An End to Value Engineering?
The introduction of the Building Safety Act has placed a greater emphasis on selection of the building envelope solution much earlier in a project.
This is especially true in the case of Higher Risk Buildings (HRBs). Under the Act, new rules require those working on the design of HRBs to provide evidence that the installation meets the requirements of the fire and structural safety regulations.
To do this the Building Safety Act divides the lifecycle of a building into three gateways: planning and design; construction; and completion. At each gateway the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) will ensure building safety has been addressed, that the original design intent is preserved, and that changes have been managed through a formal review process known as the Golden Thread.
Gateway Two is the point at which the Building Safety Regulator needs to be satisfied that the building envelope design meets the requirements of the Building Regulations before work can begin on site. This means the architect, façade consultant or contractor, selecting the most appropriate envelope product for that specific application and then developing the detailed design so that it can be submitted for approval by the BSR.
Change control procedure
Once a design has received Gateway Two approval it will be subject to mandatory change control procedures. That means that if a decision is made to change some element of the building envelope, that change must be recorded and, depending on the type of change, the regulator too may need to be informed in order to approve the change (a process that can take weeks) before work can proceed on site. What's more, the onus is on those proposing the change to show that the amendment is regulation compliant.
Following the Grenfell Tower tragedy and the subsequent introduction of the BSA, it is now the law that a change to one element of a building's design, for whatever reason, must be considered in the context of its subsequent impact on other elements of the building design and therefore safety.
Value engineering or false economy?
This additional scrutiny introduces a risk of delay plus potential cost and time penalties for getting it wrong. Combined with increased liability this is likely to temper a contractor's enthusiasm to substitute high quality envelope solution as it may make any projected savings look like a false economy to all parties. This aspect of the BSA should make the concept of ‘value engineering’ much less attractive.
To help avoid the need to make changes, it is important to specify the right envelope product at the outset. This means working with an envelope supplier, such as Schüco, which has the right products and in-house expertise to support those making design decisions.
Our team of experienced and competent Architectural Project Managers (APMs) liaise with designers, often in pre-planning or planning stages, to provide specification advice. They have an extensive product knowledge and are up to date with Building Regulations in order to provide comprehensive guidance and advice on which products would be suitable for a specific application.
What's more, from the smallest component through to complete façade units, every single element of a Schüco façade will have undergone rigorous durability testing at the Schüco Technology Centre. This should be an important consideration for those still unconvinced of the merits of specifying a high quality building envelope solution at the outset because the BSA has also increased the cladding defects liability period from six to thirty years.
- Work material (e.g. tender specifications, BIM objects, CAD data, catalogues)
- Note content
- Direct contact to Schüco