- Recognise the commercial cost of over-engineered designs and push back at design stage
- Identify the implied term of reasonable skill and care under SGSA 1982
- Distinguish a TG20:21-compliant from a bespoke designed scaffold
- Apply the CDM 2015 designer competency test
- Identify the four buildability challenges that affect erection efficiency
- Apply the ERIC design risk hierarchy under CDM 2015 reg.9
- Run a design submittal cycle and manage the commercial risk of rejection
- Compose a complete RAMS package referencing SG4, TG20:21 and TG21
- Understand PI and CAR insurance, and how long design liability really lasts
1. Why Design Matters Commercially
Design is one of the easiest ways to lose money on a job. The work itself may be small but the consequences of a bad design are large. Third-party injury, property damage, prosecution, claim against your PI. Not to mention the costs of over-engineering, with over-use of equipment, reduced productivity on complex builds, additional transport costs, and the delays that come from not having the engineering approved in time.
Most scaffolders don't think of themselves as designers. But every time a scaffolder or supervisor decides where a tie goes, how the scaffold is modified for the site condition, what tube spacing to use, or whether to add a third lift, a design decision is being made. The law treats it as such. This may or may not have a contractual impact depending on the nature of the scaffold purpose or use.
- Competent scaffold designers are formally trained over years, not weeks. NASC CG6:20 gives the guide: as a minimum an HNC in Civil, Structural or Mechanical Engineering, preferably registered with an engineering institution (ICE, IStructE, IET), or five years' proven experience in a scaffolding design office, or five years in a principal contractor's temporary works department. The result is a small pool of competent designers, and design fees and turnaround times that reflect the scarcity. (NASC CG6:20; ICE Training, Temporary Works Design (Above Ground))
Quick definitions, technical and contractual terms in this module
- RAMS: Risk Assessment and Method Statement. The two documents that together explain what hazards are present (RA) and how the work will be done safely (MS). Required by the Management of H&S at Work Regulations 1999 and CDM 2015.
- Silent contract: a contract that does not expressly cover a specific issue (e.g. design responsibility, defect correction, payment notices). When a contract is silent, the law fills the gap with implied terms. Silence is rarely your friend; the implied term may not be what you want.
- ITP: Inspection and Test Plan. The document that says what gets inspected, when, by whom, and what records are kept.
- QA framework: Quality Assurance framework. The system of processes and checks that proves work meets the specification.
- PIQ: Pre-Information Questionnaire. The temporary works equivalent of pre-tender information. Captures load requirements, ground conditions, tying restrictions, hazards, programme.
- PI insurance: Professional Indemnity insurance. Covers design liability. Most policies are claims-made, meaning the policy in force when the claim is made responds, not when the design was done. Keep run-off cover after a contract closes.
- ERIC: the standard CDM design risk hierarchy: Eliminate the hazard, Reduce the hazard if elimination isn't possible, Inform others of residual risk, Control through procedures and PPE. Used by competent designers under CDM 2015 reg.9.
2. The Commercial Cost of Over-Engineering
A scaffold that's been over-designed costs you money in five ways: more equipment inside the same cubic-metre rate (you are still charging a standard rate while putting more kit in), more labour to erect, slower programme, harder dismantle, and lower kit-fleet turnover. That's less kit to use on more jobs.
Designers who over-specify and ignore buildability add cost. Extra ties to be safe. Tighter tube spacing than the loads need. Each one rational on paper. Stacked together they make a scaffold that takes a third more man-hours and a third more kit than a competent design would.
Equipment usage is the hidden cost. Every extra tonne of kit on a job is a tonne not earning hire on another job. Every extra fitting drawn from stock is one not available for the next mobilisation. Fleets are finite. Over-engineering ties up the fleet at the cost of the business.
Programme is the second hidden cost. Complex designs erect slowly. Gangs that should be on lift three are still on lift two. Other trades wait. The MC notices.
Complex designs attract more eyes, more people scrutinising the scaffold, checking and rechecking calculations, requesting revisions, Cat 3 third-party certs. All extends the lead time and can add cost.
Over-engineering is rarely punished by the client and rarely paid for by the designer. It's paid for by the scaffolder, in equipment, hours and goodwill. Push back at design stage. Use designers with clear understanding of buildability.
3. Reasonable Skill and Care, and the TG20 Misconception
Where the supplier carries on a business, there is an implied term that the supplier will carry out the service with reasonable skill and care.
The implied term of reasonable skill and care applies to both the design and the construction of the scaffold.
The implied term applies even when the contract is silent. Silence does not kill design liability.
| Topic | JCT SBCSub/C 2016 | NEC3 ECS | Scaffolding Contract 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design liability | Subcontractor responsible for design of any portion of the Works it is responsible for designing. Reasonable skill and care implied (Clause 2.13) | Where the Subcontractor designs part of the works, it does so with reasonable skill and care. Design responsibility sits with the Subcontractor (Clause 21.1) | Scaffolding Contractor shall remedy at its own expense any defects drawn to its attention in writing which have arisen from faulty design, erection or dismantling, or the use of defective equipment (Clause 2.6) |
| Implied term of skill and care | Implied by SGSA 1982 s.13 where the contract is silent | Implied by SGSA 1982 s.13 where the contract is silent | Express contractual term at Clause 2.2: Works carried out with due diligence and in a good and workmanlike manner. Design liability at Clause 2.6 runs in parallel |
| TG20 as design defence | TG20 compliance does not remove design responsibility, SGSA implied term remains | TG20 compliance does not remove design responsibility | TG20 compliance does not remove responsibility. Clause 2.6 applies regardless of the design methodology used (NASC CG6:20) |
It is not just an implied term, it is a written contractual obligation. If the scaffold fails because of a design decision made on site, the cost of correction sits with you. The clause requires written notification from the MC, but once notified the obligation to remedy at your own expense is absolute. This applies whether the scaffold was TG20-compliant, bespoke-designed, or modified on the day.
A common misconception in the trade is that a TG20-compliant scaffold isn't "designed". Wrong. TG20 is itself a design standard. Building to TG20:21 doesn't transfer liability away from the contractor.
It is a common misconception that scaffolds designed to BS EN 12811-1 or TG20 relieve the contractor of design liability.
Under the Scaffolding Contract 2018, compliance with NASC Health, Safety and Technical guidance, including TG20:21 and SG4, is a contractual obligation, not a voluntary standard. Clause 2.8 states that the Scaffolding Contractor will comply with all current Health and Safety and Technical guidance issued by NASC. This means TG20:21, SG4, TG21 and all other current guidance are incorporated into the contract by reference. Departing from them without justification is a contract breach as well as a potential statutory breach under WAH 2005.
Under JCT and NEC contracts, NASC guidance must be expressly incorporated via the specification or Works Information to carry contractual weight. On a Scaffolding Contract form, it is already there by default.
Worth pausing on, because most contracts you sign will not be Scaffolding Contract forms. JCT and NEC are general construction contracts, not scaffolding contracts. Unless they have been amended to define the scope of design specifically, they say very little about scaffold design at all. Where the contract is silent, your design liability rests on the implied term: the supplier will carry out the service with reasonable skill and care (SGSA 1982 s.13). So on a JCT or NEC job, do not assume that silence on design means no design responsibility. It means the implied term is doing the work instead.
Any modification to a TG20-compliant scaffold, even small, is a new design event and may attract designer duties under CDM 2015. Scaffolders or supervisors do not have the free reign to modify designed scaffolds because they hold an advanced or inspector's ticket.
4. Designer Competency
A designer must have the skills, knowledge, experience and (if an organisation) the organisational capability to fulfil the duties.
Competency guide: HNC in Civil/Structural/Mechanical Engineering, preferably ICE/IStructE/IET registered; or 5 years' proven scaffolding design office experience; or 5 years in a principal contractor's temporary works department.
Standard prequalification document for designer competency assessment.
5. Scaffolds That Need an Engineer
Some scaffolds always need engineer input. Don't try to TG20 your way around them. CG6:20 carries the full list, from suspended and truss-out scaffolds to temporary roofs and pavement gantries.
And a pricing point straight from CG6:20: unless design costs are specifically identified in your quotation, they may be deemed included in the price. Complex design time, engineer's checks and Cat 3 certification are real costs. Name them in the quote, or carry them.
Apply it: TG20-compliant or needs an engineer?
6. Designing for Buildability
Buildability is the gap between what the engineer drew and what the gangs actually have to put up. Most design failures aren't engineering failures. They're failures to think through how a scaffold gets built.
The competent designer doesn't just check the loads. They build the scaffold in their head, lift by lift, and ask: where does the kit come from, how does it get up there, what stays standing while the next bit goes up, where does the gang stand, and how do they reach what they're fixing? Walk a mile in the scaffolder's shoes.
Having experienced and qualified scaffolders and supervisors work with the designers often leads to great on-site results. You get a qualified design, with low kit usage and buildability.
A design that calculates correctly but can't be built efficiently is a bad design.
6.1 Four common buildability challenges
- Material storage and access. Where does the kit live before it goes up? How does it get to the work face? Designs that ignore the loading sequence add days to the build.
- Temporary stability. The scaffold is at its weakest while it's being erected or dismantled. Designs that depend on the final tie pattern for stability are a nightmare to build safely. The right design considers stability at every lift.
- Beams in scaffolding. Prefabricated beams (unit, ladder, aluminium) span gaps but they're heavy, awkward and expensive. Designs that overuse beams when bracing would do are over-engineered. Designs that underuse beams when spans demand them are unsafe.
- Cantilevers and projections. The hardest scaffolds to build. Need careful thought on counterweight, fixing sequence, and how the projection extends without unbalancing the main scaffold.
6.2 Communication discipline
The designer's job is to make complex designs as simple as possible. Over-engineering, unnecessary calculations, and submittals deeper or more technical than they need to be all add cost and time. The drawings and calculations, in a single technical package with the right information for fast approval, are the right submission. A design should leave nothing to the interpretation of the scaffolder: if a scaffolder has to interpret it for themselves, they are potentially taking on design responsibility, and that is not acceptable (TWf).
7. Calculations, Risk and Design Checks
When a scaffold needs engineer design, calculations follow. The calculations prove the scaffold can take the loads imposed: dead load (the kit itself), live load (operatives, materials, equipment), wind load, snow load, point loads from any items being craned through, dynamic loads from any work activity (impact, vibration).
7.1 ERIC, the design risk hierarchy
ERIC is the standard CDM design risk hierarchy. Designers are required by CDM 2015 reg.9 to identify and manage design risks. The accepted approach, set out in the ICE Design Risk Management guidance, runs in this order.
A competent design eliminates risk first, reduces second, informs third, controls fourth. A design that jumps straight to PPE has skipped the first three steps.
7.2 What gets calculated
- Standard load (compression, buckling)
- Tie pull-out load (the force the tie has to resist)
- Tube and fitting capacity (section properties from BS EN 12811)
- Foundation bearing pressure
- Beam capacity (where prefabricated beams are used)
- Wind load on sheeted or netted scaffolds (Eurocode 1 Part 1-4)
- Snow load on temporary roofs (Eurocode 1 Part 1-3)
- Load Path Analysis: identify the critical members and verify each one against the relevant failure mode
7.3 The risk of getting it wrong
Two layers of risk. The first is physical: scaffold collapse, injury, fatality, prosecution under HSWA 1974 (unlimited fines, imprisonment for individuals). The second is commercial: PI claim, civil damages, reputational damage, insurance premium hikes, potential to bankrupt a small contractor.
A calculation that's wrong by 10% on paper is a scaffold that fails by 100% on site. Get it checked.
7.4 Verification, design checks under BS 5975-1:2024
Best practice is a third-party design check. The original designer can't check their own work. The check should be by a different competent designer, ideally with their own PI cover.
The Code of Practice for Temporary Works Procedures sets the framework for design checks. Four categories, applied by risk. Note that BS 5975 is not law. You are not strictly obliged to follow it, but after an incident you would need to show that whatever you did instead was at least as good. It is the benchmark.
- Cat 0: restricted to standard solutions only. Confirms the site conditions do not conflict with the scope or limitations of the chosen standard solution. Because this is a site issue, the check may be done by another member of the site or design team. The original standard solution itself will have been designed and checked at Category 1, 2 or 3.
- Cat 1: for simple designs using simple methods of analysis, in accordance with the relevant standards and suppliers' technical literature. The check may be carried out by another member of the design team.
- Cat 2: for more complex or involved designs, where a considerable degree of interpretation is required. The check must be carried out by an individual not involved in the design and not consulted by the designer.
- Cat 3: for complex or innovative designs, complex sequences, significant departures from standards or novel methods of analysis. The check must be carried out by another organisation.
The checking category may be determined by the principal contractor, the temporary works coordinator, the client or the designer (TG21:20). It follows the implementation risk classification of BS 5975-1:2024 Table 1, which classes each scaffold as very low, low, medium or high risk. The class drives the level of procedure, the category of check, and who may sign permits.
Network Rail uses forms F001/F002/F003 for Cat 3 external checks. Some clients (highway authorities, airports, hospitals) require Cat 3 regardless of complexity.
7.5 Design status: the gate before erection
Every design drawing carries a status: Preliminary, For Approval, or For Construction (TG21:20). The sequence is fixed, and each step gates the next:
- No formal design without a design brief
- No design issued For Construction without a completed check and a design check certificate
- No erection until you hold a design issued For Construction
- No use until inspected by a competent person, recorded and handed over
- No modification without RAMS, designer approval and competent scaffolders
The drawing should also carry the names of the designer and the checker, with dates. A drawing with no status, no checker and no date is not a construction document. Do not build from it.
8. Design Submittal Process
Design submittal is the formal route for getting a scaffold design approved before erecting. Most main contractors have their own version of the process; the principles are the same.
8.2 Rejected designs and the commercial risk
A rejected design is a delay. Delay costs you time and money. The longer the cycle, the more standing time on labour booked and equipment loaded.
Two types of rejection: technical (design doesn't meet the requirements) and process (design submitted incomplete, in the wrong format, missing the design risk assessment). Process rejections are the cheap ones to avoid: get your house in order before submitting.
8.3 Managing the commercial risk
- Build review and resubmission time into your programme. Two weeks turnaround minimum
- Agree the cycle at the pre-let meeting (M5). Get reviewer name, format requirements, expected turnaround documented
- Notify the MC immediately when a design comment delays your works. The notice is the basis for any EOT or compensation claim
- Keep a design submittal log: date submitted, date reviewed, comments received, date resubmitted. Records win disputes
If the design is the critical path, a 1-week reviewer delay is a 1-week project delay. The MC needs to know this. Notice in writing the same day.
| Topic | JCT SBCSub/C 2016 | NEC3 ECS | Scaffolding Contract 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|
| EOT for design delay caused by MC | Extension of time where the MC delays the release of design information or fails to comply with obligations (Clause 2.25) | Compensation event where the MC does not reply to a communication from the Subcontractor within the period required (Clause 60.1(6)) | EOT available for reasons beyond the control of the Scaffolding Contractor. MC design review delay qualifies where it prevents commencement or progress. Written notification required (Clause 13.1) |
| Notification requirement | Written notice as soon as practicable, not later than 28 days after the event (Clause 2.27) | Compensation event notified within 7 weeks of becoming aware, miss it and the entitlement is lost (Clause 61.3) | Written notification that the Works have been delayed. No fixed deadline, notify as soon as practicable (Clause 13.1) |
| Cost entitlement | Direct loss and expense claimable under a separate application (Clause 4.19) | Time and cost recovered through the compensation event mechanism, part of the same assessment (Clause 63) | Direct loss and expense included in any Variation valuation arising from the delay. Notify as a Variation if the delay generates additional cost (Clause 7.2) |
8.4 Drawings, revisions and the priced revision
Every design carries a revision letter. Unless it is a simple scaffold, the design priced at tender is rarely the design that gets built. Site conditions, RFIs, design checks and changes to the working scope all generate new revisions, and revisions carry time and cost.
The trap is set at tender. A BOQ gives you a volume and a scaffold type, not the complexity. It says "independent" when what the job actually needs is a scaffold built two metres off the wall and cantilevered back in, with beams, ballast and a supporting structure that itself needs checking. If the design turns out more complex than the tender allowed, and the checker rejects the submittal once or twice on top, you are carrying revisions the price never saw. Where the revisions are the fault of the MC or another of their subcontractors, apply for an EOT. Keep good records of the design and submission process throughout.
Record the drawing revision priced in your quotation. Any later revision is a potential variation.
8.5 The PIQ in detail
The Pre-Information Questionnaire (PIQ), known in most of the industry as the design brief (TG21:20), captures everything the designer needs: load requirements, ground conditions, tying restrictions, hazards, programme. Without a complete brief the design is at risk of error or rework. TG21:20 puts it simply: the design brief usually sets the tone for how well a scaffold will be designed and constructed.
The brief also forms part of the contractual record. If the client provides incomplete information, they can't blame you for a design that reflects what they gave you.
What the design output should include
When the design comes back, check it carries what the gang and the commercial team both need (TG21:20; TWf):
- Site-specific drawings with every dimension needed to erect safely, plus a specification of materials: tube (3.2 mm or 4 mm), classification of couplers, boards, beams
- Maximum allowable imposed loading on platforms, and leg loads so the foundations can be assessed
- Type, location and classification of ties: light duty 3.5 kN, standard 6.1 kN, heavy duty 12.2 kN, or a specific calculated load, plus any anchor proof-testing requirement (what load, how many, where)
- Any critical erection or dismantling sequence, including hold points
- The designer's risk assessment, showing significant residual risks only, not a generic list
- Any areas the designer is not taking responsibility for, such as foundations, buried services, or the adequacy of the structure to take tie and leg loads. This is a scope and liability boundary. Read it as carefully as the rates
8.6 Ownership and copyright
Copyright in any drawing remains with the originator unless the contract specifies otherwise.
Three things decide who owns a scaffold design. If your own employed designer produced it, your company owns the copyright. If you sub-let the design to a consultancy, the consultancy owns it, unless the contract assigns the rights to you, and an assignment only works if it is in writing and signed. And paying for a design is not the same as owning it. What a paying client normally gets is a licence to use the design for the job it was commissioned for, which is narrower than ownership.
Where ownership does pass to the client, CG6:20 is clear: the client can pass the design to another contractor to build, and that contractor must comply strictly with the configuration, materials and specifications. Liability for the design then depends on the contract chain between client, contractor and designer.
You will also meet this from the other side. Main contractors sometimes issue a design produced by another company as the basis for tender. CG6:20 says what to do: carry out your own checks and satisfy yourself as to the adequacy of the design before you price or build to it. Building to a design supplied by the client or a third party relieves you of design responsibility, but never of construction responsibility.
9. Insurance and Long-Tail Design Liability
If you do design, you carry liability for that design long after the job ends. Depending on the contract, the tail runs for years after handover. Insurance has to cover that tail.
9.1 PI and CAR insurance
Where the design is done in-house, you need suitable Professional Indemnity. Where you use third-party designers, ensure they hold PI too.
- Contractors All Risks (CAR), property damage and third-party injury during the works
- Professional Indemnity (PI), design liability, often on a claims-made basis
If you use third-party designers, verify their PI cover. Without it, your own PI may not respond to a design claim.
| Topic | JCT SBCSub/C 2016 | NEC3 ECS | Scaffolding Contract 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of handover on design liability | Practical Completion does not end design liability. The Rectification Period covers defects but does not cap the design liability tail (Clause 2.30) | Completion does not end design liability. The defects correction period applies to construction defects; design liability runs separately under SGSA s.13 | Issue of a Hand Over Certificate shall not relieve the Scaffolding Contractor of any responsibility with regard to design (Clause 5.3) |
| Long-tail design liability | 6 years from breach for a simple contract; 12 years for a deed; negligence claims capped by the 15-year longstop of the Latent Damage Act 1986 | Same limitation periods apply | Same limitation periods apply. Clause 5.3 expressly preserves design liability post-handover |
| PI cover implication | Claims-made PI must be in force when the claim is made, not when the design was done. Run-off cover required | Same | Same. Clause 5.3 makes clear the liability continues. PI must cover the full tail |
It is clear from the JCT and NEC3 positions above that those terms were drafted for permanent works. For a scaffolding contractor, design liability in any practical sense ends when the scaffold is dismantled: there is nothing left standing to fail. What does not end at dismantling is liability for damages. If your design damaged the building or other property, an overloaded ledge, tie penetrations that later let water in, that claim survives the scaffold and can be pursued through the MC.
Two limits on the handover certificate are worth knowing. It does not cover responsibility for, or inspection of, foundations and ties, which are assessed separately (TWf). And under TG21:20 the client is responsible for ensuring the foundations and the permanent works can take the loads the scaffold imposes: for vertical loads, the ground below your baseplate is the client's responsibility, not yours.
9.2 How long design liability really lasts
Breach of a simple contract: 6 years. Breach of a contract executed as a deed: 12 years. Negligence with latent damage: 3 years from discovery, capped by a 15-year longstop (Latent Damage Act 1986). The Building Safety Act 2022 extended Defective Premises Act 1972 claims to 30 years, but the DPA duty is that a dwelling is fit for habitation when completed. A scaffold is struck before completion and forms no part of the finished building, so that extension does not normally reach scaffold design.
- Simple contract: 6 years. Deed: 12 years. Negligence longstop: 15 years
- PI is claims-made: the policy in force when the claim arrives is the one that responds
- Stop buying cover and a later claim finds nothing. Keep run-off cover after a contract closes
- Ask the PI questions that matter: each-and-every-claim or aggregate? Is consequential loss included? What is the excess, and can it actually be paid so a claim can proceed? An aggregate policy exhausted by someone else's claim leaves nothing for yours (TWf)
If you undertake design, hold claims-made PI and review run-off at the end of every contract. Cheap PI is no PI. This section is general guidance, not legal advice: confirm your cover and your limitation position with a construction law professional.
10. RAMS in Depth
RAMS is your single most important contractual safety document. Every scaffolding job needs them. They prove you've thought about the hazards, identified the controls, and trained the operatives.
10.1 What goes into RAMS
- Scope: what work, where, when, by whom
- Hazards identified: falls, falling objects, electrical, structural, public
- Site-specific and environmental factors: the hazards of this location and this job, never copied from the last site. Weather exposure, adjacent structures, public interface, ground conditions
- Risk assessment: likelihood × severity, control measures
- Method statement: sequence of operations step by step
- Reference to design: drawing numbers, calculation reference, tie pattern
- Reference to standards: TG20:21 compliance sheet number, SG4 fall prevention measures, manufacturer's handbook for system scaffolds
- Training and competency required: CISRS grade, harness training, manual handling
- PPE schedule: harnesses, helmets, gloves, hi-vis
- Emergency procedures: rescue plan from height, first aid, accident response
- Review and revision history with version numbers
10.2 NASC guidance on RAMS
Preventing Falls in Scaffolding Operations. The single most important reference for the method statement section. Sets the safe system of work for erection, alteration and dismantling.
Compliance sheets reference where the scaffold is a basic configuration. The compliance sheet number goes in the RAMS.
A Guide to Commissioning Scaffold Design. Sets out what should be in a design brief and how to assess a designer's submission.
A RAMS that hasn't been reviewed by a competent person within 12 months is stale. Schedule annual review and update. And never re-use a risk assessment from a previous site: ask what is different about the hazards and risks of this location and this job (TWf).
11. Inspections, the 7-Day Rule
Statutory inspections by a competent person before first use, after substantial alteration, after exceptional weather, and at intervals not exceeding 7 days.
The inspector must be a competent person: a combination of knowledge, experience and training appropriate to the type of scaffold being inspected. A basic independent and a sheeted temporary roof are not the same inspection.
- Straight after assembly, before first use
- At intervals of not more than 7 days while in use
- After any alteration or modification
- After anything that could affect strength or stability, such as high winds
If the inspector finds a defect: notify site management immediately, restrict access to the scaffold, display warning signage, and keep the danger area restricted until the remedial work is complete. The inspection report goes to the client within 24 hours, and is kept for at least 3 months after the work is completed.
The handover certificate and the inspection regime cover the scaffold, not the ground it stands on. Foundations and ties are assessed and inspected separately. Commercially, that is the record that decides who pays when something moves.
Action Checklist
- Push back on over-engineered designs at submittal stage
- Verify designer competency before instructing any third-party design
- Verify third-party designer PI cover and your own PI cover before commencing
- Build review and resubmission time into the programme at pre-let stage
- Notify the MC in writing the same day a design comment delays your works
- Record the drawing revision priced and track every later revision
- Schedule annual RAMS review by a competent person
Case Study: The Temporary Roof Collapse
Nine decisions, one per learning objective in this module. This case starts at design brief and walks through to a near-miss on site. Each decision tests one of the principles taught in this module.
Downloads
Templates and trackers for technical documentation and design coordination. Coming soon.
Module 4 Quiz
10 questions. Pass mark is 80% (8 out of 10 correct).
Complete.
You can now push back on over-engineered designs, identify the SGSA s.13 implied term, distinguish TG20 from bespoke, apply the CDM 2015 designer competency test, work the ERIC hierarchy, run a clean design submittal cycle, build SG4-referenced RAMS, and hold the right PI cover for the BSA 2022 long tail. Module 5 picks up programmes and logistics.
- Module 5: Programmes and Logistics
- Module 6: HSE and Legal
- Module 7: Project Controls
References
Harvard-style referencing applies throughout the course.
NASC Commercial Guidance
- NASC (2024) CG8:24 Preparation of Quotations. London: National Access and Scaffolding Confederation.
- NASC (2022) CG11:22 Preparation of Schedule of Rates. London: National Access and Scaffolding Confederation.
- NASC (2019) CG12:19 Contract Clauses. London: National Access and Scaffolding Confederation.
- NASC (2018) CG13:18 Pre-Tender Information from Client. London: National Access and Scaffolding Confederation.
- NASC (2018) CG14:18 Pre-Contract Meetings. London: National Access and Scaffolding Confederation.
- NASC (2021) CG17:09 Commercial Checklist. London: National Access and Scaffolding Confederation.
- NASC (2009) CG18:09 Daywork. London: National Access and Scaffolding Confederation.
- NASC (2018) CG19:18 Liquidated and Ascertained Damages. London: National Access and Scaffolding Confederation.
- NASC (2022) CG7:17 Late Payment of Commercial Debts. London: National Access and Scaffolding Confederation.
Standard Forms of Contract
- Construction Industry Publications Ltd (2018) Scaffolding Contract 2018: Form of Contract for the Erection, Hire and Dismantling of Scaffolding. Birmingham: Construction Industry Publications Ltd.
- Joint Contracts Tribunal (2016) Standard Building Sub-Contract Conditions (SBCSub/C 2016). London: Sweet & Maxwell.
- NEC (2013) NEC3 Engineering and Construction Subcontract (ECS). London: Institution of Civil Engineers.
RICS
- RICS (2nd edn) New Rules of Measurement (NRM2): Detailed Measurement for Building Works. London: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
- RICS (current edn) Definition of Prime Cost of Daywork carried out under a Building Contract. London: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
- RICS (Black Book current edn) Cost Reporting and Variations. London: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
CIOB
- Chartered Institute of Building (current edn) Code of Estimating Practice. 8th edn. Bracknell: CIOB.
- Chartered Institute of Building (2022) Code of Practice for Project Management for the Built Environment. 5th edn. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Industry Reports and Research
- CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP (2024) Late Payment Reform: What UK Construction Developers and Contractors Need to Know. Available at: cms.law.
- Construction Industry Council (2025) The £6 Billion Question: Why is Construction Still Paying Like It's 1999. Available at: cic.org.uk.
- HKA (2024) CRUX Insight Eighth Annual Report: From Insight to Foresight. Available at: hka.com.
- HM Government (2024) Late Payments Consultation: Tackling Poor Payment Practices. London: Department for Business and Trade. Available at: gov.uk.
- Pye Tait Consulting (2017) Retentions in the Construction Industry. BEIS Research Paper No. 17. London: Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Available at: gov.uk (PDF).
- World Commerce and Contracting (n.d.) Stopping the Leak: The Value of Contracts. Available at: worldcc.com.
Legislation
- Sale of Goods Act 1979, c. 54. London: HMSO.
- Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, c. 29. London: HMSO.
- Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, c. 50. London: HMSO.
- Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998, c. 20. London: TSO.
- Late Payment of Commercial Debts Regulations 2002, SI 2002/1674. London: TSO.
- Late Payment of Commercial Debts Regulations 2013, SI 2013/395. London: TSO.
Case Law
- Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England) Ltd [1979] 1 WLR 401.
- Cavendish Square Holdings BV v Talal El Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67.