Why mast climbing needs a fairer fight when it comes to winning traditional scaffolding tenders

How do you run a tender when you are not asking for the best solution? Asking for scaffolding on high-rise buildings without providing an option for mast climbing is just that.

Mast climbing provides a cheaper and safer alternative to scaffolding, and this comes to the fore even more when a building is over five storeys tall.
For any high-rise tower works, especially cladding remediation, MCWPs would bring massive benefits to residents in terms of them not having unsightly scaffolding outside their homes for weeks on end. With building and dismantling times at just four days as opposed to 30 days, it is clear that mast climbing can provide huge benefits to government tenders that always typically seek for scaffolding enquiries only.

What is the nature of the problem?

The problem is that scaffolding takes up over 80% of the market when it comes to building access. BFT Mastclimbing offers a viable alternative to scaffolding but there is no portal platform that asks for mast climbers. Part of this is because mast climbing is shoehorned into the scaffolding banner. When terminology is this habitually ingrained, it is difficult to get an industry to change its ways when the correct language isn’t being used.
Rather than look simply for scaffolding, councils and public organisations need to ask their main contractors what their access strategy is. They also need to look at the physical site and ask themselves - what is the best solution? At the moment, organisations tend to look at scaffolding and work backwards from there. Now is the time for this to change.
Mast climbing offers an opportunity for customers and the industry as a whole to provide much better value for money across the board. On a recent project that took place in London, at least 40% of their costs would have been saved if they had adopted mast climbers as opposed to scaffolding.
It is time to stop doing what they know and look for viable alternatives in the marketplace.
BFT Mastclimbing is in the position where we can help councils and organisations to learn what to look for, how to procure safely with mast climbing and ensure the highest standards of safety are met, while saving time on needless costs for erecting and dismantling scaffolding.
Technology is always moving apace, yet the construction industry seems to want to stick with traditional scaffolding. Now is the time to veer away from this, and one way that process can begin is if mast climbing is given a fair opportunity to apply for tenders for high-rise building access work.

Call BFT Mastclimbing to learn more

BFT Mastclimbing is proud to provide quality mast climbing services for customers up and down the UK.
With around 1,650 machines at our disposal, our MCWPs will save your project time and money.
We have recently invested £500,000 in our training facilities and regularly inspect our machinery to ensure that the highest standards of quality are met.
If you are interested in learning more about mast climbers and the benefits they will provide, call 0808 178 9772 or email BFTsales@bftmastclimbing.com

Understanding the Government Code of Remediation

The Government Code of Remediation is structured into four parts: the scope; undertaking remediation; living with remediation; and general compliance. Each part addresses key aspects of cladding remediation projects, to mitigate fire safety risks that are present within buildings that feature external cladding whilst ensuring the safety and satisfaction of residents. It applies to buildings regardless of occupancy levels, whether fully, partially, or temporarily occupied.

Resident-Centric Approach

The Code puts residents at the heart of remediation. It is a direct response to the Grenfell tragedy, designed to protect residents from potential fire hazards and ensure their concerns are acknowledged throughout the remediation process.

Roles, Responsibilities And Accountability

The Code mandates that roles and responsibilities related to remediation must be clearly outlined and understood by all parties involved in the project. This includes contractors, developers, building owners, tenants, residents, and management companies, so each party knows its duties and is held accountable. Parties involved in the project cannot avoid Code compliance by delegating or subcontracting their obligations.

Effective Communication and Active Engagement

It’s stated in the Code that good communication needs to be maintained from the outset of the project so that residents remain informed and sufficient transparency is achieved. Proper channels should be implemented to ensure that residents can meaningfully engage in the decision-making process. The Code acknowledges potential language barriers and encourages the use of electronic forums to ensure information is disseminated efficiently. Residents should be kept up-to-date with project developments, enabling them to contribute and participate in the design and delivery of the project.

Minimising Impact On Residents

A significant focus within the Code is on minimising the impact of remedial works on residents. Contractors and developers are expected to take measures to reduce disturbances from on-site activity, including noise, dust, and general inconvenience so that disturbances to the residents are kept to a minimum. Balancing health and safety considerations with cost and time factors is another key pillar of Part 3 of the Code. The goal is to create the least inconvenience to the residents and achieve potential cost savings for contractors and developers.

Mental and Physical Health Of Residents

Acknowledging the potential impact on residents' mental and physical health, the Code mandates careful consideration and documentation of these aspects throughout recladding projects. This additional step of record-keeping holds parties accountable for their actions and highlights the seriousness of their responsibilities.

Revaluating Your Access Method

The Government Code of Remediation sets a high standard for remediation projects with a key goal to minimise the effect recladding has on the residents. The core objective of the Code revolves around mitigating the impact on residents' homes and common facilities, while concurrently prioritising the safety and security of the building and its inhabitants.

In this context, the Code calls into question the appropriateness of using scaffolding for extended periods. A two-year presence of scaffolding, according to the principles outlined in the Code, appears incongruent with the commitment to minimise impact and ensure safety, particularly concerning security issues and prolonged inconveniences for residents.