SAP costs

[jack]

13 minutes ago, Triassic said:

I'd rather assessors were retrained to carry out audits during the build process to ensure compliance.

 

Now that's an interesting idea...

[ADLIan]

Thanks for the feedback a few more issues to comment on;

 

• On Site Audits & client/site visits - no problem with this but there will be additional costs. Back to where this thread started!
• 3rd party data. @JSHarris. Sorry Jeremy perhaps you misunderstood. You may have read and understood the SAP and supporting documents but I don't know that. In the abence of this understanding I don't know the accuracy & quality of any data supplied to me. To put this in context I remember a post on the previous incarnation of this site from a potential self builder and he didn't know how to calculate foor and wall areas for estimating purposes!
• OCDEAs. There will always be those who jump ship from one scheme to another - perhaps this should ring an alarm bell. The OCDEA scheme has thankfully not been a real target for this activity and I find many assessors (the good ones?) who have been around for many years. As mentioned before the big housing slump sorted the good from the bad.
• @Triassic Most of my self build clients only want Bldg Reg compliance and at the lowest cost. I work closely with them in this repect to come up with the most cost effective solution. I've added value but the client doesn't perhaps recognise the fact or put a value against it
• BR Compliance - the person responsibe for the building work is responsible for Bldg Reg compliance. This means that it is probably you, as the (self) builder, who is responsible for providing accurate information on the as-built house for the assessor.

Ian

[Jeremy Harris]

@ADLIan, I understand that, but where would an assessor get data from in a case like mine?

 

AFAIK, no one else has ever had all the data, so the only source was me.

 

Should an assessor assume that I wasn't a valid source of design and as-built data and refuse to undertake an assessment? 

 

How do assessors validate their data sources?  Are builder/architects/architectural designers put through some form of audit process to ensure that they are providing valid data? 

 

How can a self-builder, building a one-off house they've designed expect to undergo such a validation process if there is one?

[ADLIan]

Hi Jeremy

 

Procedure should be as follows;

 

Design Stage - assessor takes data from BR drawings and written spec (much as you did). If house complies then issue design stage documents, if not offer recommendations to ensure compliance. At this stage boiler type, heat pump, MVHR, air leakage, amount of PV etc may not be known so SAP and other defaults may have to be used. I issue a comprehensive report at this stage outling the spec and any recommendations.

 

As Built Stage - calculation is updated with information from the builder to reflect the actual house. This will include the air leakage test cert, confirmation of make/model of boiler, heat pump, MVHR, PV output etc. Will also incude any changes to insulation type/thickness and glazing spec, etc. Builder provides witten confirmation that this information is an accurate description of the as built (in my case compared to the design stage report). As built documents and EPC can be issued.

 

Important to remember that all this is done with reference to the SAP document, SAP conventions, U-value conventions & applicable sections of the Bldg Regs (not only part L).

 

I don't know how knowledgable any 3rd party is of above documents so would not accept such data. The accreditation schemes recommend against this and warn of the dangers, any errors carried over in this scenario are deemed to be the assessors problem.

 

With reference to issuing the EPC my accreditation body is very specific in that I must have done all the data collection and assessment work myself.

 

ian

 

[Guest Alphonsox]

47 minutes ago, ADLIan said:

As Built Stage - calculation is updated with information from the builder to reflect the actual house. This will include the air leakage test cert, confirmation of make/model of boiler, heat pump, MVHR, PV output etc. Will also incude any changes to insulation type/thickness and glazing spec, etc. Builder provides witten confirmation that this information is an accurate description of the as built (in my case compared to the design stage report). As built documents and EPC can be issued.

 

The crux of the problem here is that you assume there is a separate builder to provide information and confirmation. In my case (very similar to Jeremy's) I would consider myself to be the overall builder in that :-

- I performed the original specification of the building and provided Design Stage SAP data to building control.

- I contracted a company to construct a water/air tight shell to my specification.

- I specified and purchased the windows myself (Installed by window company).

- I specified, purchased and installed the UFH heating system myself.

- I specified, purchased and installed the MVHR system myself.

- I specified and purchased the DHW system myself (installed by a local plumber)

- I specified, purchased and will install the ASHP myself.

I will be supplying the information to an assessor for As Built SAP and  EPC sign off - There is no-one else who can.

 

[Jeremy Harris]

25 minutes ago, Alphonsox said:

 

The crux of the problem here is that you assume there is a separate builder to provide information and confirmation. In my case (very similar to Jeremy's) I would consider myself to be the overall builder in that :-

- I performed the original specification of the building and provided Design Stage SAP data to building control.

- I contracted a company to construct a water/air tight shell to my specification.

- I specified and purchased the windows myself (Installed by window company).

- I specified, purchased and installed the UFH heating system myself.

- I specified, purchased and installed the MVHR system myself.

- I specified and purchased the DHW system myself (installed by a local plumber)

- I specified, purchased and will install the ASHP myself.

I will be supplying the information to an assessor for As Built SAP and  EPC sign off - There is no-one else who can.

 

 

Much the same for me, and there was no "third party" involved in specifying anything at all, so the continued reference to a "third party" is confusing.  No one other than me had all the specs for the house, the only bit of independent data was the air test certificate.  I was the only person that could have supplied the data to anyone, so I can't see why it makes any difference whether I provide that data as a list of figures or a completed FSAP file.

Edited May 23, 2017 by JSHarris

[Onoff]

26 minutes ago, Alphonsox said:

 

The crux of the problem here is that you assume there is a separate builder to provide information and confirmation. In my case (very similar to Jeremy's) I would consider myself to be the overall builder in that :-

- I performed the original specification of the building and provided Design Stage SAP data to building control.

- I contracted a company to construct a water/air tight shell to my specification.

- I specified and purchased the windows myself (Installed by window company).

- I specified, purchased and installed the UFH heating system myself.

- I specified, purchased and installed the MVHR system myself.

- I specified and purchased the DHW system myself (installed by a local plumber)

- I specified, purchased and will install the ASHP myself.

I will be supplying the information to an assessor for As Built SAP and  EPC sign off - There is no-one else who can.

 

 

Hear, hear! Madness to have someone else guesstimating AND pay them for it if you can do it yourself. 

[ADLIan]

Gentlemen

 

As the (self) builder you are responsible for compliance with the Regs - in this repect if an OCDEA is involved it is your responsibilty to provide him/her with accurate information on the as built house and the kit installed in order to generate the as built numbers. There is no 'guestimating'.

 

My use of the term '3rd party' was in relation to a non SAP accredited person undertaking the SAP calculation and providing the accredited assessor with the data. As an OCDEA I will not accept the data in this instance as this 3rd party may or may not have read, understood and input the data in accordance with SAP document & conventions and associated guidance. As stated before my accreditation scheme membership rules specifically warn against OCDEAs doing exactly what you expect, especially when generating the EPC. Perhaps some other accrediation bodies are not so strict in this respect.

 

There are procedures & conventions in place for SAP calculations and I've never had an issue with a client objecting to having to use my services - in fact they've been most grateful for the help and guidance.

 

Sorry but a few dissenting voices on this forum are not going to change SAP. Did you offer any feedbeck on the SAP consultation in Nov last year? - an ideal oportunity to voice your concerns.

 

I have a living to make so will not be spending any more time posting on this particular thread.

 

Ian

 

 

[Jeremy Harris]

FWIW I did provide input to the SAP consultation, from the perspective of a self-builder.

 

To me, as the person responsible for the provision of data to the assessor it doesn't seem to make a jot of difference how I actually provide that data to the assessor.  The data remains the same whether I send the assessor a stack of figures or an FSAP file.  Both require the same level of understanding of the regs and the way SAP works.  In fact, in my case, I sat down and wrote a spreadsheet to do the SAP calcs, before I found that I could get a free copy of FSAP. 

 

The key motivation for me was "why pay someone to do something that you're perfectly competent to do yourself?"  That's pretty much been my guiding principle from the start.

[Guest Alphonsox]

2 hours ago, ADLIan said:

Gentlemen

 

As the (self) builder you are responsible for compliance with the Regs - in this repect if an OCDEA is involved it is your responsibilty to provide him/her with accurate information on the as built house and the kit installed in order to generate the as built numbers. There is no 'guestimating'.

 

My use of the term '3rd party' was in relation to a non SAP accredited person undertaking the SAP calculation and providing the accredited assessor with the data. As an OCDEA I will not accept the data in this instance as this 3rd party may or may not have read, understood and input the data in accordance with SAP document & conventions and associated guidance. As stated before my accreditation scheme membership rules specifically warn against OCDEAs doing exactly what you expect, especially when generating the EPC. Perhaps some other accrediation bodies are not so strict in this respect.

 

There are procedures & conventions in place for SAP calculations and I've never had an issue with a client objecting to having to use my services - in fact they've been most grateful for the help and guidance.

 

Sorry but a few dissenting voices on this forum are not going to change SAP. Did you offer any feedbeck on the SAP consultation in Nov last year? - an ideal oportunity to voice your concerns.

 

I have a living to make so will not be spending any more time posting on this particular thread.

 

Ian

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure there is much dissent to be honest. We seemed to have boiled this down to how data is exchanged with an assessor and what they do with it when they receive it. Either-way many thanks for your input on this subject, it is always useful to get an appreciation of the view from the other side of the fence.

 

 

[PeterW]

8 hours ago, ADLIan said:

Sorry but a few dissenting voices on this forum are not going to change SAP. Did you offer any feedbeck on the SAP consultation in Nov last year? - an ideal oportunity to voice your concerns.

 

 

@ADLIan Thanks for taking the time to outline it as it "appears" from the outside to be a dark art which you have shed light on. On the consultation, was that public and how would anyone have known or been informed about it..? Is there any output that can be shared..??

[Jeremy Harris]

The consultation was public, I can't recall now where I first heard about it; I have a suspicion it may have been something from somewhere like the NSBRC at Swindon.