by admin | Oct 5, 2026 | CDM 2015, Construction Site Management, Consultancy Services, Health and Safety
The Government’s September response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry does not suddenly create a new set of duties for contractors. It does, however, make the direction of travel much clearer: stronger senior accountability, more visible evidence of competence, tighter control of principal contractors and designers, and better traceability of the information used to demonstrate compliance.
The direction of travel is towards clearer accountability
On 10 September 2026, the Government published its sixth progress update on the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 recommendations. Of the 28 recommendations grouped under the construction industry, nine were recorded as complete and 19 remained in progress. The construction-industry update confirms that major reforms are still being developed rather than presenting them all as current legal requirements.
That distinction matters for contractors. Headlines about principal contractor licensing, senior sign-off and a single construction regulator can easily be read as though each measure has already taken effect. It has not. Businesses need to separate duties that already apply from proposals, consultations and legislation that may change the system later.
The Building Safety Regulator became a standalone arm’s-length body in January 2026, with the staff transfer out of HSE completed in June. Government describes this as an important step towards the proposed Single Construction Regulator, but primary legislation will still be required to establish that wider regulator.
What is already a legal duty?
The Building Regulations dutyholder regime for building work in England is already in force. Government’s current dutyholder guidance requires clients, designers and contractors to take appropriate steps around competence and compliance, with principal designer and principal contractor appointments required where the statutory circumstances apply.
Competence is not simply a qualification or card. For individuals, the regime considers skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours. For organisations, the issue is organisational capability: whether the business has suitable policies, procedures, systems and resources to fulfil the work it undertakes.
Principal contractors must plan, manage, monitor and coordinate building work so it complies with the Building Regulations. Principal designers have corresponding responsibilities for design work. These duties sit alongside, rather than replace, duties under CDM 2015, even where the same organisation is appointed to a similarly named role under both regimes.
Senior sign-off and contractor licensing remain proposals
Recommendation 20 concerns a proposed senior-manager statement from the principal designer at Gateway 2 for higher-risk building work. The September update says Government intends to strengthen senior accountability and is considering how the recommendation should be implemented. It is not currently a general statutory sign-off requirement across building control applications.
Recommendation 21 concerns a licensing scheme for principal contractors working on higher-risk buildings, together with a personal undertaking from a director or senior manager. Government says the dutyholder-regime review and its evidence-gathering work will inform implementation. There is not currently a statutory principal-contractor licensing scheme of the type recommended by the Inquiry.
Directors should nevertheless pay attention to the direction of travel. A stronger accountability regime will place even greater value on being able to show who reviewed significant decisions, what information they considered, what competence was relied upon and how unresolved compliance issues were escalated.
Competence evidence needs to reflect the real work
The wider reform programme reinforces a point that already matters in practice: competence evidence needs to be connected to the work being undertaken. A training certificate, NVQ, card or professional membership can be important evidence, but none automatically demonstrates competence for every project, complexity or dutyholder function.
Businesses should be able to show how qualifications, relevant experience, supervision, organisational systems and project-specific capability fit together. Structured development through routes such as supervisory and management NVQs is most useful when it evidences real occupational responsibility rather than becoming a certificate-collection exercise.
Better records support better decisions
The September report also confirms that construction-product reforms remain in development. Government intends to bring forward legislation for a General Safety Requirement when Parliamentary time allows and is continuing work on access to reliable product testing and performance information.
For contractors, the practical lesson extends beyond product regulation. Design decisions, substitutions, approvals, changes, installation evidence and handover information should form a traceable chain. We explored the same issue in Digital Product Records in Construction: Should Contractors Be Preparing Now?.
Technology can make that chain easier to manage, but the objective is not digitisation for its own sake. It is being able to retrieve the information behind a safety-critical decision and understand why that decision was made, even after the people originally involved have moved on.
What should you do now?
- Confirm who holds your Building Regulations and CDM dutyholder roles and that appointments are correctly documented.
- Review competence records so they show relevant experience, project complexity, limitations and supervision as well as qualifications.
- Define how significant compliance decisions are reviewed and escalated.
- Test the information trail for one important design change, product substitution or installation on a live project.
- Monitor Government reforms without treating proposals as current law before they take effect.
Our professional view
The important theme running through these reforms is not simply more paperwork. It is the ability to demonstrate that competent people made properly informed decisions within organisations capable of controlling the work.
A business can employ very capable individuals and still fail if responsibilities are unclear, information is fragmented or commercial pressure prevents proper escalation. Equally, a sophisticated management system has limited value if nobody can show how it influences decisions on a live project.
Construction businesses do not need to wait for every future reform before improving that position. All Star Safety’s health and safety consultancy service can support contractors reviewing dutyholder arrangements, competence systems and practical compliance assurance.
by admin | Sep 30, 2026 | Consultancy Services, Health and Safety, Risk Assessment, Safety Update
A recent HSE prosecution has demonstrated why an established risk assessment cannot simply be stretched to cover a new task, altered method or different use of work equipment. Employers must review risk assessments when they may no longer be valid or when a significant change affects the work. That does not always mean starting again, but it does mean checking whether the existing controls still match reality.
A fatal incident followed a change in working practice
In July 2026, the Health and Safety Executive reported a prosecution after a worker died following a fall from a mobile loading ramp during a newly introduced activity. HSE found that the work had not been properly assessed, the manufacturer required handrails for pedestrian use, and alternatives that could have avoided work at height had not been adequately considered.
The important point for construction and industrial employers is broader than the equipment involved. When the planned method changes, the assumptions behind the original risk assessment can change with it.
When must a risk assessment be reviewed?
Under Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, employers must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of risk. That assessment must be reviewed where there is reason to suspect it is no longer valid or where there has been a significant change in the matters to which it relates.
A review may result in a small amendment, a revised method statement or a completely new assessment. The scale of the paperwork should be proportionate to the scale of the change and the risk created by it.
What counts as a significant change?
The test is not simply whether the change is expensive or permanent. A relatively small operational change can materially alter the hazard profile. Examples include:
- introducing new plant, attachments or work equipment;
- using existing equipment for a different purpose;
- changing the work sequence or access arrangements;
- moving an activity to another part of the site;
- introducing pedestrian access into a plant area;
- changing loads, materials or substances;
- starting lone, night or out-of-hours working;
- using less experienced workers or a different subcontractor;
- departing from manufacturer instructions; or
- responding to changed ground, weather or temporary works conditions.
HSE’s workplace transport guidance similarly advises employers to assess risks before significant changes and to keep assessments aligned with the way work is actually carried out.
Does every change require completely new RAMS?
No. A minor variation that does not materially change the hazards or controls may be dealt with through a proportionate review and briefing. However, foreseeable change should not be pushed into a vague instruction to “dynamic risk assess” the job.
A formal RAMS review is particularly important where the change affects work at height, lifting operations, temporary works, vehicle and pedestrian interaction, excavation support, hazardous substances, isolation, guarding, emergency arrangements or the competence and supervision required.
If a revised method creates a new technical question, the right response may be to obtain specialist input from a designer, engineer, appointed person or other competent professional before work resumes.
Manufacturer instructions matter
The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 require work equipment to be suitable for its intended use. Manufacturer instructions are therefore important evidence of the conditions under which equipment has been designed and tested to operate safely.
Where a business deliberately departs from those instructions, it should have competent technical justification for the alternative arrangement. Convenience, programme pressure or “we have always done it this way” are not robust reasons.
What should you do now?
- Identify work activities that have changed since the RAMS were approved.
- Check whether the existing assessment still describes the real work.
- Review equipment suitability and manufacturer requirements.
- Apply the hierarchy of control to any new or increased risk.
- Confirm whether additional competence, supervision or specialist advice is needed.
- Update the method before implementing significant changes.
- Brief everyone affected and check understanding.
- Observe the revised method during its first use.
- Update permanent documents if the change becomes established practice.
Our professional view
Many serious incidents happen not because an organisation has no safety arrangements, but because an apparently small change bypasses them. A different attachment, temporary access route, revised sequence or unfamiliar item of equipment can invalidate assumptions that were perfectly reasonable when the RAMS were written.
A practical management-of-change process does not need to be bureaucratic. HSE’s Plan, Do, Check, Act approach provides a useful framework: identify the change, understand the risk, implement the right controls, communicate them and then verify that the revised system works.
Businesses that need an independent review of changed working methods can use our health and safety consultancy service for RAMS reviews, risk assessments and site-based support.
by admin | Sep 28, 2026 | Construction Site Management, Consultancy Services, Health and Safety, Safety Update
Appointing a subcontractor does not transfer away the principal contractor’s duty to plan, manage, monitor and coordinate the construction phase. Subcontractors retain responsibility for work under their control, but the principal contractor still needs to check competence, coordinate activities, maintain suitable site arrangements and intervene where unsafe work is foreseeable or observed.
A serious fall shows where contractor control can fail
In July 2026, the Health and Safety Executive reported the prosecution of a principal contractor after a labour-only subcontractor suffered life-changing injuries while dismantling pipework.
A scissor lift had been ordered but could not access the work area. Instead of stopping and selecting suitable access equipment, a forklift truck and tipping bucket were used. HSE found there were no suitable arrangements for managing contractors, no adequate supervision and no effective system preventing untrained people from accessing the equipment.
The lesson goes beyond the particular equipment involved. When the planned method becomes impracticable, the work should be reassessed. An improvised alternative should not become the new method simply because the job is already under way.
What must a principal contractor legally do?
Under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015, a principal contractor on a project involving more than one contractor must plan, manage, monitor and coordinate health and safety during the construction phase.
That includes organising cooperation between contractors, coordinating work where activities interact, maintaining the construction phase plan, providing suitable site inductions and ensuring workers receive the information, instruction, training and supervision they require.
Contractors retain duties of their own. They must plan, manage and monitor the work under their control and cooperate with the principal contractor. The duties deliberately overlap: the principal contractor coordinates the project while each contractor controls its own operation.
Does approving RAMS transfer responsibility?
No. A principal contractor’s review of subcontractor RAMS does not make the principal contractor the author of every specialist method. Equally, accepting a document does not remove the responsibility to consider whether the method is suitable for the actual project.
A meaningful review should ask whether the RAMS describe the real scope and location, whether the proposed equipment will physically fit, whether interactions with other trades have been considered, what competence and supervision are required, and what should happen if site conditions or the planned method change.
Where work materially departs from the agreed method, our professional recommendation is to stop, reassess and obtain fresh authorisation before continuing.
Who controls labour-only subcontractors?
The expression “labour-only subcontractor” can cover different contractual arrangements. From a site-safety perspective, the important questions are practical: who controls the work, who provides the equipment, who gives instructions, who appoints the supervisor and who has authority to stop the activity?
Before work begins, the parties should agree who provides task-specific supervision, who verifies training and authorisation, who controls access to plant and equipment, who approves changes to the method and who coordinates with other contractors.
A labour-only arrangement should never create a gap where the principal contractor assumes the subcontractor is supervising the workers while the subcontractor assumes the principal contractor is directing them.
Improvised access equipment should be a warning sign
A tipping bucket is not a purpose-designed working platform. HSE’s guidance on working platforms used with forklift trucks explains that forklift trucks are primarily intended to lift materials rather than people. Even a properly designed non-integrated working platform should only be used in exceptional circumstances and under controlled conditions.
If a MEWP, scaffold or planned access system cannot be used, that does not justify using the nearest available substitute. It should trigger a review of the work sequence, access constraints, equipment selection, obstructions and programme.
What should you do now?
- Define who controls each contractor and labour-only team.
- Check competence and organisational capability before appointment.
- Review RAMS against the actual site conditions.
- Confirm access equipment is suitable and will physically fit.
- Restrict equipment use to trained and authorised people.
- Identify high-risk stages requiring additional supervision.
- Monitor whether the agreed method is being followed.
- Stop work when equipment, conditions or sequencing change.
- Record significant interventions and corrective actions.
- Review contractor performance before future appointments.
Our professional view
A principal contractor does not need to stand over every subcontractor throughout every task. It does need a defensible system showing that contractors were selected carefully, given suitable information, coordinated, monitored and challenged where necessary.
The most revealing moment is often when the original plan stops working. A competent team pauses and finds a safe alternative. A weak system allows an improvised method to become the new plan without anyone formally deciding whether it is acceptable.
All Star Safety’s health and safety consultancy service includes RAMS reviews, site inspections and support with contractor-management arrangements. Managers and supervisors can also develop their risk-management skills through our IOSH courses and workplace-based Supervisory and Management NVQs.
by admin | Sep 25, 2026 | Construction Site Management, Consultancy Services, Health and Safety
A competent person is not someone who is expected to know everything about health and safety. Employers need access to people with the right skills, knowledge and experience for the risks they face. In construction that often means combining effective in-house management with specialist advice where the work goes beyond the competence of a general adviser.
Why the definition matters in real construction work
Construction businesses sometimes appoint a health and safety manager, adviser or external consultant and then assume that person can independently deal with every specialist issue that arises. That is not what the law requires, and it is rarely a sensible way to manage complex work.
The more useful question is whether the person providing advice is competent for the particular risk, project and decision being considered.
What does Regulation 7 require?
Regulation 7 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 requires employers to appoint one or more competent people to assist them in complying with health and safety law.
HSE’s guidance on getting competent help describes competence in terms of having the skills, knowledge and experience needed to recognise hazards and help the employer establish sensible controls.
The wording “one or more” is important. The law does not assume that every organisation will find all of the expertise it needs in one individual.
Does a competent person need a formal qualification?
Not necessarily for the general Regulation 7 role. Formal qualifications can provide valuable evidence of knowledge and professional development, but competence must still be considered against the work being undertaken.
Holding a recognised health and safety qualification does not automatically make somebody competent to design temporary works, calculate a complex lifting operation, carry out occupational hygiene monitoring or provide specialist fire-engineering advice. Equally, substantial practical knowledge and experience should not be ignored simply because someone does not hold a particular certificate.
Construction adds its own competence requirements. Under Regulation 8 of CDM 2015, contractors and designers must possess the skills, knowledge, experience and organisational capability needed for the work they undertake.
Where does general competence end?
A competent construction health and safety adviser may be well placed to support general risk management, RAMS, inspections, contractor management, incident investigation, policies, training arrangements and compliance monitoring.
Depending on the work, additional specialist expertise may still be required for matters such as:
- occupational hygiene monitoring;
- asbestos surveying or analytical work;
- structural engineering;
- complex lifting operations;
- specialist temporary works design;
- occupational health; or
- specialist fire engineering.
Recognising that boundary is part of competence. The strongest adviser is often the person who knows when the issue has moved outside their own expertise and obtains the right additional support.
Managers and supervisors remain part of the competence system
External advice does not transfer the employer’s legal duties. Directors still need to make decisions, provide resources and ensure controls are implemented. Site managers and supervisors turn those arrangements into what actually happens during construction.
A consultant can write a strong procedure but will not usually be standing beside every excavation, item of plant or work-at-height activity. Contractors therefore need competence at several levels: leadership, professional advice, project management, frontline supervision and workforce execution.
Workplace-based Supervisory and Management NVQs can provide evidence of competence in real management activities, while IOSH Managing Safely can support managers and supervisors in understanding risk and their responsibilities.
How should employers check competence?
Do not reduce the check to a list of certificates. Consider the person’s relevant training, knowledge, practical experience, recent work, familiarity with the industry and ability to deal with the particular risks involved.
For an external consultant, the scope should be clear. If the business needs advice on lifting operations, for example, establish whether the adviser has relevant lifting knowledge and experience rather than assuming a general health and safety qualification covers the subject automatically.
The same principle applies to employees, subcontractors and supervisors. Cards and qualifications may form part of the evidence but should be considered alongside actual capability and the support available.
What should you do now?
- Identify who is formally providing competent health and safety assistance.
- Define the areas they are competent to advise on.
- Review whether the company’s work has become larger, more complex or higher risk.
- Identify activities requiring specialist expertise outside the core team.
- Check that site managers and supervisors can implement the advice in practice.
- Review qualifications, relevant experience and continuing professional development.
- Make responsibility clear where several advisers or specialists are involved.
- Act on competent advice once it has been provided.
Our professional view
A strong competence system is layered rather than dependent on one individual. Employers need competent managers, supervisors and workers as well as access to specialist professional advice where necessary.
Expecting one health and safety adviser to be an expert in every technical discipline can create false confidence. Good professional judgement includes understanding the limit of your own competence and bringing the right specialist into the team before the issue becomes a problem.
All Star Safety provides construction-focused health and safety consultancy, including retained competent-person support, site inspections and project-specific advice, while working alongside other technical specialists where the project requires them.
by admin | Sep 23, 2026 | Construction Site Management, Health and Safety, Mental Health, Training
Neurodiversity describes natural differences in how people process information, communicate, concentrate and learn. It can include autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia and dyscalculia. Neurodivergence does not automatically mean that someone is disabled or unable to work safely, but some workers may face avoidable barriers created by the way information, training and supervision are delivered.
Why construction is talking more about neurodiversity
CITB’s Beyond the Build series has brought renewed attention to neurodiversity in construction and the practical ways employers can enable more people to perform at their best.
Construction is a useful environment in which to consider the issue because safety-critical information is often delivered quickly, in noisy locations and through a mixture of drawings, RAMS, verbal instructions and site-specific rules. Small changes in how that information is presented can make a substantial difference to understanding.
What does the Equality Act require?
Neurodivergence is not automatically a disability. Under Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, a person is disabled where they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities.
Where that definition is met, the duty to make reasonable adjustments may apply. Employers should focus on the actual disadvantage or barrier rather than treating a formal diagnosis as the only route to practical support.
Recruitment also requires care. Section 60 of the Equality Act restricts pre-employment questions about health and disability, subject to specified exceptions. Asking all candidates whether they need an adjustment to participate in recruitment is usually a more appropriate starting point.
Health and safety duties still require individual capability to be considered
The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require suitable and sufficient risk assessment and require employers to take account of employees’ capabilities when allocating tasks.
That does not justify blanket assumptions about neurodivergent workers. HSE’s guidance for disabled workers makes clear that health and safety legislation should not be used as an excuse for discrimination. The assessment should consider the work, the person’s actual needs and any reasonably foreseeable safety implications.
Under CDM Regulation 8, construction workers must have the necessary skills, knowledge, training and experience, or be developing them under appropriate supervision. The safety standard remains the same; the route by which someone receives and demonstrates understanding may need to vary.
Make inductions and RAMS easier to understand
A conventional induction may involve lengthy slides, dense text, unfamiliar acronyms and a written test completed under time pressure. That format can create unnecessary barriers without improving the quality of the safety message.
Practical adjustments can include:
- breaking information into shorter sections;
- using photographs, plans and site-specific examples;
- providing written instructions in numbered steps;
- explaining acronyms and technical language;
- allowing additional reading or processing time;
- using a quieter area for assessments or important conversations;
- walking the site to demonstrate routes, welfare and exclusion zones; and
- asking the worker to explain key controls in their own words.
The occupational standard does not change. The objective is to remove avoidable barriers to understanding and communication.
Consider the working environment as well as the paperwork
Noise, lighting, crowding, repeated interruptions and sudden changes may create sensory or concentration barriers for some people. Potential adjustments can include quieter briefing areas, more predictable work arrangements, written confirmation of verbal instructions or reviewing whether alternative PPE models are suitable.
Any adjustment must remain compatible with the risk assessment. For example, noise-cancelling headphones may be unsuitable in an operational area where a worker needs to hear alarms, vehicles or instructions. The correct solution is to identify the barrier and then choose an adjustment that does not introduce a different hazard.
Training and assessment can often be adjusted without lowering standards
Training providers and assessors should consider how a learner can access the process fairly while preserving assessment validity. Depending on the rules of the course or awarding body, this might involve additional reading time, verbal questioning, assistive software, smaller sections of written work or a quieter assessment environment.
Workplace-based Supervisory and Management NVQs and Health and Safety NVQs use real workplace evidence and professional assessment rather than relying solely on classroom examinations.
What should you do now?
- Review inductions for dense text, jargon and unnecessary time pressure.
- Use photographs, diagrams and practical demonstrations where they help.
- Check understanding through discussion or demonstration rather than a simple “yes”.
- Provide a confidential route for workers to request support.
- Discuss functional barriers rather than demanding a diagnosis.
- Record agreed adjustments and review whether they work.
- Share personal information only where necessary.
- Train supervisors in clear, inclusive communication.
- Apply awarding-body rules when adjusting formal assessment.
- Obtain HR, occupational-health or legal input for complex cases.
Our professional view
Neuroinclusive arrangements should not depend entirely on somebody producing a diagnostic report. Clear instructions, visual information, effective supervision and respectful consultation improve safety for the whole workforce.
Reasonable adjustments change the route to understanding; they do not reduce the required standard of safe performance. A construction business that communicates more clearly is likely to benefit workers with different learning styles, levels of experience and first languages as well as those who identify as neurodivergent.
All Star Safety’s Mental Health Awareness training, IOSH courses and health and safety consultancy can support managers reviewing communication, workforce support and supervision arrangements.
by admin | Sep 18, 2026 | Construction Site Management, Consultancy Services, Safety Update
Construction handover is often treated as a final-week document chase: as-built drawings arrive late, certificates sit in unrelated folders and O&M manuals contain information nobody has checked against the finished building. The practical question is whether the information handed over can actually support safe operation, maintenance and future construction work.
New industry guidance starts with the people inheriting the building
The Construction Leadership Council and BIM in Asset Management have opened consultation on new guidance covering As Built & Handover Information. The work focuses on a simple question: what information does somebody actually need when a construction project finishes?
The consultation is intended to apply across different project scales, from major developments to refurbishment, retrofit and smaller replacement work. That is useful because poor handover is not exclusively a BIM problem on large projects.
The consultation itself is industry guidance in development rather than new legislation. Existing statutory duties still need to be considered separately.
See the As Built & Handover Information consultation.
A handover pack can contain several different legal and contractual records
The phrase “handover pack” is convenient but can conceal several separate information requirements.
Under CDM 2015, a health and safety file is required for projects involving more than one contractor. Its purpose is specific: to contain information likely to be needed to protect health and safety during subsequent construction work on the building.
Separate requirements can arise under the Building Regulations, including relevant fire-safety information. Higher-risk buildings in England also have more extensive golden-thread information requirements. O&M manuals, warranties, commissioning records and asset registers may then be required by the project specification or contract.
These information streams can overlap, but they are not automatically the same document. Producing an O&M manual does not, by itself, prove that every CDM, Building Regulations or golden-thread obligation has been satisfied.
“As built” should mean what was actually installed
A drawing can be professionally produced and still be a poor as-built record if it reflects the design team’s last intention rather than the completed asset.
If a service route changes during construction but the drawing remains unchanged, someone carrying out future intrusive work may rely on inaccurate information. The same issue can arise with fire dampers, structural fixings, underground services, roof-access systems, electrical isolators and other safety-critical assets.
The useful question is: what evidence gives the recipient confidence that the record reflects what was actually installed?
That evidence might include inspection records, commissioning results, approved changes, test certificates, marked-up drawings or other proportionate verification.
Our earlier article on digital product records in construction makes a related distinction: product data can identify what a product is, but does not by itself prove where it was installed or whether the installation matches the approved design.
The information gap often appears after subcontractors demobilise
Project teams frequently discover missing records after the specialist contractor has left site. The supervisor has moved to another project, the commissioning engineer is no longer available and somebody is left reconstructing drawings, certificates or product information from old emails.
The better approach is to define information requirements before the work begins. Specialist contractors should know what records they are expected to provide, in what format, who will review them and when they are due.
Where information is generated progressively, it should be collected progressively. Fire-stopping records, commissioning results, plant information and as-built changes should not all be deferred until the final week because they are traditionally considered “handover documents”.
Good handover starts at procurement, not practical completion
A simple project information schedule can identify each required record, who produces it, who reviews it, the required format, the date it becomes available and where the approved version will be stored.
On a larger project this may sit within BIM and a common data environment. On a smaller project, a controlled spreadsheet and logical folder structure may be perfectly adequate. What matters is the management process.
Changes during construction should trigger information changes. If a product, route or system changes, the team should ask what drawings, asset data, fire information, maintenance instructions and future access information are affected.
Review should also happen during the project. Sampling completed handover information each month can reveal missing approvals, contradictory references and poor naming while the people who generated the information are still available to correct it.
What should you do now?
- Review a recently completed project from the perspective of an unfamiliar facilities manager.
- Separate the CDM health and safety file, fire-safety information, O&M records and higher-risk-building information where applicable.
- Create a project-specific information schedule with owners and due dates.
- Make construction changes trigger a review of affected as-built information.
- Collect specialist-contractor information before demobilisation.
- Link test and commissioning evidence to the relevant asset or location where practical.
- Sample handover information during construction rather than waiting for completion.
- Verify critical information before project close-out.
Our professional view
The measure of a good handover pack should not be its file size. It should be whether somebody who did not work on the project can find, understand and reasonably rely on the information when they need it.
Good information management also needs to be proportionate. A small plant-replacement project does not need a complex digital twin, but it may need accurate plant references, commissioning results, isolation information, maintenance instructions and revised drawings.
The question remains the same at every scale: what will the person inheriting this asset need to know, and can we demonstrate that what we are giving them reflects what was actually built?
For clients and contractors reviewing CDM arrangements, project information or construction close-out processes, All Star Safety’s health and safety consultancy service provides project-based and ongoing support. Our CDM 2015 Awareness course also covers key project documents and dutyholder responsibilities.