final-report-of-the-advisory-committee-on-falsework-bragg-report - Flipbook - Page 74
information pertaining to the methods of construction
(including Temporary Works etc) which the contractor proposes to adopt or use and such calculations of
stresses, strains and deflections that will arise in the
Permanent Works or any parts thereof during construction from the use of such methods as will enable
the Engineer to decide whether, if these methods are
adhered to, the Works can be executed in accordance
with the Drawings and Specifications and without
detriment to the Permanent Works when completed".
This clause should allow for the engineer to examine
the proposals in the detail we believe to be necessary.
We are aware that, under some other forms of contract,
such as the British Railways Board Conditions of
Contract for civil engineering work and for certain
temporary works which affect the safety of the line
the Engineer exercises his powers to ensure that the
contractor always submits proposals for approval.
We have studied the revision of the general conditions
of government contracts for building and civil engineering works, generally known as GC(Wks/1. We
welcome the references to parties such as the quantity
surveyor, resident engineer and clerk of works which
were not included in the early document GC/Wks/1.
We hope that such clauses will be included in other
forms of government contract.
The standard form of building contract produced
under the auspices of the Joint Contracts Tribunal,
popularly known as the RIBA form of contract, makes
no reference to structural or other engineering consultants, and none to temporary works. The structural
designer of the permanent works appears to have no
contractual responsibility to the client for any aspect
of the project whatever, either permanent of temporary.
All responsibility for temporary works is on the main
contractor. In reality the structural designer of the
new project is much involved in the whole process of
design and building process and it is not possible to
exclude him from the interlocking chain of responsibilities and communication.
We therefore propose that wherever an Architect will
need the services of a consulting engineer the client's
contracts with the architect and contractor should
include clauses on the lines already discussed which
insist that details of falsework proposals must be
made available and accepted. The subsidiary contract
between the Architect and his consultants would then
include clauses to allow the consultants to consider
and comment on the falsework proposals.
We would not advise the client to enter into separate
contracts with both Architects and Engineers on the
same project as this can lead to confusion over
primary responsibility for design. But if he does do so,
then the falsework clauses must always be included
in the contract with the engineer.
Where a design is submitted by a contractor to a consultant engineer for independent assessment a separate
contract is required between them. This does not
alter the contracts between the other parties· and the
contractor is still responsible to the client for the construction. The consultant must however take responsibility for the advice he gives and could be liable to
the contractor if it could be proved that he did not
exercise reasonable professional competence.
In all the foregoing discussion we have referred to the
Engineer or Architect, meaning the primary design
authority. These persons must obviously be given
powers to delegate portions of their work. It is
particularly important that where the main contract is
with the architect he should have power to authorise
the engineer or his representative to have access both
to the contractor's organisation and to the site itself
in order to discharge his duty to check the adequacy
of the falsework design.
Third party liability
As a completely separate issue all those mentioned
have a responsibility to third parties such as people
at work or-the general public. Anyone suffering loss or
injury as a result ofa falsework failure may sue contractors, sub-contractors, engineers, architects or even
clients irrespective of the contractual arrangements
between them. There may also be prosecutions for
dangerous practice under the new Health and Safety
Acts, 1974.
We are convinced that it is neither possible nor
desirable that professional people should seek to
escape their responsibilities in this matter. The professional man has a duty of care to exercise his skills
to improve safety and must do so responsibly. Like
the Chief Investigator of the Vancouver Narrows
collapse, we would argue that an engineerwhodidnot
examine falsework proposals was culpable - perhaps
more culpable than one who failed to find a mistake
in the proposals submitted to him.
There is considerable evidence that these views are
widely held and that the professional man is no longer"
regarded as an arbitrator whose professional skill
cannot be called in question. In the case of Sutcliffe v Thakrah and Others (The Times, 22 February, 1974)
an architect was successfully sued for negligence when
he had issued certificates covering building work
75
