United Kingdom Accreditation Service

United Kingdom Accreditation Service Commercial in confidence

ASSESSMENT REPORT

Type of Accreditation -British Board of Agrement Assessment Extra visit Bucknalls Lane

Name & Address of Garston UKAS 6018

Organisation Watford Reference 0113 WD259BA Number United Kingdom

Date(s) of 12/07/2017

Assessment

Bucknalls Lane Garston

Assessment Watford Project 224539-00-01

Location(s) WD259BA references United Kingdom

Assessment ISO/IEC 17065:2012- Product Schedule Issue 23, 18/05/2017

Standard I Criteria Certification No(s)

Date(s) of Cary Randall - Lead Assessor Assessment N/A

Name & Role of UKAS Daniel Patterson- Technical Plan Assessment Team Assessor

Sam Giles - Observer No. of (M) Findings: 2 Action Mandatory

Name of Organisation No. of (M) Findings: Claire Aizlewood, Quality Manager Require Evidence to 2

Representative( s) UKAS

No. of (R) Findings: Report Issued By Cary Randall Action 3

Recommended

Report Issued Date 17 July 2017 Method of Remote Reviewing Evidence

Report Quote for Reviewing 0.5 Days Acknowledged By Evidence

Report Agreed Action

Report submitted electronically Completion 12 August 2017 Acknowledged Date Date

Report Acknowledged Please return evidence to [email protected]

Method Quoting the UKAS Ref. No. in the subject field

F175 Issue: 6 Page 1 of 10

BBA00010798_0001 BBA00010798/1

United Kingdom Accreditation Service- Assessment Report- Continuation Sheet Project#· 224539-00-01

AREAS SAMPLED AT ASSESSMENT (marked as 'X)

ORGANISATION IMPARTIALITY & INTEGRITY

Legal Status Independence, Impartiality & Integrity

Liability Cover (CB I I B only) Confidentiality

Management of Finances (CB/ IB EVALUATION PROCESSES only)

Resources X Design & Development of Methods I Schemes

Organisation Structure Enquiries, Tenders, Contracts

Responsibility & Authority X Planning & Resource Allocation

MANAGEMENT Audit

Management System Including Reports & Certificates

Documented Policies & Procedures

Roles & Decisions/ Opinions

Responsibilities for Quality

Control of Documents and Records X Certification & Maintenance of Certification (CB only)

Management of Sub Contractors and TECHNICAL COMPETENCE Purchases

Service to Clients (Test I Cal only) Personnel

Handling of Complaints I Appeals I Methods I Schemes

Disputes

Control of Non Conforming Items Facilities I Equipment (Test/Cai/IB only) Dealing with Corrective & Preventive I Environmental conditions (Test/Cal Actions and Improvements only)

Internal Audit and Management Assurance of Quality of test I calibration Review Cooperation (I B only)

Supervision & Monitoring of Staff X Witnessed Activities

Conditions for Granting & Maintaining X Certification (CB only)

F175 Issue: 6

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Page 2 of 10

BBA00010798_0002 BBA00010798/2

United Kingdom Accreditation Service- Assessment Report- Continuation Sheet Project#: 224539-00-01

Executive summary

This report relates to an Extra Visit that was carried out at the head offices of the British Board of Agrement. The visit was carried out to facilitate a review of Certificate 08/4510 held by Alcoa Architectural Products and covering the Reynobond Architecture Wall Cladding Panels. During the assessment it was noted that the certificated product relates only to the outermost cladding parts of an external wall construction and not the complete external wall or cladding system.

The UKAS assessment was attended by Sam Giles, UKAS Section Head, Construction and Physics; Cary Randall, UKAS Lead Assessor; and Dan Patterson, UKAS Technical Assessor for fire testing such as reaction to fire. The BBA were represented by Claire Aizlewood (Quality Manager), John Albon (Head of Approvals Construction Products), Simon Wroe (Head of Engineering), Brian Chamberlain (Head of Technical Excellence) and Valentina Amoroso (Project Manager). Additionally Brian More (Operations Director) joined the assessment for the opening and closing meetings and Claire Curtis-Thomas (the BBA Chief Executive Officer) joined towards the end of the assessment and was present for the closing meeting.

During the opening meeting it was confirmed that the UKAS Lead Assessor, Cary Randall, previously worked for the BBA and had left the organisation 5 years ago. During his time at the BBA Cary worked within a number of different sections, including the section referred to in this report as 'S3' under the Section Head, Geoff Gurney. lt was explained that the UKAS Head of Construction and Physics, Sam Giles, was in attendance to address any conflicts of interest that may arise in connection with this and therefore maintain UKAS impartiality. All present at the opening meeting agreed that the assessment could go ahead on this basis and no conflicts of interest occurred during the assessment.

The UKAS assessment activity comprised a review of the records associated with the certification and the recent triennial reviews that have taken place. The certification processes were considered alongside the records and the requirements of the current conformity assessment standard ISO/I EC17065:2012. During the assessment mandatory findings were raised in connection with the clarity of the certificate and the change of certificate holder's name. In addition recommendations were made in relation to: • possible improvements to the competence management system to improve the time interval between

training and authorisation as competent • the overview information included within the front page of the certificate • knowledge of training and awareness in fire testing

More information relating to this is included within the conclusion below and within the body of this report. However the information viewed supported that the BBA have followed their processes for the assessment and subsequent reviews of the certification of the said certificate. lt was also noted that the records were in good order and that the certificate content was supported by the information included within the certification records.

The BBA staff involved in the assessment demonstrated a good understanding of the systems and processes in place. In addition a good level of product knowledge and building regulations requirements was demonstrated by the Project Manager interviewed. Overall the assessment gave confidence that the BBA assessment team have the appropriate competence to undertake the assessment activities carried out.

An overview of this assessment is included within this report. Many of the processes in place at the time of the original assessment have been revised over the following years and process flow was observed for the original submission and subsequent review. lt must be noted that in addition the Conformity Assessment Standard transitioned over this period from EN45011 to ISO/I EC 17065:2012.

This assessment has been based on sampling. Only a sample of the information available was viewed, therefore there may be non-conformities which have not been identified during the assessment covered by this report.

Scope ISO/IEC17065:2012


BBA00010798_0003 BBA00010798/3

United Kingdom Accreditation Service- Assessment Report- Continuation Sheet Project#: 224539-00-01 Conclusion During the assessment it was seen that the information included within the certificate was supported by appropriate test data and that the surveillance processes in place had identified when the content of the certificate needed to be revised.

lt was noted that the: • certificate did not include fire performance test data that supported the use of the product in buildings

above 18m and that additional evaluation or testing on the proposed external wall system incorporating the product would be required for this use. lt was also noted that the picture on the front of the certificate included a tall building over 18m and that this was misleading. A mandatory finding was raised in connection with this (see below).

• certificate holder had changed and the extent of this change could not be demonstrated and a mandatory finding was raised in connection with this (see below).

• competence management process in place appears effective in recording the stage of an employee's development and in recording the evaluation activities carried out to support that record.

Overall it was seen that the BBA have followed their processes in relation to the certification activities undertaken. lt was also noted that the processes followed compare well to the requirements of ISO/I EC17065 and that the current processes included good demonstrations of the effectiveness of the processes and systems to meet the requirements of ISO/IEC17065.

Recommendation lt is recommended that a subsequent assessment is programmed in order to examine the file for Certificate 08/4510 held by Alcoa Architectural Products in greater depth

Organisation The BBA are an established certification body that specialises in the certification of construction products. This certification body is one of a number of European organisations that belong to the European Association for Technical Approval (known by the French acronym UEAtc). Agreements were in place between members of UEAtc relating to the exchange of data between certification bodies and for the issuing of Certificates of Confirmation where a certificate from one certification body would be used as the basis for a certificate issued by another certification body. This organisation pre-dates the Construction Products Regulations and the European Organisation for Technical Approval (EOTA).

Management The effective functioning of the management system was demonstrated throughout the assessment in so far as the scope and duration of this assessment allowed. Appropriate document control was seen to be in place and both printed and electronic records were available at the time of request. lt was noted that a good level of detail was included within the procedures and records viewed during the assessment.

Impartiality & Integrity Risks to impartiality and integrity were not noted during the assessment.

Evaluation Processes A review of the evaluation process was undertaken during this UKAS assessment and the focus was review of the records and associated information relating to BBA Certificate 08/4510.

BBA Certificate 08/4510 is a 'Certificate of Confirmation' of French Agrement Certificates issued by UEAtc member the Centre Scientifique du Batiment (CSTB). The process used for Certificates of Confirmation is included within BBA's Quality Manual and was viewed along with the rules for the acceptance of information from other UEAtc members.

The BBA gave an overview of how the confirmation process has changed over the years following the issue of Certificate 08/4510. lt was confirmed that the current process leads to a stand-alone certificate rather than a Certificate of Confirmation which cross references an original certificate issued by another UEAtc member. lt was also confirmed that the BBA now carries out the surveillance for this type of certificate rather than reliance of this to be undertaken by the UEAtc member that has issued the certificate.

lt was noted that the reports used for the assessment appeared to be from accredited sources, with the certification body CSTB accredited by the national accreditation body in France Comite Francais d'accreditation (COFRAC) and Warrington Fire issued under United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) accreditation. lt was also noted that the fire classifications included within the certificate related to the external face and the internal face of the cladding panel.


BBA00010798_0004 BBA00010798/4

United Kingdom Accreditation Service- Assessment Report- Continuation Sheet Project#: 224539-00-01 Overall it was seen that the reports viewed by UKAS during the assessment were appropriate and from appropriate accredited sources. In addition it was noted that the processes currently in place relating to the transfer of information between UEAtc members appeared to be appropriate.

File review information

Certificate information

Client Scope certificated Activity Certificate validity

Alcoa This Certificate of Initial client contact Date of contract Architectural Confirmation relates to Records were viewed dating 22nd August 2006 Products, 1 Rue Reynobond back to 2004 when the du Ballon, 68500 Architecture Wall contract was first discussed. Date of decision Merxheim, Cladding Panels, 21st November 2007 France aluminium/ Application reviewer

polyethylene Geoff Gurney Date of Certification composite panels used 141

h January 2008 to provide a Team decorative/ protective Hamo Gregorian Validity fa<;:ade over the There is no validity period external walls of Decision Maker stated on the certificate. buildings Geoff Gurney The certificate remains

valid as long as the Greg Cooper, BBA CEO at certificate holder continues the time of the assessment to meet the requirements of has signed the certificate certification.

Application (7.2) The original application form was viewed. This was presented by Joe Blaisdale, Overseas Business Manager (latterly International Director). The application was clearly made in the name Alcoa and clearly states Reynobond 55 as the product, used in architecture for ventilated facades and infill for curtain walls. The application includes a product with a polyethylene core and a product with a Fire Retardant core with thicknesses of 3, 4, and 6mm.

The application form includes a simplified flow diagram of the certification process. This was compared to the flow diagram detailing the process currently in place and was seen to include all of the main points of the process.

The application form appeared to include good information to enable the planning of the assessment and contained references to existing test reports which could be useful for the assessment.

Application review (7.3), Determination of assessment programme and Planning A contract and assessment programme was developed using the information from the application form. This was viewed and seen to be referenced S3/41 014. This reference number was seen to be used throughout the assessment. The contract included a detailed appendix which gave a breakdown of the work to be carried out. The contract was dated 22nd August 2006 and had been hand amended by the customer to remove reference to 'system'. The changes had been countersigned and accepted. The contract had been put together by the responsible Project Manager Hamo Gregorian.

The contract and corresponding assessment programme, referenced Assessment Specification S3/41 014 was viewed dated 22nd August 2006. Product name Reynobond 55, Aluminium/polyethylene composite wall cladding system. Use stated as Protective/decorative cladding for external walls. Client referred to as Alcoa Architectural Products. Effort breakdown was seen to be in place identifying how long each element of the assessment would take in hours. This appeared appropriate and included a review of fire performance by BBA Technical Manager Brian Haynes.

The Assessment Specification was reviewed by the Head of BBA Section S3, Geoff Gurney, as part of the contract review process. The output of the contract review is the 'Data Entry of Estimated Hours' form, referenced 'Cost.doc Issue 7: July 2004. The contract review approval was seen to be dated 22nd August 2006. lt was seen that the contract was signed by the client on February 21st 2007 and countersigned by the BBA on the same day. lt was seen that the contract review had identified Hamo Gregorian as the engineer responsible for the assessment.

Overall the information viewed gave good confidence that the contract review process used at the time of the assessment was appropriate. lt was noted that the individuals involved with this assessment had


BBA00010798_0005 BBA00010798/5


retired from the BBA a number of years ago. The records relating to the authorisation of the individuals involved with this part of the assessment were not viewed during the assessment due to time constraints. The records relating to this should be followed up during the next surveillance visit or similar assessment.

Evaluation (7.4) A review was made of the records of the evaluation that had taken place along with the content of the certificate. Particular focus was made on the fire test reports and the evaluation reports completed at the time of the assessment.

The following classification reports were used to support the certificate 08/4510, CSTB No. RA05-0005A dated ih Jan 2005 valid for 5 years, CSTB No. RA06-0372 dated 19th October 2006 valid for 5 years. The test reports relating the Class 0 for the surface of the product were Warres No. 132316 for BS 4 76: Part 7:1997 and Warres No. 132317 for BS 476: Part 6:1989. Test results stated in all above reports were consistent with expectations of the testing carried out on the 2 products and reflect the data for "Behaviour in relation to fire" information in section 6 of 08/4510 certificate.

The output of the assessment was a brief report which cross referenced the relevant parts of the technical dossier which included the full copies of reports viewed and other details. The report included an overview of the outcome of each part of the assessment activity and a copy of the contract appendix which had been marked up as a checklist to help quickly demonstrate that all the assessment activities have been completed.

The information viewed gave good confidence that the evaluation activities set out in the assessment specification had been completed and were successful in enabling a certificate to be drafted.

Review (7.5) and Certification decision (7.6) A letter from the BBA's Technical Manager, Brian Haynes, to the client was viewed dated 29th June 2007. This letter confirmed that all certification activity had been completed and the assessment had entered the certificate drafting and commenting phase.

Records of the review carried out by the Head of BBA Section S3 were viewed and the certification decision was seen to be documented within the request to the BBA's Technical Writing and Publications Section (TWAPS) to prepare the final draft of the certificate. This is recorded within the 'BBA Internal Memorandum to TWAPS', was signed by the Section Head, S3 and dated 21st November 2007. lt was noted that the Head of Section was not involved in the assessment and as such the certification decision had been made by someone impartial in the assessment process.

The information viewed gave good confidence that the certification decision making process was robust and that the content of the draft certificate was adequately supported by the evaluation that had been undertaken.

Certification documentation (7.7) Records of the certificate drafting were viewed and it was seen that an instruction had been passed by the Technical Writer, Geoff Lines, from the Project Manager, Hamo Gregorian, dated 14/05/07 identifying master certificate as S3/41 015 Argeton Terracotta Rainscreen. The master certificate is the certificate that formed the basis of the draft certificate that would become Certificate 08/4510.

lt was noted that a later draft of the certificate was circulated around various construction experts and comments had been made in connection with the certificate content. The comments received and the manner in which they were dealt with were sampled during the assessment although it was not possible to review all of the comments that had been received during the assessment.

The certificate content was reviewed during the assessment. Particular attention was paid to the section relating to fire performance. The front page summary of the Certificate 08/451 0 under "Behaviour in relation to fire" does not summarise all main classification data, it only included the National surface spread class 0 for England and Wales and "low risk" material for Scotland. Therefore it is recommended that it would be better to either include all classification information or keep the headings and refer to relevant section with all the information. Recommended finding 224539-00-01-E01274-002 was raised in connection with this.

The examination of the certificate revealed that test information relating to Section 12.7 of Approved Document B of the Building Regulations 2010 was not included for the filler material in the core of the aluminium cladding material (ACM) in terms of limited combustibility. As such the certificate did not contain sufficient design information relating to the use of the product above 18m. lt was also noted that


BBA00010798_0006 BBA00010798/6


the certificate did not indicate that the certification was only valid up to 18m. The BBA (John Albon) indicated that it is not their responsibility to include this limitation for application of the product on the certificate and that it is the responsibility of the reader to take the information and consider along with the relevant Building Regulations. However a certificate 10/4746 for another cladding material dated 20th April 2017 did indicate the product only to be used up to 18m in sections 4.1, 7.5 and 7 .6. The BBA indicated that this was a recent introduction and demonstrated that the revised wording would be included within the next version of the certificate (see below).

Since there is no 18m height limit stated in the 08/4510 certificate and the design information included within the certificate is only applicable for up to 18m use because of the tests detailed in the certificate, the photograph of the building on the front of the certificate is misleading as the building depicted is clearly above 18m in height. This needs to be addressed for the next issue of the certificate currently under review and the BBA indicated that they would address this for the next issue of the certificate after completion of the review if published. Mandatory finding 224539-00-01-E01274-003 was raised in connection with this.

Surveillance (7.9) The certification records show that a request for surveillance was made. This request detailed that BBA Factory Production Control (FPC) surveillance visits would not be required as this activity would be fulfilled by the CSTB. E-mail correspondence between the CSTB and the engineer carrying out the initial assessment were viewed and it was seen that these confirmed FPC surveillance was in place.

An overview of the surveillance processes currently in place was given by the BBA Project Manager currently responsible for certificate 08/4510, Valentina Amoroso (the current Project Manager). Following the initial assessment problems were encountered with the flow of surveillance information from CSTB to BBA. Subsequent to this the BBA have started to carry out their own FPC visits. BBA Agreed Quality Plan (AQP) reference 08 4510 AQP 161116, dated 19th December 2014 was seen to be in place. lt was noted that the doe template reference was Qualplan.doc (18-06-42) iss7, Job number S3/41 014. This job number was seen to be used throughout the initial assessment and gives good confidence in the traceability of information throughout the certification process.

The AQP was seen to include clear information about the manufacturer's incoming materials along with specifications or references to specification documentation. The AQP also details the in-process and final checks made on the completed product, along with an overview of the manufacturing process and information about associated management system aspects that support the manufacturing process.

The Project Manager gave a good account of the process followed to manage reports relating to surveillance visits to ensure that someone with appropriate knowledge and experience had reviewed the reports. Surveillance reports are submitted to the office by the field inspectors. The reports are allocated to the project managers, who review the content and check about findings raised. Once the surveillance reports have been viewed and required actions undertaken they are filed under the associated certificate number. An overview was also given of the process followed when a manufacturer makes changes to the incoming materials. lt was explained that an assessment is made of the material change and assessment activity is undertaken to prove equivalence if this is required. lt was confirmed that in some circumstances, this could lead to a repeat assessment of the product.

A copy of the records relating to the last surveillance visit and report dated 14 Feb 2017 were viewed. The first page of the report package includes a summary with an overview of findings raised. The details of the FPC visits are documented within a marked up version of the AQP. This was seen to be a good way to clearly show what was viewed during an FPC assessment whilst keeping the context of the assessment that was undertaken. lt clearly shows the coverage attained during the surveillance.

Triennial certificate review The BBA Certification process includes a triennial review. This comprises a review of the information originally assessed against, for example: • Certificate holder's literature • the current requirements of the building regulations

Reviews of Certificate 08/4510 were undertaken in 2011 by BBA Project Manager Alpheo Mlotha. The 2014 Review was completed by Valentina Amoroso, then subsequently the 2017 review was again undertaken by Valentina Amoroso. The content of the triennial Review Reports was viewed and seen to include good information supporting the on-going certification of the products. lt was noted that the method of communicating the outcome of reviews to customers has recently changed. The formal review report previously sent has been replaced with a letter giving an overview of each item covered. The letter is supported with an internal Review Checklist which records the details of the information


BBA00010798_0007 BBA00010798/7


reviewed along with the outcome of the assessment made. lt was noted that, as a result of the 2016-2017 Triennial Review, the BBA had identified that the certificate needed to be reissued and that it would be withdrawn if the reissue did not go ahead.

The records relating to the reviews that had been undertaken were sampled during the assessment and it was noted that the 2010-2011 review included an updated quality plan following a review of information from CSTB. BBA demonstrated this with information relating to the inclusion of revised peel strength tests following an exchange of information between CSTB and BBA. The report was seen to include confirmation that the FPC surveillance had been appropriate.

A discussion about the most recent reviews undertaken was held with Project Manager Valentina Amoroso. This Project Manager joined the BBA from the aerospace industry and has expertise with materials science. Amongst other things she responsible for claddings and is developing a specialist understanding of these products. An overview of the assessment work that Valentina had carried out for the reviews carried out. lt was explained that the review checklist is followed and on-going work such as reissues and complaints is undertaken.

Valentina gave an account of the review that was carried out and explained, for example, that the current technical literature from the client was reviewed. The info provided was reviewed and recorded on the 'Review Checklist'. lt was noted during the discussion that the review included information about the FPC and the fabrication of the cassette system currently included within the certificate. lt was explained that the panel manufacturer does not fabricate the cassette system; this is carried out by third parties. The BBA followed this up with the manufacturers of the product and it became apparent that there was little or no control from the manufacturer over the fabrication of the cassettes. This was further followed up with the certificate holder and it became clear that FPC was not currently being carried out on the fabrication of the cassette systems. The BBA subsequently made the decision to remove the cassette system from the next version of the certificate.

lt was noted that Valentina Amoroso had an awareness of the fire performance of the certificated products during the UKAS assessment. This included the routes to establish the suitability of a cladding system for use on a tall building. Valentina was asked during the discussion relating to the review of the certificate if she questioned the tests required by the client and she replied positively. In this case the product is being sold in the UK market and the manufacturer's literature contains photographs depicting buildings that are over 18m in height and that the classification information the literature provided under Europe or elsewhere in the literature does not indicate limited height use. lt may be helpful if Valentina gain additional knowledge of National and Euroclass tests and their purpose with a view to helping the client request to correct fire testing information for the product application. This additional knowledge could include witnessing 'live' examples of each test type. Recommendation 224539-00-01-E01274-001 was raised in connection with this.

During the assessment it was confirmed that the customer had taken up the reissue contract, that this work was underway, and that this was the reason that the certificate had not been withdrawn.

Overall the information viewed gave good confidence that BBA are following their processes relating to surveillance, including those for triennial reviews of certification. In addition the information gave confidence that the review process is effective.

Reissue lt was noted that the BBA are in the process of reissuing certificate 08/4510. A copy of the draft reissue certificate was viewed. This was identified as having input from Brian Chamberlain on 23rd May 2017. lt was noted that the fire wording has been revised in the draft certificate and that the new wording confirms a height limit is included unless additional testing is carried out.

A discussion was held about the name of the certificate holder. The current certificate holder was seen to be Alcoa Architectural Products. However, the reissue certificate and the quality plan were in the name of Arconic. lt was confirmed that the company had undergone a name change but that there had been no changes to the legal entity involved. The records relating to the checks undertaken by the BBA into the name change were viewed and it was seen that the investigation had started. The request for the name change was dated 141

h November 2016. However, the outcome of the checks had not been recorded and the BBA were not able to demonstrate that the change related solely to a name change (rather than a change of legal entity). Mandatory Finding 224539-00-01-E00828-001 was raised in connection with this.

Discussions were held about the amount of time taken to reissue the certificate. Valentina Amoroso explained that the reissue included revised wording for the structural section of the certificate and that this


BBA00010798_0008 BBA00010798/8


required additional testing to determine the pull through of the fixings through the panels. This had prolonged the reissue process. lt was also confirmed that the certificate holder may decide that they no longer require the certificate. In this case the reissue would not be completed and the certificate would be withdrawn.

Technical Competence An overview was given of the process in place relating to competence management. The competence records for Valentina Amoroso were used to demonstrate the process in place. A spreadsheet titled 'Technical Competence Revision 01' was viewed. This was seen to show a competence rating alongside associated product areas, such as cladding. The competence ratings clearly identified the stage of an employee's development.

A discussion was held about the evaluation that had been undertaken to support each of the competence ratings and the BBA explained competence for a particular product area is demonstrated using a review of completed work and one to one discussions held between employees and their line managers. lt was explained that, for authorisation above level 4 the review of completed work needed to include sufficiently complicated assessment jobs rather than reviews and reissues.

The review of completed work was demonstrated using records relating to Valentina Amoroso. These were seen to be documented within the certification records and were in the form of commentary made by the reviewer during the review of the assessment evaluation reports and the Section Head Checklists completed at the end of an assessment. This information is collated annually around the summer time as part of the appraisal process. The competence spreadsheet is updated as part of the annual appraisal carried out. lt was noted that the records for Valentina Amoroso were dated back to 2016 and reflected that this Project Manager was a trainee. lt was confirmed that the 2017 appraisals were currently underway and that this would include an update of the competence ratings within the spreadsheet. lt was recommended that the process in place is reviewed to enable the on-going evaluation and authorisation of employees outside of the annual appraisal process. This could speed up the process of getting individuals authorised to undertake activities. Recommended finding 224539-00-01-E00828-002 was raised in connection with this.

A discussion was held about the certification decision makers. Certification decisions are made by the relevant section head following a technical review. Once this has been carried out the certificate is signed by the Chief Executive Officer or, in exceptional circumstances, by the Operations Director.

The BBA staff involved in the assessment demonstrated a good understanding of the systems and processes in place. In addition a good level of product knowledge and building regulations requirements was demonstrated by the Project Manager interviewed. Overall the assessment gave confidence that the BBA assessment team have the appropriate competence to undertake the assessment activities carried out.

[End of main report]

Appendix- Technical Assessor's notes


BBA00010798_0009 BBA00010798/9


Appendix- Technical Assessor's notes

Dan Patterson -Technical Assessor

The following relevant technical documentation was presented for review:

• Copy of BBA Certificate no. 08/4510 • Copies of Euroclass classification reports CSTB No. RA05-0005A and CSTB No. RA06-0372 for the

product described in certificate 08/4510 • Copies of reports Warres No. 132316 and Warres No. 132317 test reports for National Class 0 for

the product described in certificate 08/4510

Examination of Certificate no. 08/4510 revealed that test information relating to Section 12.7 of Approved Document B of the Building Regulations 2010 was not included for the filler material in the core of the ACM in terms of limited combustibility and that the certificate did not indicate that the certification was only valid up to 18m. The BBA (John Albon) indicated that it is not their responsibility to include this limitation for application of the product on the certificate and that it is the responsibility of the reader to take the information and consider along with the relevant Building Regulations. However, for example, certificate 10/4746 dated 20th April 2017 did indicate the product only to be used up to 18m in sections 4.1, 7.5 and 7.6. The BBA indicated that this was a recent introduction.

Since there is no 18m height limit stated in the 08/4510 certificate and the certificate is only applicable for up to 18m use because of the tests detailed in the certificate, the photograph of the building on the front of the certificate is misleading as the building depicted is clearly above 18m in height. This needs to be addressed for the next issue of the certificate currently under review and the BBA indicated that they would address this for the next issue of the certificate after completion of the review if published. (IAR Ref. 224539-00-01-E0127 4-003)

The following classification reports were used to support the certificate 08/4510, CSTB No. RA05-0005A dated ih Jan 2005 valid for 5 years, CSTB No. RA06-0372 dated 19th October 2006 valid for 5 years. The test reports relating the Class 0 for the surface of the product were Warres No. 132316 for BS 476: Part 7:1997 and Warres No. 132317 for BS 476:Part 6:1989. Test results stated in all above reports were consistent with expectations of the testing carried out on the 2 products and reflect the data for "Behaviour in relation to fire" information in section 6 of 08/4510 certificate.

The front page summary of the Certificate 08/451 0 under "Behaviour in relation to fire" does not summarise all main classification data, it only included the National surface spread class 0 for England and Wales and "low risk" material for Scotland. So, it is recommended that it would be better to either include all classification information or keep the headings and refer to relevant section with all the information. (IAR Ref. 224539-00-01-E0127 4-002)

Valentina Amoroso was asked, during discussion of reviewing the certificate, if she questioned the tests required by the Client and she replied positively. In this case it is clear that the product is being sold in the UK market and the manufacturer's literature contains photographs depicting buildings that are clearly over 18m in height and that the classification information the literature provided under Europe or elsewhere in the literature does not indicate limited height use. lt might be helpful if Valentina gain additional knowledge of National and Euroclass tests and their purpose with a view to helping the client request to correct testing information for the product application. This additional knowledge could include witnessing 'live' examples of each test type. (IAR Ref. 224539-00-01-E0127 4-001)

[End of assessors notes]


BBA00010798_0010 BBA00010798/10