Testing Construction  

The Government’s review of the testing of products used in the construction industry, released in the wake of the Hackitt Report and Grenfell Tower tragedy, has thrown the spotlight onto a wide range of serious concerns for the sector. The report – Testing for a Safer Future produced by Paul Morrell and Anneliese Day – goes into considerable detail on the many shortfalls the research uncovered, particularly around the safety of products frequently in use at present. It goes on to highlight the fact that there is no generally accepted standard classification system by which products can be monitored and analysed, and also found that there is a significant lack of data about the sector, including no comprehensive list of companies engaged in the manufacture, import, or distribution of construction products.  

The construction industry is already known for the ‘race to the bottom’ approach and we are quite often led to believe the cheapest party is usually awarded the contract, negating other factors noted in the tender process, such as quality and safety. The term ‘value engineering’ is often banded about where cost savings are sought by various parties as a method to win the work or to maximise profit margins for ongoing projects.  

Change and Response 

It is important to note that stakeholders from within the industry were consulted during the process of creating the report, with the anonymity of participants being maintained. One manufacturer responded by saying, “Please try enforcement first”, as they viewed enforcement as both a deterrent and an opportunity to no longer have to compete with those who do not play by the rules. As Dame Judith Hackitt said in her report, “We must move from a state where up to two-thirds of products are unregulated”.  

As well as the lack of data about those companies involved in the construction products sector, there has been no generally accepted standard classification system by which products can be monitored and analysed, nor has there been any analysis of the size of the testing/assessment market. With no comprehensive database of products that have failed to meet their claimed level of performance, a central, trusted, independent records for products currently on the market is sorely lacking.  

The Morrell/Day report highlights that the industry is driven by a pattern of demand that is both diverse and volatile, with the addition of the variation of client’s requirements. Companies within the industry need to make plans to ensure they are equipped to keep up with demand and be able to sufficiently resource projects, whilst remaining compliant with an ever-changing legislative landscape. Being identified as an industry that is constantly reactive and opportunistic when it comes to the supply chain, it appears that a seismic shift in how the industry operates is needed.  

As with many things in the construction industry, there is a need for change to be driven from the top of the supply chain, through setting standards and only awarding contracts to those who either comply, or are well on their way to compliance, with the standards for assurance. Further down the supply chain there is a need for a real focus on the installation of the products with sound quality assurance, training, collaboration, and communication being key to success. Technical training and an understanding of the need for correct installation are crucial.  

The industry is being forced into a change with the introduction of the new building control regime and the three gateways. There is a new scrutiny over design and the products proposed for construction. Throughout the planning and construction phases the project will be subject to oversight and confirmation will be sought to ensure the products being installed are those that have been approved as part of the planning process.  

In June 2023, the Construction Products Association (CPA) produced a briefing paper in response to the Morrell/Day report, the contents of which mirror the concerns of the industry when it comes to regulatory oversight of products and policy for the industry. The CPA offered immediate action in response to four of the recommendations, with a further proposed action plan for all 20 recommendations. In response to Recommendation 16 of the report regarding labelling, traceability, and the golden thread, the CPA have said they “would be delighted to be involved in the proposed development of standards and protocols for product labelling and traceability”. Traceability on products, manufacturers, suppliers, and installers should form part of an effective management system that is readily shared with third parties in the pursuit of collaboration and safety. To this end, I urge companies to review how they manage data across their business, particularly in relation to ensuring building safety.  

The CPA response to Recommendation 4 in relation to safety critical products has been that ‘government will be required to state what these levels of conformity assessment will be, who will monitor them, how and what the consequences of non-conformity will be’. Under the same section, the CPA have offered to take up standards of developments following consultation with members and to facilitate meetings and workshops on the topic. These initial responses from the CPA show there is still a lot of work to be done to bring standards up to the recommendations made by Morrell and Day, and to that end the CPA have named other bodies who are to be involved in working through the proposed changes. 

I expect over the coming months we will see a shift in commercial contracts. Businesses across the supply chain will be aiming to protect themselves and mitigate any negative consequences, not to mention costs. Costs and responsibilities are more likely to be scrutinised, with the regulators having a much stricter regime from start to finish, and one of the main questions that will be asked being, ”Has this been installed as designed and specified?” Each party involved will have their own responsibilities to ensure a building is safe for occupation. As a result, liquidated and ascertained damages (LADs), the predetermined measure of damage agreed as compensation in cases of delay or contract breach, are likely to see a shift to include having certification from the Building Safety Regulator.  

External Parties  

We have already seen a change in insurance expectations since the Grenfell tragedy in 2017. Competencies, company history, and level of risk all continue to come into play when renewing policies. Policy Exclusions are commonplace in the construction industry, leading to restrictions in working practice and companies often declining work on this basis. Whilst there are many ways to demonstrate competencies and reduced risk, third-party certification is a significant piece of the jigsaw. Being able to demonstrate competencies with recognised bodies can give assurance that risk is being effectively managed. The Competence Steering Group has been established by a consortium of industry bodies and the government as a result of the Hackitt Report, with twelve working groups examining competency right across the built environment sector reporting into it.  

Quality oversight is a clear benefit to the construction industry, and whether this is performed by a regulator, an in-house quality manager, manufacturer sign off, or third-party certification will need to be determined at the planning stage. The assurance with third-party oversight comes with the fact the party will also hold responsibilities, have competencies, and be able to demonstrate their behaviours are in line with the requirements. Businesses and individuals will be named on approval documents and inspections reports, with remedial actions identified. The traceability of closing these remedial actions will remain documented and will form part of the project quality and safety information. The involvement of third parties will also contribute to a more cohesive way of thinking for the industry, reducing a siloed way of working and promoting discussion around interfacing elements and interested parties.  

With a lack of testing, proper reporting, and oversight already cited in the Morrell/Day report, it is highly likely there will be an increase in the requirement for testing and suitable reporting to record information previously noted as missing in the contributory factors listed previously. The supply and demand of testing, with limited testing companies, could mean that there will be a delay or backlog in the testing of products, particularly when it comes to system testing, for example, cavity barriers on different substrates. There is a chance therefore for the limited testing companies to create opportunity in the market.  

With company responsibilities and insurance expectations changing, the need for competent fire engineers is rising and there has been an increased demand for fire engineers in the construction industry where they were perhaps not traditionally sought. This profession, like many others in construction, needs future proofing for a sustainable industry.  

Upskilling and improved awareness on product information, performance, and testing is essential for all parties involved in the planning and construction process - from initial conception to estimators bidding for projects, to individuals installing construction products on site. Each of the twelve working groups is identifying competencies for different parties involved in construction, including architects, principal contractors, and installers. Businesses should be taking stock of their employees and their supply chain with a view to planning upskill in all areas of skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours (SKEB). Indeed, we have already seen a shift in the industry whereby principal contractors are now conducting interviews of their supply chain management and supervision, and have been known to decline individuals based on their SKEB in relation to a specific project.  

It seems there will be a few bumps in the road before successful change is achieved. Following an initial cost, significant changes, and adjustments in operations, the positive effects of a deep dive into the industry may be felt, but planning is key to the success of these changes. The construction industry, although fast-paced, is often not fast-learning and change can be difficult for many to embrace. Collaboration and collective thinking could be the answer to navigating change. Participating in consultation opportunities and working groups, and engaging with continuous professional development will be crucial steps on the route to success. 

Construction Industry Drivers  

1. A pattern of demand that is both diverse and volatile, compounded by constant bespoke variation of client’s requirements. 
2. An industry that is consequently reactive.  
3. Fragmentation within the industry both in terms of the number of businesses and the way it organises itself. 
4. An industry dominated by small players.  
5. A high dependence on subcontracting.  
6. A highly mobile workforce.  
7. Relatively low barriers to entry.  
8. Relative protection from high levels of foreign competition.  
9. Low levels of innovation.  
10. Limited understanding and appreciation of how built assets create value.  
11. High levels of competition at low margins. 
12. Opportunistic tendering within the supply chain. 
13. Absence of feedback loop.  
14. Low levels of independent oversight. 

This article first appeared in Fire & Risk Management from the Fire Protection Association (FPA).