Soapbox: CDM coordinator fees are too low to deliver a good job

Could I bring to your attention the current worrying practice of organisations supplying the CDM coordinator (CDMC) role on projects at fee levels which cannot possibly facilitate the full and proper delivery of the CDMC function as set out in the CDM ACOP and other related guidance.

While accepting that current economic conditions may necessitate the need for organisations to ‘trim’ fee levels to operate as efficiently as they can. The level of some fees at the present time is just not sustainable and will take us back to ‘planning supervisor’ days and the tick box function.

The whole ethos behind the CDMC role is to be a proactive integral member of the project delivery team and to be a key advisor to the client. If organisations submit such so low fees and clients accept them then the above just cannot happen. A key client duty is not only to appoint ‘competent’ organisations/individuals to the role of CDMC, but to make sure they are adequately resourced.

You cannot adequately resource the delivery of the CDMC function at such low fee levels and ultimately the client increases their chances of construction risk management problems with the project.

National professional institutions and large scale government departments should be taking a lead on this and stressing that getting ‘best value’ does not mean cheapest price! The value placed on the CDMC role must not be allowed to be diluted. How can any credence be given to the role when such low fees are submitted and accepted.

The construction industry has made commendable strides in terms of health and safety and construction risk management over the last few years. To continue to allow these unsustainable fee levels to occur would be a backward step. How are CDM coordinators going to attend design team meetings, coordinate health and safety aspects of the design, liaise with principal contractors, manage pre construction information, produce health and safety files, and from an informed position advise and assist their client, when the fee won’t allow them to do so!!

I ask that nationally the HSE, APS, CIC, CONIAC, RIBA, RICS, ICE, and any other professional organisation, particularly client led groups, which has an interest in the construction industry debate and discuss this issue openly.

Contribute to the debate in the Building Forum