New building regs….

Kevhog1988

Guys,

Quick one. With the new regs effectively banning self builds is it possible for the self builder to employ a project management firm to oversee the works for a set fee and to co-ordinate the subcontractors, help with tenders etc??

As it stands i am degree qualified in project management and quantity surveying and i have been wondering if this could possibly open the door for me to finally return and work at home??

Johnnyhpipe

A project management firm is no use to you if you don't have an engineer and architect who will provide the required ancillary design certificates as required under the BC(A)R. You will also need the engineer or architect to act as the assigned certifier - which i doubt the proj management firm will/can do.

Personally I welcome the new regs, although they could have been handled/implemented better, ie similar to the UK system. As a structural engineer you wouldn't believe the crap I end up inspecting/repairing as a result of a small number of rogue contractors undertaking dodgy works off their own bat, having no clue what they're at, and doing so without a proper design in place! So anything that can eliminate these fools is to be welcomed.

Sorry for the rant - but the term self build frustrates me as a number of "self builders" i've come across have made things up as they went along without the guidance of an engineer and architect. I've been involved in a number of remedial works cases which went wrong on the 'self builder'...I wonder if these people do their own root canals and service their own cars too...

Kevhog1988

Johnnyhpipe wrote: »

A project management firm is no use to you if you don't have an engineer and architect who will provide the required ancillary design certificates as required under the BC(A)R. You will also need the engineer or architect to act as the assigned certifier - which i doubt the proj management firm will/can do.

Personally I welcome the new regs, although they could have been handled/implemented better, ie similar to the UK system. As a structural engineer you wouldn't believe the crap I end up inspecting/repairing as a result of a small number of rogue contractors undertaking dodgy works off their own bat, having no clue what they're at, and doing so without a proper design in place! So anything that can eliminate these fools is to be welcomed.

Sorry for the rant - but the term self build frustrates me as a number of "self builders" i've come across have made things up as they went along without the guidance of an engineer and architect. I've been involved in a number of remedial works cases which went wrong on the 'self builder'...I wonder if these people do their own root canals and service their own cars too...

I was more speaking of the area of the form where it states it has to be signed by a competent builder. Surely this can be completed by a management firm rather than a principal contractor. Also what is the requirements for to be an assigned certifier.. I have both a construction management and a quantity surveying degree. Could i register myself as being a Assigned certifier??

I would agree with you in regards to the implementation being very poor. There was very little prior information

Gumbo

theemigrant wrote: »

I was more speaking of the area of the form where it states it has to be signed by a competent builder. Surely this can be completed by a management firm rather than a principal contractor. Also what is the requirements for to be an assigned certifier.. I have both a construction management and a quantity surveying degree. Could i register myself as being a Assigned certifier??

I would agree with you in regards to the implementation being very poor. There was very little prior information

Certifier = RIAI Architect, Chartered Engineer or Registered Surveyor (Building most likely).

Whoever is acting as AC will determine if they will allow you use a smokes and mirrors approach but most AC'c won't sign their insurance away on a risk anymore.

Supertech

kceire wrote: »

Certifier = RIAI Architect, Chartered Engineer or Registered Surveyor (Building most likely)

Registered Architect, Chartered Engineer or Registered Building Surveyor Only .... QS's are excluded same as AT's

Kevhog1988

So a ltd company acting as a management consultant can not be the builder in this situation??

Gumbo

theemigrant wrote: »

So a ltd company acting as a management consultant can not be the builder in this situation??

Will your AC sign off on them?

Johnnyhpipe

Even if you were to register yourself as AC, which I don't think you can do since you're not RIAI or CEng, you won't have/wont be covered by insurance so what's the point?

It would appear from your above posts that you're almost trying to find a way around the requirements of the new regs(?)....which is not really in the spirit of the reasons they exist.

Kevhog1988

Johnnyhpipe wrote: »

Even if you were to register yourself as AC, which I don't think you can do since you're not RIAI or CEng, you won't have/wont be covered by insurance so what's the point?

It would appear from your above posts that you're almost trying to find a way around the requirements of the new regs(?)....which is not really in the spirit of the reasons they exist.

Not my aim at all... I was trying to gauge if there would be a market for such a mamagement company

no1murray

Johnnyhpipe wrote: »

Even if you were to register yourself as AC, which I don't think you can do since you're not RIAI or CEng, you won't have/wont be covered by insurance so what's the point?

It would appear from your above posts that you're almost trying to find a way around the requirements of the new regs(?)....which is not really in the spirit of the reasons they exist.

The spirit in which they exist is to provide a better paper trail for tax compliance. Which is a good thing as it keeps compliant sub contractors like myself in business.

I have seen these new regulations interpreted in many different ways. They really need to be clarified better.

Johnnyhpipe

no1murray wrote: »

The spirit in which they exist is to provide a better paper trail for tax compliance. Which is a good thing as it keeps compliant sub contractors like myself in business.

I have seen these new regulations interpreted in many different ways. They really need to be clarified better.

That..and they encourage a greater level of site monitoring by designers. However while the ideals are there, its all a bit arse about face. All big Phil had to do was look at the UK's fantastic building control system..but no, our boys had to reinvent the wheel with little or no industry consultation as usual!

Kevhog1988

Johnnyhpipe wrote: »

That..and they encourage a greater level of site monitoring by designers. However while the ideals are there, its all a bit arse about face. All big Phil had to do was look at the UK's fantastic building control system..but no, our boys had to reinvent the wheel with little or no industry consultation as usual!

Im here in the uk and it really does work well

hexosan

Johnnyhpipe wrote: »

our boys had to reinvent the wheel with little or no industry consultation as usual!

Thats the standard public service approach to everything in Ireland

Poor Uncle Tom

theemigrant wrote: »

With the new regs effectively banning self builds....

Johnnyhpipe wrote: »

Personally I welcome the new regs,

Johnnyhpipe wrote: »

....you're almost trying to find a way around the requirements of the new regs(?)....

no1murray wrote: »

I have seen these new regulations interpreted in many different ways. They really need to be clarified better.

The last quote is ironic given that this thread is not about new building regulations, which didn't change. It's about the new Building Control Act which came into force here on 1st March.

DOCARCH

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

The last quote is ironic given that this thread is not about new building regulations, which didn't change. It's about the new Building Control Act which came into force here on 1st March.

....well....they are, to put correctly, Building Control (Amendment) Regulations. So, to call them 'new regulations' is not really incorrect.

Poor Uncle Tom

DOCARCH wrote: »

....well....they are, to put correctly, Building Control (Amendment) Regulations. So, to call them 'new regulations' is not really incorrect.

Understood, but it will be very confusing looking back on this thread in a year or two wondering, say, what part of the building regulations outlawed self builds, etc., etc...

Drift

theemigrant wrote: »

.... a project management firm to oversee the works for a set fee and to co-ordinate the subcontractors, help with tenders etc ....

Is that not a description of part of the job a main contractor does? Maybe you could market your services to Main Contractors who might be happy to employ someone to help them come to terms with the new Control regulations.

Even if it's with a long term view to branch out and provide those services to more than one Contractor or indeed to eventually establish as a contractor.

Kevhog1988

Drift wrote: »

Is that not a description of part of the job a main contractor does? Maybe you could market your services to Main Contractors who might be happy to employ someone to help them come to terms with the new Control regulations.

Even if it's with a long term view to branch out and provide those services to more than one Contractor or indeed to eventually establish as a contractor.

I was thinking more a set fee for management with subcontractors paid by the client. So i would be a consultant pm firm.

BryanF

theemigrant wrote: »

I was thinking more a set fee for management with subcontractors paid by the client. So i would be a consultant pm firm.

• are you the main contractor?
• will the clients assigned certifier work with you under the arrangement you have outlined?
• have you considered where the liability falls for your role, the client, the subbie, the assigned certifer ?
• have you looked at the insurance premiums for the role your taking on?

Drift

theemigrant wrote: »

I was thinking more a set fee for management with subcontractors paid by the client. So i would be a consultant pm firm.

I've seen someone market their services in a similar role to a client of ours for a domestic project on one occasion and it was an unmitigated disaster from start to finish. (By finish I mean when the client got rid of them halfway through the project.) The roles were ill-defined and there was no real onus on the PM (other than client pressure) to ensure time or money constraints were met. It was essentially self-build without the "self" replaced by "paid person who doesn't feel the time or money pressures that the client does."

If a main contractor is appointed they will be on a time and financial schedule and so will be able to manage sub-contractors in a more meaningful (dictatorial!) style.

I also know of another person who tried during the boom times to carve out a business like this but couldn't get very far although I didn't interact with him in a work role so I have no idea how exactly he operated.

Having said all of that I actually think it is a reasonable idea to have a construction expert assisting a self-builder as you've described, but self-builders are going to be fewer henceforth. Not to mention the fact that self-builders are usually going that route to avoid the main contractor profit margin which they would now be handing over to you. Also if you're not a Registered Building Contractor you will have to work with an Assigned Certifier who is happy to risk his/her insurance on allowing either you or the client to sign the box that specifically says: "Principal or Director of a Building Company Only."


N.B. Project management as a discipline is essential and has a very important role. I'm not trying to run it down - I'm just not sure you could start a viable business doing it in the manner you have described. I've been wrong many times before though so when you're a multi-millionaire feel free to rub it in my face when I'm still scrounging by!!!