Assurance and self-certification

"This article aims to give a greater understanding of assurance in all its guises and to show how self-certification can reduce cost and time by eliminating duplicate inspections and tests."

Does this go against the spirit of the recommendations of the Hackitt Review, namely that self-certification is not appropriate for all buildings and some oversight by someone other the installer/contractor (i.e. duplicate inspections and tests) is sometimes necessary? For instance, for high-rise residential buildings "building work that is carried out by ‘persons in a competent person’s scheme’ should be subject to full oversight by the JCA to enable it to fully discharge its duties".

What about those cases (e.g. the Scottish schools case, or Grenfell) where trust in a system turns out to be misplaced?

As a response to the above, there is a clear statement that throws responsibility onto the Client to undertake such tests and inspections that are necessary to confirm the trust that should exist between the Client and Contractor. Naturally, the amount of checking will depend on the nature of the Works, the level of trust, which should increase as the Works progress, and the risks that have been identified by any Client/Contractor with a robust Quality Management System, especially under ISO 9001:2015. With this in mind, such building works as described above will require them to be undertaken by suitable persons and subject to an appropriately robust level of oversight.

You must sign in or register to edit or comment on an article

Return to Talk:Assurance and self-certification.