New independent research commissioned by the Office of Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) has revealed industry “uncertainty” over the definition of certain construction products, including cladding systems and fire doors
Published on 7 January 2025, ‘Construction products supply chain’, an independent study carried out by Risk and Policy Analysts Ltd. (RPA) and BWL Consulting, sought to review current practices across construction product supply chains to “assess whether further guidance and/or regulatory action was needed to strengthen these practices”. Noting that the construction products market was “highly complex and interrelated”, it specifically analysed the supply chain process for five construction products: cables, cladding, fire barriers (fire stoppers), fire doors, and insulation.
Utilising information from the UK’s key stakeholders – collected through questionnaires, interviews, and workshops – and a literature review, a summary of the report’s findings concluded that “information about products and their correct installation methods was found to be often poorly disseminated through the supply chain”.
Taking cladding as an example, the report stated: “Due to its complexity as a construction product, there is disagreement within the industry as to what constitutes a cladding product.”
It added that the cladding supply chain varied greatly due to the type of cladding product and whether the cladding was sold as a system or if components were bought separately.
The report also considered a subset of the broad range of fire barrier products available on the UK market, known as firestops or firestopping. It stated there were “currently no designated standards” for firestopping products in the UK, but there were several “voluntary initiatives” in operation, with estimations over the size of the market at around £1 billion per year.
“Most firestopping products are sold via a product manufacturer to a subcontractor and/or installer, with delivery direct to the site. The specific product selection and installation depends on the project size and partly on the type of contract. Collected evidence suggests that there is no well-established installation training for firestopping in the industry in the UK.”
The report continued: “There is uncertainty in the overall definition of a fire door as the definition of a fire doorset is dependent on the type of standard used. Whether the components for the doorset originate from one (fire doorsets) or many sources (fire door assemblies) was a key distinction for the study. For a door to be classified as a fire door it must have a fire rating. Fire doors are not necessarily part of the means of escape.”
While the report acknowledged there were designated standards for external fire doors, it noted there were “no designated standards for internal fire doors”. Additionally, there were “no industry-wide standards for maintenance, servicing, and refurbishment of fire doors in existing buildings”, and this created “a regulatory void”.
According to the report, fire door products “often use cascaded evidence of fire performance”, which can “create some challenges for the performance and safety of products”.
Additionally, the report stated: “A risk related to original specification not being adhered to or becoming lost to select and install the correct product was also identified when procurement takes the lead rather than compliance and performance.
“The study also found some confusion among stakeholders relating to information provision requirements, with many construction workers believing that some voluntary standards/regulations are mandatory, thus requiring compliance.”
As reported by Inside Housing, the Construction Products Association (CPA) referred to standards BS EN 1634 and BS 9999, which cover the fire-resistance ratings of fire doors and the code of practice for fire doors in the design, management, and use of buildings, respectively.
Commenting on the OPSS report, a government spokesperson said: “We have tightened fire safety standards significantly since the Grenfell tragedy to ensure that everyone lives in a safe home.
“That includes the creation of new regulators and a new building safety regime to ensure that designers and developers are using products which will keep people safe. We continue to monitor this and will make further changes if necessary.”
As previously reported by the FPA, in April 2023, an independent review of the construction products testing regime was published in a bid to tackle “serious weaknesses in the regulation of construction work”. Authored by Paul Morrell OBE and Anneliese Day KC, the ‘Testing for a Safer Future’ report highlighted “historic failings” in the testing process of construction products, particularly around standardisation, complexity, capacity, and enforcement. A government response to the report is still awaited.
You can view the full OPSS report here.