Discussion paper: Building Manuals - A Response to the Building Confidence Report

To have consistence of information across the region and to provide the same level of information no matter where you are. This will allow easier understanding for interstate people who may be interested in purchasing property in another state. Also consistent approach for portfolio owners who have assets across several states.

Appears to be a comprehensive list of useful building specific information. The challenge will be obtaining accurate as-built drawing information for all relevant information.
I would suggest that all applicable warranties are also supplied as part of the building information.
In addition I would suggest that the provision of all the base building information is a requirement prior to the occupation certificate being granted by the Building Certifier. Therefore the Building Certifier may be the relevant part to administer the receipt of the relevant building information.
Consideration of a correctly configured BIM of the building would also be a valuable thing to implement however this may be something that is done for some but not all buildings. This is something that the owner may find difficult to interrogate but to an experience practitioner with a readily readable BIM it could be very powerful in identifying the location of assets (on the asset register) that need to be maintained.

I have mentioned warranties above. We all know that companies often fold or disappear during and prior to the completion of the warranty period. This often leaves the party relying on the warranty in a position where the warranty is of no value as there is no one to seek redress from. Perhaps this is another discussion.
Consideration of a correctly configured BIM of the building would also be a valuable thing to implement however this may be something that is done for some but not all buildings. This is something that the owner may find difficult to interrogate but to an experience practitioner with a readily readable BIM it could be very powerful in identifying the location of assets (on the asset register) that need to be maintained.

Them or the designated Project Manager as the party with the greatest oversight of the process. I believe the Building Certifier should be required to withhold issuing the occupation certificate or the Project Manager issuing the Practical Completion certificate until they have verified receipt of the required building information.

I would not leave this to the developer. I believe the Project Manager is in a good position to gather the relevant information from all the relevant parties. The project manager may need assistance from the builder to pursue the relevant sub-contractors for the information but ultimately I believe the Building Certifier should retain the final say on the completeness of this information. This may become difficult when sub-contractors, or in fact any party, ceases to trade as the relevant building information is only likely to be pursued and compiled later on in the projects life. So there may need to be a mechanism that deals with this sort of situation.

Providing a checklist of what would be standard relevant building information would be a start - but also having knowledge of the information received and whether it is good information or not is equally important. This would require relevant training I believe.

As above.

As above. Checklist and an understanding of the relevance and accuracy of the information being submitted.

As indicated above, this may be the only lever for builders and other relevant parties to provide the information in a timely manner.
The other stage would be the granting of Practical Completion as this affects the general warranty periods and triggers a number of other things such as return of retention. In fact if the information supplied was not up to scratch and the parties are not forthcoming with accurate information the retention could be used to engage a third party to compile the required information ( there may be difficulties in extracting information from some parties however).

Link it to the issue of Practical Completion of the separate parts.

But could also be linked to the retention which could be 5% prior to PC or 2.5% after PC. Sometimes it takes some time to create the body corporate and for them to then have someone knowledgeable trawl through the data to see if it is considered up to scratch (despite what may have been approved by the Project Manage / Building Certifier). A 1% bond that has a reasonable time limit might be a good incentive but the granting of PC would be a better one.
We perhaps should also be working on the basis that the information that has been passed over has been reviewed for acceptability by the Project Manager / Building Certifier and that if it is not then they have an obligation to rectify deficiencies that are identified (as far as reasonably practicable).

Some relevant mark put against the building licence of the builder/developer about the timeliness and completeness of the information handed over at the right time so that everyone can search the licences and see the past history of particular builders/developers. More than three (?) strikes and the building licence is suspended.

That is a big topic that needs careful consideration and working through to be fair to all parties and deliver the expectations of the public.

No comment at this stage.

As above - progressive Practical Completion milestones only achieved when information is compiled, provided and approved.

The building is a living thing and is continually maintained and modified over its life. It is important to keep the building information up to date on all things that materially affect the building, its maintenance and its performance. A building may require a life safety upgrade over its life and this sort of information should be recorded.

That is more difficult as it would in my opinion require a degree of technical knowledge that most body corporate / owners would not possess unless they have those still to draw on internally (ie large portfolio owners). Building managers are often drawn for a building services background and thus have limited knowledge in areas such as facade, materials, waterproofing, structural design etc. I think that it would actually be quite difficult to train someone who is across all these disciplines - what the person needs to know is who to talk to get get help. I find that I have been involved in buildings and their maintenance for owners that stretches over 5 or more years and I get to know buildings quite well (but I don't have a full knowledge of plumbing or electrical work for example).

Whoever works on, or arranges for work to be done on, a building should have this responsibility. The building manager may be able to, and in some cases sensible to do so, require the contractor undertaking the work to provide the information required to update the manual. Payment of the contractor could hinge on this information being provided.
This is actually where a BIM comes in handy if it can be updated in an easily understandable way and not having to use proprietary software (or the building owner engages a third party to effect updates of the BIM). This may become a bit stick when the building changes hands as the information (BIM) may have to be transferred to a new party or the new owner takes on the old BIM maintainer.

To encourage compliance. Not sure how this would be policed however.

No comment at this stage.

Government would be ideal however who and how do the records get maintained? Building owners could do it but they would I expect require a third party to actually undertake the record maintenance. Would building owners want their records held by others that could be compromised/hacked?
This is a tricky one. Large portfolio owners would probably want to do their own storage and maintenance but building get bought and sold and this information needs to stay with the building not with an owner (I guess the transfer of the latest records would be a condition of sale but will it be in a format that is useful to the new owner and that does not require them to purchase a licence for a new piece of software?)

See above.

Government via legislation then by the market to deliver to the requirements.

It won't happen if left to the market, or more correctly it will only partly happen.

That is an issue for sure. Paper never goes out of date but it is very hard to maintain and keep up to date. We are however talking about documents which can be PDF and which have demonstrated longevity. BIMs are a little different and can have proprietary software which may limit the ability to modify records and keep them up to date. This is a difficult question to resolve.

This is fundamental to being fully informed and being able to make an informed decision.

Provided that they are serious about purchasing and perhaps they need to achieve a particular threshold before being provided access to information. However the potential volume of information that may be provided in a building manual may swamp some purchasers and thus important information may be overlooked if sufficient time is not available to review this information before committing. This is often the case during due diligence assessments when the volume of information (useful or superfluous) in a data room means that it cannot all be looked at in the time available and important information may be overlooked.

Depends on the requirements of the lease. If the leasee is responsible for maintenance then you would imagine this information is important. If they are just occupying space then it is less important but should still be available for review.

Those would be the main aspects.

The responsibility for the building and its maintenance will usually lie with the building owner. This would be transferred on sale of the building to a third party.

It covers the building that are more complex in nature and that require or should require regular assessment and maintenance over their life.

Consultants undertaking work or investigations of defects within buildings would find this information of extreme value in understanding the details of the building, the materials that have been used and how they have been (or should have been) put together.
Anyone engaged to undertake maintenance or modification of a building would also find this very valuable.

Only to do with maintaining the BM and keeping it up to date.

No - said enough already. Thanks for the opportunity.