Remediation, funding and client-side technical representation.
Remediation scopes grow. They grow because the assumptions underneath them were never examined, because an unknown was treated as a worst case and then priced, and because nobody in the team is rewarded for reducing the work. We test the scope against the evidence, and we hold the client's technical position with the designers, contractors, funders and schemes who will each have a view about it.
The work
Four things we are asked to hold
-
Scope and specification
We challenge remediation scope, sequencing, specification and cost assumptions, including on works already designed. Over-specification is challenged as readily as under-scoping. Both are failures of judgement, and only one of them is usually noticed. Where the evidence supports the full scope, we say so, and the case for it becomes considerably harder to challenge later.
-
Funding
Cladding Safety Scheme and Building Safety Fund support, applicant representative and technical representative roles, scheme evidence requirements, drawdown and close-out. We know what a scheme will and will not accept as evidence, and we prepare the application against the scheme's own evidence requirements and drawdown expectations.
-
Client-side technical representation
A board, a managing agent or a resident-led company is rarely equipped to test what a fire engineer, a structural engineer, a contractor and a funder are each telling them, and the four are not answering the same question. Beers holds the competence to read all four in the context of the building as constructed, and holds the client's technical position with designers, contractors, funders, insurers, regulators and legal teams, so that the client is not the party left reconciling positions that do not meet.
-
Close-out
Post-remediation evidence, close-out of actions, and what the building has to be able to show afterwards. A completed position rather than an abandoned one.
Scope of work
What we are instructed to do
The strategy comes first: what is required, in what order, on what evidence, and what should not be committed yet. Then the scope is tested against the evidence that supports it, with the reasoning recorded either way. That means the sequencing against access, occupation, interim measures and funding milestones; what the specification assumes about the construction that is actually there and whether that has been evidenced; and what the cost rests on, with the assumptions that carry the most movement identified.
On funding we support Cladding Safety Scheme, CSS, and Building Safety Fund, BSF, applications, and act as applicant or technical representative with the role stated in the appointment. That runs from the scheme's evidence requirements at application through drawdown to close-out, with the evidence tested against the scheme's own criteria at each stage.
Need a clear position from complex building safety evidence?
Send us the reports, the issue and the decision you need to make. We will tell you whether the evidence supports the position, what remains uncertain and what a proportionate next step looks like.