D&B Projects and compliance with Part L |
|
|---|---|
|
Roy Dowling 29 Mar 12 at 06:54 |
I would be interested to hear the views of others, on whether they too believe that it is virtually impossible to write a design and build spec for a new build non-dwelling and fairly pin down the mechanical contractor with the responsibility for achieving complience with Part L. I am assisting such a contractor on a project and the main contractor is placing most of the responsibility on the services subbie for achieving compliance through services related measures rather than improving the building performance...U-values, air tightness, etc. Have you had similar experience?
|
|
AA 31 Mar 12 at 23:13 |
Part L compliance for a new build project should be a mandatory requirement as part L is a 'regulation' i.e. statutory instrument in the UK. Part L does not work in isolation, building fabric U values and air tightness index are part and parcel of the building regulation. It may be against the law not complying with these requirements.
|
|
roy dowling 01 Apr 12 at 08:18 |
I am bemused by your response! I did not mention anything about 'not complying' with the regs. I was commenting on who takes responsibility for it within a D&B contract!
|
|
AA 04 Apr 12 at 18:58 |
In a D&B contract the principal contractor is responsible for both, 1. Fabric improvement/air tightness; 2. Improving services. In my experience I found that planning conditions, funding opportunities and BREEAM targets are the main driving incentives for the principal contractor to achieve higher targets. Quite often principal contractor would hire an MEP services provider to achieve efficiency targets, if they do not have in-house MEP capabilities. It is generally easier and cheaper to achieve efficiency measures with services than using high performance fabric materials because of economic reasons. This is also dependent upon the project footprint. Services Consultants generally fix fabric targets during RIBA C/D design stage and freeze architectural and structural efficiency targets with the project Architects at this stage. In my experience I found that this works well except for the air tightness targets.
|
|
John Simpson 26 Nov 12 at 09:43 |
Roy, I think you make a really good point. AA's points are valid, in my opinion, for only large projects or where the client has bothered to take time to design projects before starting on site! The requirement to issue SBEM calcs before starting on site was supposed to help with this, but on a number of projects I've seen the M&E subbies have to carry all the risk, with detailed design only instructed once the building fabric is substantially complete. This has led to a lot of 'bolt on' PV systems at the end of the project!
|
[1] |
|