Category: All

Covid or Supply-Chain Costs and Delays

Most of us will be aware of the problems builders are having in getting materials onto sites at reasonable times and costs.  This will have a consequential risk for design practices:  your Risk Management should be looking beyond the short term and thinking about the effect that these problems will have in the future.

If you had any doubt about the seriousness of these issues, take a look here:  https://www.eboss.co.nz/supply-chain-report-2021/background

https://www.corelogic.co.nz/news/construction-costs-rise-22-three-months-june-fastest-quarterly-growth-record#.YTASCo4vNPZ

These delays and costs have the potential to create problems, particularly in claims for fluctuations or cost increase claims, and extension of time claims.  We urge members to keep clients informed, and to encourage contractors to be open and transparent.  Good-faith negotiation should always be undertaken ahead of escalating competing views to the level of a dispute.  Whilst the contract terms may or may not “properly” allow for the contractor to recover the time or cost consequences of the current difficulties, the parties to a contract can always agree to a change in the contract terms, or one party can unilaterally waive some rights (for example, liquidated damages). 

Where such changes are contemplated, be sure to document them clearly and specifically, so that they do not create more problems than the original situation.  The beneficiary of the changes should be the project, not one or more of its participants.

These issues will impact on client/designer/builder/funder relationships.  The material cost changes of 5% to 25% in the past year or so are the harbinger of more upward movement.  Labour costs are being driven up by tight labour resources and contractors well booked into the future.  The supply chain problems are disrupting site progress, leading to project delays and pressure on contractors’ margins. 

The problems are not ours alone:  America and Europe are also troubled by shortages of materials and labour, slow and expensive shipping and varying lockdown measures.  Covid is driving up inflation generally, and the size of our economy (and construction industry) means we have ineffective leverage on material supplies.

Clients with projects at design stage may be unable to accommodate these costs and delays within their budgets.  Others will continue but with resentment adding stress to the project.  Still others will be looking to continue but with cost cuts which may compromise the design and add to design costs.  Procurement strategies may favour early contractor design involvement, movement away from lump sum contracts to an arrangement which redistributes the risk of delays and cost increases, staged consenting and contracting, and design-stage identification and ordering of items requiring long lead times.

Projects under construction will come under stress if builders cannot complete within the time and cost parameters understood when the project was priced.  If increased costs cannot be recovered, performance on site is at risk or perhaps may be abandoned.  Where costs can be recovered, they will not be welcomed by clients.  Arguments from delays beyond those directly related to Covid lockdowns will be unpleasant.  All of those circumstances represent increased risk to you:  both additional (and perhaps unrecoverable) attendances, and the potential for dispute and negligence claims.

In order to manage those risks, please take the time to assess how these issues will affect all the projects you have underway, in particular where reliance has been placed on pre-Covid cost/time estimates, and to communicate appropriately with each client. 

Contract Administration versus Contract Management

Members will be aware of assertions that architects show bias in contract administration, and are not up to the task.  A recent working group has reported to MBIE on the issues.  There has been an argument put forward to create a separate professional service specifically for contract administration. 

The “closed claims” analysis does not support that proposition.  Only 0.5% of the claims relate to contract administration, and the reality of any claim is that the architect may have done nothing wrong, but was caught in a dispute of others’ making.  The experience of the Claims Committee emphatically indicates that architects perform the role well. 

Overwhelmingly, the perceived contract administration failures are the result of the contractor not providing the necessary information, of the client misunderstanding the role as one of contract management, or they arise out of the observation role.  It is natural for the contractor to assume that the architect cannot be independent as long as they are paid by the client.  Clients often confuse the role of contract management with contract administration, and therefore the architect should take responsibility for the contractor’s performance. 

In smaller projects, or with clients unfamiliar with the process, members should – in their own best interests – take extra effort at an early stage to educate clients on the independence of the contract administration role, and the distinction between contract administration and contract observation. 

The separation of contract administration from contract observation has led to many disputes. NZACS is firmly of the view that – especially for small to medium-scale projects – architects should retain the contract administration role if they are also engaged for contract observation.

Collecting Fees from Reluctant Clients

When it comes to collecting fees from reluctant clients, prevention is often the best medicine.  It is far more efficient (and less stressful) to put systems in place that encourage timely payment of fees than to constantly have to chase clients for late payment. 

There are a number of ways that your systems and conduct can encourage prompt payment of fees, and these are covered in the first part of this article.  The second part of the article looks at steps you can take to recover late fees.

Encouraging prompt payment

1.            Manage Expectations:  Take time to explain your services to your client, especially any limitations to your scope of services that are not included in your offer, including those provided by other consultants.  Outline any areas of foreseeable risk to the budget or programme that may affect your scope of work and fee.  And importantly, keep your client updated throughout the design process about changes or circumstances that are likely to have an impact on fees.

2.            Terms:  Be clear about your payment terms at the time of engagement.  Don’t be afraid to discuss these at your initial client meeting, and make sure your invoicing and payment terms are stated upfront in your Offer of Service.  Ensure you have a signed contract in place that outlines terms for fees, payments, suspension of services, and management of disputes before beginning work.

3.            Transparency:  Most people want to understand where their money is going, particularly when large sums are involved.  It’s helpful if invoices have a breakdown of the services or tasks provided.  Consider how you can align your Offer of Service, the contract, and the structure of your invoices so that clients have a better understanding of the services they are being provided and what they are being charged for with each invoice.

4.            Frequency:  While traditionally architects have charged by stage, invoicing on a regular basis (e.g. monthly) has a number of benefits:

a)            It’s better for your cashflow.  Regular payments are the lifeblood of your business helping you to keep on top of your own regular payments (salaries, rent, licences, etc)

b)            It’s better for your client’s cashflow.  No one likes a surprise large bill.  Smaller, regular payments are typically easier to digest for most clients.  Developing a regular pattern of invoicing also sets some expectation about payment of your fees.

c)            If a client is unhappy with an invoice or with work carried out, your exposure is more limited if the bill covers a shorter period of time (e.g. a month as opposed to the entire detailed design phase!)

5.            Regular Communication:  Regular invoicing should be backed up with regular client communication to discuss the project and to demonstrate the work that has been carried out.  This provides an opportunity for clients to air any issues along the way and generally reduces the likelihood of disputes over fees.

Recovering late fees

Even when you have great systems in place, sometimes fees are not paid on time.  Steps for recovering late fees are outlined below.

1.            Send a reminder:  Sometimes people just forget.  A gentle reminder with the accompanying invoice or statement of account is often sufficient to induce payment from a client who has forgotten to pay the bill.

2.            Pick up the phone:  Good communication will resolve many issues in the practice of architecture and a friendly phone call is often the best way to get to the bottom of why a client has not paid your account.  The reasons could range from dissatisfaction with the services provided to more personal reasons (such as cashflow) on their side.  Consider their viewpoint and use your problem-solving skills to reach a solution that is acceptable to both parties.  A negotiated resolution may result in a better outcome than further, more formal action.

3.            Escalate to formal action:  If a client persists in withholding payment of fees, you may decide to pursue formal action.  In weighing up whether to pursue legal action, consider the value of your fees in arrears against your likely time and costs for recovering them.  This value judgment will be unique to each situation.  Options for taking formal action include:

  • The General Conditions of NZIA AAS map out a clear process for disputes resolution and this covers fees too (Clauses D7 and D12).
  • Any invoices issued as payment claims under the Construction Contracts Act 2002 can use the dispute provisions under the Act.
  • The Disputes Tribunal (Small Claims Court – https://disputestribunal.govt.nz/ ) can be used to settle small claims up to $30,000.  It’s a good idea to seek legal advice first to provide guidance on the outcome you might expect and how best to present your claim.
  • To escalate a debt recovery issue further, you will need to consult a lawyer experienced in debt recovery to discuss options.

In summary

Put systems in place to encourage timely payment of fees.  These will include:

•             managing client expectations about changes that may affect your fee

•             clear terms for payment in your Offer of Service and contract

•             structured invoices that detail a breakdown of services and fees

•             invoicing on a regular basis

•             regular communication

When payments are late:

•             follow up with a reminder once an account is overdue

•             call your client to find out why but make sure you keep the dialogue friendly and professional

•             understand your options for taking formal action and take into account the likely outcome, time and costs before pursuing legal action.

Further reading on managing debtors:

•             NZIA Practice Note PN 3.212 Getting Paid:  Managing your Debtors and Reducing Financial Risk.

•             On the NZACS website:

•             Get your fees and scope agreement agreed and signed

•             A Sad Tale about Fees

•             Outstanding Fees:  Will a Fee Claim Dispute Lead to a Negligence Claim?

Climate change and Natural Disasters

Recent natural disasters

Those of you who have been caught up in Cyclone Gabrielle and the preceding Auckland rains have had a tough time, and we hope that things come right in due course.  NZACS will respond where we can to reduce ongoing risks to your practice, and the NZIA has recently published some guidance to information to aid the road to recovery.  For our non-NZIA members, and for those of you that may be involved in remediation or salvage of damaged buildings, MBIE has some resources at https://www.building.govt.nz/managing-buildings/managing-buildings-in-an-emergency/north-island-severe-weather-events-2023/ as does CHASNZ at https://www.chasnz.org/articles/auckland-flood-remediation-how-to-keep-healthy-and-safe-while-working-on-flood-damaged-property

In some respects these recent events may lead to similar outcomes and responses as Covid:  disruption to supply chains, labour availability, and site progress.  In addition, some sites will be physically affected by flooding or landslip.  Inevitably, some of those who suffer loss will be looking around to recover uninsured losses:  you should be thinking about whether you or a project you are working on is a potential target, and if so, what you need to do about it. 

Your staff losses and family disruption need to be addressed directly:  see, for example, at https://www.employers.co.nz/natural-disasters-who-pays-blog.aspx  and at the MBIE site https://www.business.govt.nz/risks-and-operations/extreme-weather-information-for-business/  

Personal or staff stress and losses may affect productivity, and to the extent this affects your projects, you should advise stakeholders at the earliest opportunity, so that mitigation can be managed.   Focussing on your personal and business well-being is likely to be more important in the immediate future than meeting (perhaps arbitrary) deadlines.

Climate change as a design input

When advising clients on site developments, in addition to compliance requirements there is a duty of care to apply your experience skills and knowledge as a professional person.  Where is it apparent that a site may be more than usually affected by climate change, higher rainfall, higher temperatures, stronger winds, flooding, landslip or off-site adverse events, these are issues to be raised with the client.  This may in turn require attendances by other consultants.  Pro-actively educating your clients on the potential risks is a better course of action than having to defend your position later.  The records you have kept of those discussions and the resulting decisions will be an important defence if a later related claim arises.

Certification of completion

NZACS members are often asked for a certificate, when this was never intended or provided for within the AAS.  Often it is in relation to whether or not the works are suitable for occupation to facilitate bank funding, or it may be a request from a Project Manager to cover off their role in the project. 

The architect would be justified in seeking additional remuneration for this additional architectural service. 

Such certification carries an additional litigation risk, and the architect is entitled to factor in this risk and cost when assessing fees either at the outset, or as a variation to the agreed services. 

Where the Project Manager has been appointed after the architect was appointed, the architect should not be required to be put in the position of having to be the “underwriter” or backstop for the Project Manager’s responsibilities.

NZIA has recently published Practice Note 1.227 “Clause Options, Certificates and Statements”.  If you are faced with having to provide a certificate or statement, we recommend that you read and use that Practice Note in conjunction with the comments above.

Causes of Claims

Of the 206 recently closed claim files in 2021, 20% were closed without anything much happening, and 50% were for matters outside the architect’s scope or control.

Drilling down a bit deeper:

Issues within the control or scope of the architect:

12% design issues/mistakes/ambiguities/uncertainties

5% cost over-runs

4% communication problems

4% inadequate site information (including HIRB)

Client-sourced issues:

6% vexatious clients

4% fee disputes

Contractor/consultant/external causes:

19% contractor/subcontractor/consultant

8% material failure (typically fibrecement, tiling, wood floors, corrosion)

Many notifications have multiple causes, and for some of them the reasons only emerge after digging into the facts and allegations, with the primary cause perhaps still in doubt.

It is important to notify a potential claim, because if you do not do so, and the claim escalates, the insurers may not be at all happy that they did not have the opportunity to deal with the claim before it escalated. 

BIM – PROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT

Before having anything to do with BIM, members should acquaint themselves with the New Zealand BIM Handbook https://www.biminnz.co.nz/nz-bim-handbook and its appendices.

These are very useful documents and contain more detail than the NZCIC guidelines.  More detailed information is also in the international standard ISO 19650.  These documents are a reminder that BIM is much more than a fancy parametric CAD model, and that during the life of a project there are many ways in which ‘information’ might be used.

One of the key aspects of BIM is that the work you do is generally used by and relied upon by numerous downstream parties (e.g. construction, operation) so it’s very important that what you input into a BIM model is correct and so, before you even start, you need good internal modelling standards, templates, and systems.  Also make any limitations about the model/information clear.  A good BIM model is much more valuable than a simple set of drawings and so you should charge appropriately for this.

There are various views of how you can protect your intellectual property rights but, assuming the use of an NZIA AAS, the licence to use the model is similar to the drawings and belongs to them.  The IP also lies in how you model things and carry out Quality Assurance but this will largely remain within your team and not be passed on.

As the lead consultant the architect is often also looked upon to provide BIM Management Services.  Only provide these if you are confident that you have, and can maintain, this skillset.

The following identifies some of the hazard and risk areas by typical workstage.

Request for Proposal (RFP)

  • Dealing with poorly written RFPs.  These can contain broad requirements like ‘a clash-free BIM model is to be provided to the contractor as part of the construction documentation’ or have a requirement to provide ‘a complete as-built BIM model to LOD 300’.  These can be very onerous or impractical, and to manage this risk it is important to review the RFP documents looking for these requirements, seek clarification if possible, and respond clearly with what your proposal includes.
  • If you are part of a consultant team bid then it’s worth doing a pre-contract BIM Execution Plan (BEP) so that everyone knows what they’re committing to and what is covered by the fee.  BIM is typically highly collaborative and such a BEP clearly sets out what everyone is expected to deliver.  This minimizes the risk of disagreements later and, if included in your bid, can make it clear what is in scope.
  • Make sure that you identify and charge accordingly for managing the BIM process if you have that role.  This will include the BIM manager’s time but can also include project related costs like a Common Data Environment (CDE) where the BIM model is hosted, and licences for BIM collaboration and model-checking software.  This can all add up to a considerable sum.
  • Ensure that proper protocols are in place (with all participants) to manage cyber security risks, and make sure you have the appropriate Cyber Liability insurance in place in case something goes wrong.

Briefing

  • It is important to get a BIM brief that is signed off by the client.  The NZ BIM Handbook Appendix E shows an example of such a brief.  On more than one occasion we have had to assist the client with writing the brief.  Confirm that the client understands what they are getting and that you can deliver it.  Getting an agreed brief reduces the risk of the client coming back later with additional information requirements.

Design Stages

The primary risks for this stage of the project are those associated with inefficiencies, poor coordination, and tension with your consultants.

Working with a consultant team during the design stages

  • The foundation for a good consultant team producing good BIM is a well-executed and monitored BEP which is led by the BIM Manager.
  • The BEP makes it clear what is required at each workstage and where responsibility sits, so take the time to properly review and input into this document, and ensure it is agreed upon by all parties as soon as possible.
  • It is important for future users that the project uses OpenBIM (i.e. a non-proprietary format).  Revit is quite dominant with consultants, but ArchiCAD is popular with architects so ensure that consultants are committed to exchanging models in an open format like IFC (International Foundation Class) rather than their preferred CAD programme.
  • Make sure that your hardware can deal with the large file sizes that you will end up with.  For example, curved pipes and ducts can make these very large.
  • Carry out testing prior to the actual execution of exchanges and clash detection.

The Design Process

  • To have a decent BIM model you should have an internal model-coordinator on your team.  This is different to the BIM manager, which should be regarded as an independent role, even if you are providing those services.
  • Focus on clashes that are appropriate to the workstage.  For example large clashes are important to resolve at early design stages but don’t sweat the small stuff as this will be very time consuming.
  • Be careful of letting the ‘CAD people’ be the only team members engaged in the process.  A successful BIM project needs buy-in from all disciplines and levels, and good transparency to avoid silos developing.

Procurement

The main risks with this project stage are getting tenders/prices that don’t properly take account of the contractor’s BIM responsibilities, and have the potential to generate later claims.

It is very important that tenderers for the construction are aware of the following:

  • The status of the model that they will be provided with, including the level of development of the various BIM Model components.
  • Any limitations or qualifications about the model being provided.
  • What the contractor will be required to do with the model and who will do this work. For example, who will be responsible for updating the model as a result of variations or shop drawings, and what LOD will be required?
  • How will shop drawings be reviewed – drawings only or models only or both?  And don’t forget that you don’t approve these drawings/models, but are reviewing them so you can be in a position to issue the response as suggested in NZIA Practice Note PN 4.206.
  • Are as-builts required and what is the level of accuracy of these?
  • Is any BIM reporting needed during the construction phase?

Tenderers should be required to submit a construction BEP to confirm that they properly understand and have included for all BIM aspects.

Construction/Handover/Operation

  • Responsibility during the construction stage will rest largely with the main contractor and sub-contractors.  There may be some risk to the architect if they have a role of updating the model and do this poorly.
  • Like non-BIM projects there is also the obvious risk of variation claims arising from poorly executed design, coordination and documentation in the earlier stages.
  • To enable a smooth handover from contractor to client/user, the defects liability period can be used for a ‘soft landing’.  The BIM Manager is likely to have a role in monitoring this.
  • There are likely to be fewer risks to the design team members during the building operation stage but it’s important to ensure that the client has the necessary skills and software to make proper use of the BIM model.  This will reduce the risk of an operational failure and any possible resultant claim.

Summary

The best way to mitigate BIM risks is the usual combination of good communication, thoroughness, and quality assurance.

You need to think carefully about the fees necessary to do it properly.

BIM – LEGAL & ENGAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

The following points address some issues which may affect the conditions of engagement and fees, and PI cover, for BIM.  They are drawn from an Australian legal paper which dealt with BIM across the whole project life.

  • The BIM model is dependent on multiple contributors and will be relied upon by others for future unknown decisions.  How do you confine your liability to your input only?  This is likely to require specific terms of engagement. 
  • If an “issue” (or dispute) arises out of the use of the BIM model, there is the potential that you may incur costs and resources regardless of the relevance of your contribution to the problems.  How do you “ring-fence” or allocate liability to the respective inputs by the various contributors or users?
  • If there is some ambiguity or conflict between the BIM model and the other responsibilities you have under your engagement – or have described in your design/specification – which takes precedence?
  • The definition of quality standards may require amendments to address the standard BIM guidelines and consistency across all contributors.
  • Is there a “BIM protocol” which specifically deals with liability and responsibility, order of precedence, and the resolution of conflict?
  • There need to be protocols to trace work carried out in BIM and establish what occurred, who did what to whom and when, and to establish causation in the event a dispute arises.
  • What are the intellectual property rights and ownership issues?  Who “owns” the BIM model and controls access and use?  To what extent does it affect your copyright on design elements?
  • Insurance:  NZACS Professional Indemnity does not specifically exclude BIM design, as this is regarded as within the scope of architectural business practice.  But the insurance contract does have some provisions in respect of liability which would make it prudent for members to discuss the BIM contract terms and possible fish hooks with Aon, the insurance brokers for the NZACS scheme.  Also consider Cyber Liability, and the additional protection it provides.
  • The operation of BIM on a project may inadvertently allow parties to access information which is otherwise confidential.  Parties may consider restricting access to different areas of BIM.

Balustrades and Barriers

For some reason, balustrade failures – especially glazed ones – have been prominent over the past year or so. 

  • there seems to be plenty of room for a difference of opinion about the type of glass, fixings, rails and supports. 
  • the long-term durability of elements has been an issue in respect of paint finishes and metal treatment; 
  • support fixings into the structure have been the source of leaks; 
  • cost-issues have driven design solutions which are incompatible with the potential risk; 
  • minimum balustrade heights have not accounted for the deck falls and finishes; 
  • inconsistencies between a “generic” design, or the designer’s details and those of a specialist trade design/install contractor.
  • poor workmanship or inadequate quality control has led to sudden or potential failures
  • spontaneous failure of toughened glass as a result of:  poor edge finishing or hole formation, damage in delivery or installation, uneven shading, localised fixing or shape issues, imperfections and inclusions in the glass at the time of manufacture, and unknown or a combination of all of these, perhaps beyond the control of the designer or contractor.

At the heart of the matter is the functional purpose of a barrier:  irrespective of compliance minima, if the human consequences of barrier failure are significant, then that is the first priority for design, installation, and site observation.

Guides to the design of balustrades and barriers:

•             The Building Code (primarily sections B1, B2, F2 and F4) and relevant determinations

•             New Zealand Standards (e.g. NZS 4223 Glazing in Buildings Part 3)

•             Determinations

•             MBIE Guidance Documents

•             Specific Design (usually by the sub-contractor)

•             Rules for barriers around swimming pools.

The Building Code:

Section B1 (Structure), clause 22.4.3 amends what is set out in NZS 4223, and so it’s worth familiarising yourself with this if you are designing structural glass barriers.  Also watch out for any change of use that might impact on the loads that your structural engineer uses.  The MBIE Guidance on Barrier Design is a useful document to accompany B1, and Figure 3.1 in the Guidance document sets out a useful design flowchart.

Section B2 (Durability) accepts a 15-year durability for a barrier infill but there is a 50-year requirement for the handrail and its supporting structure.  We can sometimes think of barriers as part of a cladding system but this makes it clear that the structural aspects need to match the life of the building.

Section F2 (Hazardous Materials) references NZS 4223: Part 3.  A word of warning here is that if you apply some decorative film – say for graphics or privacy purposes – to toughened glass, you may be inadvertently turning the glass into something more hazardous than if it were able to break into many small pieces.

Section F4 Safety from Falling is obviously the most relevant part of the code and it’s worth re-reading this to make sure you don’t miss something.  A few aspects to note include the following.

Table 1 sets out minimum barrier heights, however it would be a good idea to dimension your documents with extra height to take care of falls, finishes, construction tolerances, unexpected build-ups etc.  There is no obvious provision in the code for inspectors to allow for “tolerances” when they check measure on site.    Preferably dimension the height as a minimum in relation to the finished floor/deck level.  (It’s not unknown for owners to change deck finishes without informing the designer!)

A commentary in F4 notes that there are more relaxed requirements where a building won’t be frequented by children under 6.  But you cannot control who uses the building and how:  we recommend caution before relying on this exemption, and drawing the issue – and inherent responsibility – to the client’s attention.

Figure 3 shows that any projecting lip of greater than 15mm in a barrier design is considered a foothold, and therefore the barrier height needs to be measured from this projection.  It’s easy with a parapet flashing build up to get caught out by this rule and have to measure the barrier height from an upstand rather than a terrace level.

Figure 4 shows the requirements for stair barriers.  Don’t be caught out by the 150mm diameter rule – it’s tested in 3 dimensions by a 150mm diameter sphere:  if the handrail is set out from the stairs it may need a smaller opening than a 150mm elevational diameter.

Figure 5 is a reminder of the importance of preventing a barrier from being able to be used as a seat.  This requirement does not apply to housing but in all other cases something like a top edge wider than 100mm could be considered a seat and so would not be code compliant, as well as being hazardous.

There are a number of requirements in situations where there is a toilet pan or any other fixed feature (e.g. seating) within 500mm of a window.  It would be easy to forget about including a restrictor or barrier in these situations.

Landscaped areas may require a barrier.  MBIE Determination 99/012 notes that “Barriers are required above retaining walls exceeding 1 metre in height, where people, particularly those unfamiliar with the area, would frequently be expected to be close to the top of the wall in the course of their normal activities.”

Some detailing issues:

  • Try to avoid barriers going across backgrounds with different light reflectance that may create temperature differentials that cause stresses in the glass, leading to breakages.  (East elevations can produce rapid temperature rises).
  • Detailing and dimensions should allow for generous construction tolerances.  Glass fixings where there is little to no gap are more prone to breakage.
  • Conservatively detail the base plates of stanchions bearing in mind the potential risks from corrosion and surface water:  consider the B2 50-year durability requirement.
  • Make your compliance pathway clear in your building consent documentation, so that an inspector on site interprets things the same as the consent processing officer.

A Grim Tale About Piggies and Wolves.

Once upon a time there were three designer pigs:

The first designer pig designed a house of straw, but along came a shower of rain and because the walls weren’t protected by eaves, and the window details were appalling, and the waterproofing system comprised only paint over dodgy plasterwork, the walls rotted and the house fell down.  Along came a wolf, and the design pig was roasted.

The second designer pig designed a house of timber, which was all very well and good, but the pig did not stick around to see if the house got built properly, and the piggies who lived in the house closed all the windows to stay warm in winter, and didn’t venture outside to clean out the gutters or even stop the weeds growing up very close to the walls.  The insulation and building wrap ensured that the walls were always wet inside and before very long the house was a great place for growing mushrooms, many of which were not found until the wall linings were removed.  Along came a wolf who was keen to see that the piggies who lived in the house grew big and fat instead of being weak and sick from the dampness.  He made sure that the design pig paid the costs of making the piggies and the house better again.  

The third designer pig was much smarter and more stylish.  Of course, a brick chimney was out of the question because of the earthquake risk, and possibly because a wolf could fall down it.  Instead, one of those very stylish metal fireplaces was put in to keep the piggies who lived in the house healthy and happy.  And everyone was.  Well, for a couple of years, anyway.  Because what happened then was that the house suddenly burst into flames.  The wolf was not at all happy that the piggies were overcooked and he asked a wise old owl what could have possibly happened.  The owl yawned and said (in a doleful way) “pyrophilia” which the wolf looked up on Google (with some surprise!) and found should have been “pyrophoric carbonization”. 

And the moral of this story? 

1.            Whenever an aspect of design or construction is critical to the performance of the completed building, both design and installation are critical activities.  In these cases, proper detailing and specification, observation during construction, and review of manufacturer’s installation requirements may have saved the designer pigs’ bacon. 

2.            Any hot surface in proximity to timberwork has the long-term potential dry out the timber to the point that spontaneous ignition may occur at temperatures less than would happen by the application of a direct flame.

3.            If reliant on intumescent products for fire protection, do not ignore the need to provide specific fixing details, clearances for expansion, and installation conditions applicable to that product.

4.            If the ongoing satisfactory performance of an element of a building – or its continued warranty cover – is reliant on maintenance, then it is in the interests all concerned that the need for that maintenance is made clear.

5.            Wolves can be scary and hungry