final-report-of-the-advisory-committee-on-falsework-bragg-report - Flipbook - Page 67
The man who signs must himself be satisfied that all
those for whose work he is signing were also working
within their abilities.
Acceptance of falsework drawings
We must now consider whether an additional check
on the falsework design should be made by the En-
gineer or Architect.
It has been suggested to us that because of the
different philosophy involved in permanent works
design the Engineer is not really competent to assess
the temporary works. He might indeed object to design
assumptions or methods of construction which were
quite reasonable for falsework although they would be
unsuitable for permanent works. We do not accept
this suggestion believing that there should be sufficient
rapport between professional men to ensure that
reasoned objections will either be accepted or countered
in a reasonable way. There will doubtless always be
a few cases where difficulties arise but this is not
sufficient reason for rejecting the Engineer's involvement. Indeed if difficulties did occur they would
indicate a lack of sympathy that was an indictment
of a system which allowed permanent works to be
designed without adequate consideration of how they
were to be constructed.
construction works even if the individual client is
indemnified.
We are therefore of the unanimous opinion that safety
would be enhanced if the Engineer considered the
falsework proposals carefully in their own right, and
not merely as they directly affected the permanent
works. It is clear from the institution of Civil Engineers contract that the Engineer has the right to call
for the contractor's proposals. We recommend that
this practice should be extended and that the Engineer
should always require the presentation of all falsework
drawings to him.
We would hope that the confidence developed from
his previous discussions with the design team and his
knowledge of their past experience would enable the
Engineer to agree to the falsework proposals. Where
he finds fault with them, he should refer them back
to the designer with a clear indication of the area of
disagreement and the reason for it. He may ask for
further information or for a sight of the calculations.
He wiJl not, however, offer a specific solution to the
claimed fault since this would have the effect of
blurring responsibility for the design and this responsibility must remain with the contractor.
For the same reason the Engineer does not "approve"
the proposals. When an acceptable proposal has been
found he will signify his acceptance in the form of a
disclaimer notice such as, "If you proceed on these
lines 1 shall raise no objection".
The Engineer is in a special posrtion to check
falsework proposals. As designer of the permanent
works he is well acquainted with the site and its
special problems. He knows all details of the dead
loads to be supported and the possible interactions
between temporary and permanent works. There is The term "Engineer" in the preceding paragraphs
also a great advantage in obliging the contractor to do is used to refer to the primary design authority
what is already the practice in the best firms, namely, for the permanent works. He may delegate his duties,
to sit down and prepare sound drawings and adequate for example to the Resident Engineer on a particular
calculations in the knowledge that these will be called site. But he must then provide a clear written statefor and looked at by the Engineer. Even where that ment of the terms of his delegated authority and
system has been adopted we know of the very large whether these include powers to accept falsework
number of faults which the Engineer has found in proposals.
drawings submitted to him. We took special note in
Canada and the United States of the comments by So far we have mentioned only the procedure under
engineers who received drawings for critical appraisal. the ICE form of contract. We hope that these principles
Such comments as "We have never yet seen a satis- will be applied mutatis mutandis to all government
factory drawing", or "We have learned never to trust contracts involving GC/ Wks/ 1 and 2 either by
anyone" although, no doubt, exaggerated, at least supplementary conditions to the existing contract or
made the point of the need for an experienced engineer by subsequent re-drafting.
to check carefully the falsework proposals.
The same principles should be applied in building
Furthermore an Engineer or Architect is employed as operations by requiring the contractor to provide the
a professional to look after his client's interests. A Architect with falsework drawings and requiring the
client is not well served by a falsework collapse which Architect to refer them to a design engineer in his own
will inevitably result in delay to the :finished works. In organisation or to his consultant engineer: for it must
the long run every collapse increases the total cost of be remembered that falsework failures on building
68
