“Awareness of Building Safety Act requirements rising” reports BESA

Upwards of 6,000 companies were contacted to take part in the Trade Association’s third annual survey of the industry’s response to the Act of Parliament, the results if which have revealed that awareness is now widespread. Most firms (64% of respondents, in fact) feel confident they could demonstrate their duty holder requirements “very well”.

Rachel Davidson, BESA’s director of specialist knowledge, stated: “Four years after the Building Safety Act came into force, more firms are building the knowledge and behaviours needed for a safer built environment. This represents real progress. We’re now moving from raising awareness to helping firms meet the assurance challenge in demonstrating their competence and compliance in practice.”

Davidson added: “However, there’s a level of frustration about information overload, commercial pressures and clients who are ‘not on the same page’. There are still firms that are not engaging with the process at any level, but their numbers are shrinking.”

Client behaviour

Almost three-quarters of respondents (ie 74%) said they had not seen any significant change in client behaviour since the Building Safety Act came into force. While contractors and specialists are adapting their systems and processes, some respondents questioned whether or not client behaviours, procurement practices and understanding of their responsibilities were changing at the same pace.

One respondent observed: “This results in conflict as we resist. Ultimately, we’re commercially punished for standing our ground and doing the job properly.”

Earlier this year, the BESA produced its Client’s Guide to the Building Safety Act. This document simplifies and explains client responsibilities under the Act of Parliament and focuses on the practical implications.

Micro business adaptation

According to the new BESA survey, smaller firms continue to adapt more slowly to the new safety regime. One-in-five respondents from micro and smaller organisations (21%) admitted they had made no significant changes, compared with just 5% of medium and large-scale operations.

One-in-three respondents to the survey said that one of the biggest challenges is demonstrating competence in practice, stressing the very real difference between holding a qualification and actually being able to do the work. 40% noted that competence issues are identified “frequently or occasionally”.

Historic compliance is a “ticking time bomb” according to some respondents, with only 30% suggesting they feel confident they could provide evidence of competence and compliance in projects carried out more than ten years ago.

Similarly, it’s hard to nail down evidence of supply chain competence with around one-in-three respondents reporting “challenges” in demonstrating the necessary assurance across those whom they appoint.