final-report-of-the-advisory-committee-on-falsework-bragg-report - Flipbook - Page 73
The difficulty of split responsibility arises because in
British practice the client usually makes two separate
contracts - one with the Engineer or Architect, as
design authority for the permanent works, and the
other with the contractor for their construction.
Responsibilities would be clear if the same organisation took full responsibility for all design and construction. Some organisations do undertake such
'package deals', but we must accept that the majority
of projects in Britain are not likely to be commissioned
in this way.
Nor would there be quite such a problem if the
designer of the permanent works also specified exactly
how they were to be built and himself designed the
falsework. But this would inevitably be uneconomical
if only for the reason that the designer of permanent
works has no information on the resources of men,
materials and skill available to contractors. We must
therefore accept the situation where the contractor
takes full responsibility for the methods of construction.
Nor would the problem of responsibility exist if it
were accepted that the contractor and no one else
should be involved in the construction. Following
this line the spokesman who gave the evidence to us
for the Royal Institute of British Architects disclaimed all interest, knowledge and involvement in the
temporary works. It was stated that such designs were
entirely the concern of the contractor and the professional involvement of architects did not extend to
temporary. works of any kind. It was suggested that
safety could be catered for by government enforcement agencies, through the statutes controlling the
conditions under which a contractor arranged his
work. We believe that this argument is not justifiable
in principle or in practice and that the Architect has a
professional duty to ensure that falsework proposals
have been properly checked.
After considerable discussion, to which particularly
valuable contributions were made by the Institution
of Civil Engineers, the Association of Consulting
Engineers and the representatives of contractors, we
recommend that construction contracts can and should
be worded to cover the following points:
Details of the construction programme and the
falsework design must be furnished to the Engineer
or Architect. (The sole exception allowed is in cases
where the design is so traditional that there can be
no possibility of novel techniques or unique designs
being used).
74
The Engineer or Architect should be free to call for
details of calculations, etc. if dissatisfied with an
part of the falsework proposals.
The Engineer must examine the proposals and
signify his acceptance in a form of words which
does not imply approval in a legal sense. For
example "I have examined these proposals using
reasonable professional care and consider that their
adoption will not jeopardise the successful completion of the permanent works".
A similar declaration must be required from the
Architect, who must consult his own engineering
advisers if he is not himself competent in falsework
practice.
The contractor is responsible to the client for all
losses and delays occasioned by falsework failure.
In accepting the proposals for falsework under these
arrangements, the Engineer (or Architect) would incur
no liability to the client or the contractor if it is
subsequently found to be faulty, provided he had
exercised reasonable professional care. On the other
hand he might suffer some loss of professional
reputation.
The arrangements we recommend do not appear to
clash with the Conditions of Contract for use in
connection with works of civil engineering construction
commonly known as the "ICE Conditions of Contract". Under subsection 1 of clause 14 "within 21
days after the acceptance of his tender, the contractor
shall submit to the Engineer for his approval, a programme showing the order of procedure in which he
proposes to carry out the works and thereafter shall
furnish such further details and information as the
Engineer may reasonably require in regard thereto.
The contractor shall at the same time also provide in
writing for the information of the Engineer a general
description of the arrangement and methods of construction which the contractor proposes to adopt for
the carrying out of the Works". It is further noted that
"Works" refers to Permanent Works together with
the Temporary Works. Such a clause appears to us
to be well-founded in that the engineer is already
required to give approval for certain proposals and
his expertise is thereby brought to bear upon the
project. We would however suggest that there may be
occasions when the time limit of 21 days could lead to
unnecessary haste over the falsework proposals.
Under Clause 14 (3) "if requested by the Engineer the
contractor shall submit at such times and in such
detail as the Engineer may reasonably require such
