct labour, anywhere in the document ???? :eek:

Handsandtools

sydthebeat wrote: »

id strongly urge you to read it again here


... as it doesnt contain the phrase "self build" or direct labour, anywhere in the document ???? :eek:

Really I was hoping for common sense. Didn't know I was talking with lawyer
I was talking about competent builders, which makes self build impossible for people who are not competent builders.

sydthebeat

Handsandtools wrote: »

Really I was hoping for common sense. Didn't know I was talking with lawyer
I was talking about competent builders, which makes self build impossible for people who are not competent builders.

more generalist statements.

what exactly are you trying to add to this thread?

Handsandtools

I try to say, that professionals, who charge more for services because of the new regulations, try to make more money for same job, because there's no real extra work involved.

4Sticks

Handsandtools wrote: »

I try to say, that professionals, who charge more for services because of the new regulations, try to make more money for same job, because there's no real extra work involved.

Well lets see how your analysis pans out. I say we will see more and more posters finding they can't get certification for any price.

Penn

Handsandtools wrote: »

I try to say, that professionals, who charge more for services because of the new regulations, try to make more money for same job, because there's no real extra work involved.

I'll give you an example of a before & after scenario:

Before:
- 5 or 6 inspections
- Professional signing cert to say that in their opinion, based on what they could see during the inspections they undertook, the building was constructed in accordance with the regulations
- Builder liable if works undertaken were not built to regulations
- Professional liable if they missed something they should have spotted

Now:
- Probably around 6 inspections to the INF agreement with the BCMS
- Professional signing cert to say that the building was constructed in accordance with the regulations, despite the fact that the professional obviously was not on site every day
- Builder liable if works undertaken were not built to regulations
- Professional liable if works undertaken were not built to regulations, despite the fact that it's not the professional who built it
- For a professional to be confident enough to accept the increased liability, more interim inspections outside of the INF agreement would be required.

If you have issues with the way things used to happen, that's one thing. But it doesn't change the fact that more work and more inspections than before are required. The cost of that simply has to go up.

Handsandtools

4Sticks wrote: »

Well lets see how your analysis pans out. I say we will see more and more posters finding they can't get certification for any price.

And You think that's because... ?
Complete your point.

sydthebeat

Handsandtools wrote: »

I try to say, that professionals, who charge more for services because of the new regulations, try to make more money for same job, because there's no real extra work involved.

and yet.................

galwaytt wrote: »

Well my acquaintance RIAI is quoting 140 extra man hours for "admin" time.....

sydthebeat

Penn wrote: »

I'll give you an example of a before & after scenario:

Before:
- 5 or 6 inspections
- Professional signing cert to say that in their opinion, based on what they could see during the inspections they undertook, the building was constructed in accordance with the regulations
- Builder liable if works undertaken were not built to regulations
- Professional liable if they missed something they should have spotted

Now:
- Probably around 6 inspections to the INF agreement with the BCMS
- Professional signing cert to say that the building was constructed in accordance with the regulations, despite the fact that the professional obviously was not on site every day
- Builder liable if works undertaken were not built to regulations
- Professional liable if works undertaken were not built to regulations, despite the fact that it's not the professional who built it
- For a professional to be confident enough to accept the increased liability, more interim inspections outside of the INF agreement would be required.

If you have issues with the way things used to happen, that's one thing. But it doesn't change the fact that more work and more inspections than before are required. The cost of that simply has to go up.

absolutely no way even the smallest extension could be signed off confidently with 6 visits.

I currently have a house on site, under old regs, and we are not yet at floor slab level and i have already had to be on site 7 times to solve issues that have arise because its a direct labour job.

4Sticks

Handsandtools wrote: »

And You think that's because... ?
Complete your point.

There IS a lot more work
Professionals won't do this for free.
Self builders will - like you - "feel" there is no more work and won't wish to pay.
Professionals will short circuit the above and not quote and will stop trying to serve an unwilling market .

Penn

sydthebeat wrote: »

absolutely no way even the smallest extension could be signed off confidently with 6 visits.

I agree, I'm saying the likely minimum requested by the BCMS (for the Inspection Notification Framework as part of the Commencement Notice submission) would probably be 6-8 inspections. But for a professional to confidently certify it, they would likely undertake possibly 10-15 inspections, possibly even more depending on the builder and the type of project.

sydthebeat

Handsandtools wrote: »

I try to say, that professionals, who charge more for services because of the new regulations, try to make more money for same job, because there's no real extra work involved.

the more i think about this statement, the more im convinced you are ignorant to the actual implications.......

unless you are a professional who has to provide this extra work, you really have no place saying that there is no extra work... even the bloody minister himself has said that there is extra work involved.

please go educate yourself.

sydthebeat

Penn wrote: »

I agree, I'm saying the likely minimum requested by the BCMS (for the Inspection Notification Framework as part of the Commencement Notice submission) would probably be 6-8 inspections. But for a professional to confidently certify it, they would likely undertake possibly 10-15 inspections, possibly even more depending on the builder and the type of project.

Is there a minimum number of visits required under the BCMS?

who decides what that minimum is?

Handsandtools

4Sticks wrote: »

There IS a lot more work
Professionals won't do this for free.
Self builders will - like you - "feel" there is no more work and won't wish to pay.
Professionals will short circuit the above and not quote and will stop trying to serve an unwilling market .

So if there's more inspections let it be, but say normally once a week or on important structural works.
Than costumer can get management contract for professional construction management and that's it.
I'm a professional builder and never mind to certify that our work is done according to standards, don't think I will charge more for it, just makes professionals like me more noticeable. It will eliminate problems and issues with architects and engineers as they will be more involved and more responsibility required from them.

4Sticks

Handsandtools wrote: »

architects and engineers as they will be more involved and more responsibility required from them.

Agreed and they will fairly charge more.

Handsandtools

If it's done by professionals and project is done right ( all drawings etc. ) than there's no problem. It's called construction management and if person want's to go ''selfbuild'' than he has to pay more for inspections!

sydthebeat

Handsandtools wrote: »

If it's done by professionals and project is done right ( all drawings etc. ) than there's no problem. !

you misunderstand...... someone has to CHECK that the drawings, specifications etc are complied with.
Having the detailed management is a minimum prerequisite.

Penn

sydthebeat wrote: »

Is there a minimum number of visits required under the BCMS?

who decides what that minimum is?

I don't think there's a minimum, but as part of the Commencement Notice you have to say what inspections you plan to undertake, and if the BCMS agree, that's fine, or they might make you make you inspect it more. But even outside of that, professionals will likely undertake more inspections outside of the agreement with the BCMS to ensure they're comfortable with certifying it themselves.

Example, you and the BCMS might agree to inspections at foundation, ground floor stage, wallplate stage, roof stage, 1st fix, 2nd fix and completion. But to make sure you're comfortable with signing it off, you might also make interim inspections for drainage, when blockwork has reached first floor level, fitting of windows and doors, and you'll have to be out when the sound and BER tests are being done.

Some of those you might be able to do more than one during one site visit, but even if the BCMS agreed to certain inspections, the assigned certifier will likely have to make more than that.

sydthebeat

Penn wrote: »

I don't think there's a minimum, but as part of the Commencement Notice you have to say what inspections you plan to undertake, and if the BCMS agree, that's fine, or they might make you make you inspect it more. But even outside of that, professionals will likely undertake more inspections outside of the agreement with the BCMS to ensure they're comfortable with certifying it themselves.

Example, you and the BCMS might agree to inspections at foundation, ground floor stage, wallplate stage, roof stage, 1st fix, 2nd fix and completion. But to make sure you're comfortable with signing it off, you might also make interim inspections for drainage, when blockwork has reached first floor level, fitting of windows and doors, and you'll have to be out when the sound and BER tests are being done.

Some of those you might be able to do more than one during one site visit, but even if the BCMS agreed to certain inspections, the assigned certifier will likely have to make more than that.

I'm not intimately involved with the bcms,but from my reading of it, There is no requirement for any agreement between bco and the certifier. The certified lodges their inspection plan onto the bcms and that's it. it is completely left to the judgement of the certifier as to how many inspections are required.

4Sticks

Handsandtools wrote: »

If it's done by professionals and project is done right ( all drawings etc. ) than there's no problem. It's called construction management and if person want's to go ''selfbuild'' than he has to pay more for inspections!

I beleive we both reached that consensus back here :rolleyes:

Handsandtools

sydthebeat wrote: »

you misunderstand...... someone has to CHECK that the drawings, specifications etc are complied with.
Having the detailed management is a minimum prerequisite.

You right, I forgot that there's people who know how to draw and call them architects!
I think new regs. will put all in the right places, I think it's absurd to have people design buildings regardless of regulations, requirements and knowledge of basic construction laws.
I believe there's a lot of ''cowboy'' builders and ''cowboy'' architects, now they all have to certify work so basically admit that they know what they do.
For competent professionals this new regulations maybe will bring more work.

sydthebeat

Handsandtools wrote: »

You right, I forgot that there's people who know how to draw and call them architects!
I think new regs. will put all in the right places, I think it's absurd to have people design buildings regardless of regulations, requirements and knowledge of basic construction laws.
I believe there's a lot of ''cowboy'' builders and ''cowboy'' architects, now they all have to certify work so basically admit that they know what they do.
For competent professionals this new regulations maybe will bring more work.

Your true colors are now apparent.

I won't be debating with you any longer.

4Sticks

handsandtools. You alone make the ignore function wortwhile

BryanF

Handsandtools wrote: »

I try to say, that professionals, who charge more for services because of the new regulations, try to make more money for same job, because there's no real extra work involved.

1. you'd have no problem taking on this risk?
2. What PI premium would expect the professional to pay? for say the next five years
3. And what premium would expect to continue- for arguments sake if that professional retired next week, but is obliged to retain PI cover for a further seven year period?
4. If you expect no additional workload what would consider the difference between ' opinion of compliance' and 'I hereby certify compliance'?

Handsandtools

BryanF wrote: »

1. you'd have no problem taking on this risk?
2. What PI premium would expect the professional to pay? for say the next five years
3. And what premium would expect to continue- for arguments sake if that professional retired next week, but is obliged to retain PI cover for a further seven year period?
4. If you expect no additional workload what would consider the difference between ' opinion of compliance' and 'I hereby certify compliance'?

So You say ''professionals'' who take up contract and say: ''It may comply - maybe, not sure etc.'' are worth anything?
How person calls himself professional and not sure about his work, and I'm not talking skyscrapers!?
The new regulation will for sure eliminate ''cowboys'' and maybe send some of the builders back to school!
And talking about risk, You take a risk from the day You decided to become a builder, but the difference is that real professionals take risk not risk the lives of others.
If person can take a risk than choose less risky business!

DOCARCH

Handsandtools wrote: »

How person calls himself professional and not sure about his work, and I'm not talking skyscrapers!?

I am sorry, but you really have no fundamental understanding about what you are commenting on/posting about.

Absolutely no problem with the professional certifying their own work (i.e. their design)...but why should the professional certify the work of others, even if they have no (direct) involvement in that work?

To certify is to be certain.

A professional certifying the work of others cannot be certain (unless they are there all the time monitoring the work of everybody).

That's the nub of the issue.

galwaytt

I may have posted this somewhere already, so mea culpa if I'm repeating myself.......

talked to an RIAI Arch on Tuesday, and on one particular job he's on (large house), he's calculated an extra 142 man hours in the project for the new regs. This to cover both admin and inspections on site etc.

So, 142 hours x € ?? or is that even € ???

At €50/hr that'd be € 7,100
At €75/hr that'd be € 10,650
At €100/hr that'd be € 14,200

Excluding VAT btw.

So, Phil Hogan - where'd you pull that "€1000 - €2000" number out of, exactly.............. ??

Penn

sydthebeat wrote: »

I'm not intimately involved with the bcms,but from my reading of it, There is no requirement for any agreement between bco and the certifier. The certified lodges their inspection plan onto the bcms and that's it. it is completely left to the judgement of the certifier as to how many inspections are required.

Actually, you may be right. The agreement for inspections is between AC, builder and owner. I presume the BCO can still invalidate the Commencement Notice if the planned number of inspections is deemed insufficient, but you're right, you don't actually have to agree it with them.

4Sticks

Regarding advice is to assigned certifiers in light of his presentation, whether to act in the new certifier roles, Barrett offered this advice: ”Don’t“.

source

So hopefully architects will collectively grow some and simply not offer this service.

DOCARCH

galwaytt wrote: »

I may have posted this somewhere already, so mea culpa if I'm repeating myself.......

talked to an RIAI Arch on Tuesday, and on one particular job he's on (large house), he's calculated an extra 142 man hours in the project for the new regs. This to cover both admin and inspections on site etc.

Not far off the RIAI estimation of 160 hours additional input for a large (I would assume) one off house.

As I stated before, when Hogan has been quoting E1K to E3K he has been using the word 'per unit' after the figure.

If you were acting as Assigned Certifier on a development of say 200 houses...then I could foresee that the fees might be between E1K and E3K per unit (economies of scale...etc.).

Handsandtools

DOCARCH wrote: »

I am sorry, but you really have no fundamental understanding about what you are commenting on/posting about.

Absolutely no problem with the professional certifying their own work (i.e. their design)...but why should the professional certify the work of others, even if they have no (direct) involvement in that work?

To certify is to be certain.

A professional certifying the work of others cannot be certain (unless they are there all the time monitoring the work of everybody).

That's the nub of the issue.

As a professionals, competent builders will have to certify they own work, so take the part of responsibility, problem will be with self build, where owners have to pay more for management or more work done by certify.
Any way construction works have to be monitored by one or the other, or it's a competent builder or management company or certify.
For sure it's all going to be based on quality and trust between builders and competent certify.