PN01 Guidelines On Producer Statements
PN01 Guidelines On Producer Statements
PN01 Guidelines On Producer Statements
ISSN 1176–0907
1
Guidelines on
Producer Statements
Version 3, January 2014
Contents
1. Purpose and Scope of Guide 4
2. Background 5
3. What is a Producer Statement? 6
3.1 The Purpose of a Producer Statement.............................................................................. 6
3.2 Types of Producer Statements.......................................................................................... 6
3.3 The Role of Producer Statements in Restricted Building Work........................................... 8
The Association of Consulting Engineers of New Zealand (ACENZ) is an incorporated society representing
the consulting industry for engineering and related professionals that work in the built and natural
environment.
Practice Notes offer guidance to practising engineers by exploring issues of importance to the profession
and setting out good-practice methodologies. They are written by practitioners and subject to peer review
by IPENZ and ACENZ Members. While every care is taken in their preparation, these documents are not
offered as formal advice and practitioners must exercise their own professional skill and judgement in
applying them. IPENZ and ACENZ accept no liability arising from their use.
This Practice Note is copyright to IPENZ and ACENZ and cannot be reprinted without permission.
Chartered Professional Engineers are deemed to be Licensed Building Practitioners (LBPs) in area
of practice 3 as defined under the Building Act and associated regulations. Chartered Professional
Engineers who work in the building design area (primarily Structural, Fire, Facade and Building Services
engineers) use the PS1, PS2 and PS4 forms issued by IPENZ, ACENZ & NZIA. These engineers have their
competence regularly assessed, are listed on national registers and may be subject to disciplinary action
by their professional registration authorities. They are bound by their codes of ethics to work within their
competence and assessed practice areas.
Producer statements issued by design engineers are specifically covered in this Practice Note. The
principles equally apply to architectural design practice and the producer statements issued by
Registered Architects.
Other building practitioners, builders, applicators and suppliers also issue producer statements
(frequently referred to as PS3s relating to construction work). However their scope, format and
dependability are so variable that they have not been included in this Practice Note.
Producer statement recipients are typically Building Consent Authorities (BCAs) and local authorities.
The introduction of “risk-based consenting”, Restricted Building Work and the requirement for a
“Memorandum from Licensed Building Practitioner: Certificate of Design Work” does not diminish
the importance of producer statements or this Practice Note’s relevance. It has been observed that
appropriately completed producer statements contain all the relevant information required for a
memorandum. The issues and principles involved in issuing and reviewing a memorandum are also
covered by this Practice Note.
A producer statement should not be the sole means upon which a local authority or BCA satisfies itself
as to the building work’s compliance. That is to say a BCA that relies wholly on a producer statement,
without providing some level of assessment, audit or review of the work, is not taking reasonable steps
to satisfy itself as to the design or construction’s adequacy. BCAs should also satisfy themselves, on
reasonable grounds, that the author of the producer statement is suitably competent to have carried out
the work described.
Producer statements were not devised as a means of transferring risk and liability from the BCA to the
design professional. However both parties should be aware that liabilities can accrue from their use.
Unreasonable and unaudited reliance on producer statements as a form of risk mitigation may result in
failure both in a technical sense and in relation to financial restitution.
Producer statements deal with compliance at the date on which they were written. They will not
necessarily provide assurance of on-going compliance.
It is noted the 6th Schedule of NZS 3910 “Conditions of Contract for Building and Civil Engineering
Construction” is a fourth “Form of Producer Statement – Construction” which is also in common, current
use by contractors and is typically referred to as a PS3. There are also many other variants of producer
statements that are used by designers, applicators, constructors and suppliers who are not Chartered
Professional Engineers. This guide does not cover these alternative types of producer statements.
The introduction of the Certificate of Design Work does not change the status of the producer statement.
Most BCAs continue to rely upon the producer statement, for both RBW and non-RBW, to assist them
in determining compliance with the Building Code when granting building consents or issuing code
compliance certificates. In respect of RBW where there is specific engineering design input, a producer
statement should always accompany the Certificate of Design Work. Where a producer statement has
been used to demonstrate Building Code compliance, it should be cited in the “reference column” of the
Certificate of Design Work and a copy attached.
Further information can be found in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s “Guidance
on the use of Certificates of Work, Producer Statements, and Design Features Reports by Chartered
Professional Engineers under the new Restricted Building Work regime”.
Regardless of the information provided by a producer statement author, the BCA typically remains
responsible for deciding if it is satisfied on reasonable grounds that any building work complies with the
Building Act, the Building Code and approved building consent. This concept is altered by Risk Based
Consenting.
As outlined in this guide, producer statements have no statutory status under the Act and hence are
not mandatory. However a BCA can decide whether to accept a producer statement. If it does accept
one, it may choose to what extent it will rely upon it. A BCA should not rely on the issuing of a producer
statement as the only means of establishing code compliance, whether this is a PS1 or a PS4.
A BCA can reasonably request a PS1 Producer Statement to accompany an application for building consent.
However if the consent applicant doesn’t want to or isn’t able to provide this, then the BCA must consider
other options for establishing code compliance (e.g. engage it’s own engineer to undertake a review).
A BCA may reasonably request a PS2 Producer Statement to accompany an independent Design
Review, if it is to accept that review. A BCA may also reasonably request a PS4 Producer Statement
for Construction Review of specifically designed elements and some will seek to make it a condition
of granting a consent. A BCA cannot refuse to issue a building consent or code compliance certificate
simply because it cannot be provided with a producer statement. In this situation the BCA will need to
assess compliance in another way (e.g. engage it’s own engineer to undertake a review or inspection).
The PS2 should reference a full register of the detailed design documentation and should be
accompanied by a review report. This would include an outline of the review scope, any supplementary
calculations undertaken and test results if applicable, and any modifications to the design as agreed
with the primary designer. A log of queries raised and responses given should also be included. This
information should be provided to the BCA.
The Producer Statement – PS4 – Construction Review shall include reference to the Building Consent
Number (and subsequent amendments). It should include, as attachments, inspection records, including
instructions given during the construction phase and any drawings amended during construction.
7. Essential Content of
Producer Statements
The information that should be included on a producer statement falls under four broad headings:
(a) Information about the author
(b) Information about the building work to which the producer statement refers
(c) Information about compliance of building work
(d) Information to assist the BCA or local authority determine the extent of reliance to place on
a producer statement.
Because producer statements are not provided for in the Building Act 2004, information about
professional indemnity insurance on producer statements is not a legislative requirement (either Building
Act 2004 or BCA accreditation regulations). As such the level of insurance cover should have no direct
relevance to the statutory decision to determine compliance with the Building Code or approved building
consent.
BCAs should adopt reasonable policies that do not require producer statement authors to hold
unreasonably high levels of insurance cover, except for complicated projects with a very high value. For
the majority of building projects, it is considered reasonable to accept the standard level of professional
insurance cover held by most Chartered Professional Engineers, such as that specified by IPENZ and
ACENZ.
Even more important is the way BCAs use any insurance information in their decision making. BCAs must
assess applications to determine whether they are satisfied on reasonable grounds that the Building
Code and Building Act requirements will be met. Any insurance details of producer statement author’s
company are not directly relevant to this assessment. Relevant details on producer statements, for the
purposes of assessing compliance, relate to the building work specifications and information about the
skills and experience of the producer statement’s author. A BCA should not refuse to assess or grant
a building consent application simply because it is not satisfied with the insurance cover held by the
Producer Statement author. Some BCAs have policies on minimum levels of insurance required to be
carried by the producer statement author’s company, while others do not. However minimum levels of
insurance to be held are not prescribed in the Act or in regulations.
ISSUED BY:...........................................................................................................................................................................
(Design Firm)
TO:………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………
(Owner/Developer)
TO BE SUPPLIED TO:…………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………
(Building Consent Authority)
IN RESPECT OF:……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
(Description of Building Work)
AT:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………..
(Address)
……………………………..……………………………… LOT…………………… DP ………..………… SO …………….
We have been engaged by the owner/developer referred to above to provide ………………………………………
………………….……………………………………………………..… services in respect of the requirements of
(Extent of Engagement)
Clause(s) ……………………………………………………………………………..of the Building Code for
All or Part only (as specified in the attachment to this statement), of the proposed building work.
The proposed building work covered by this producer statement is described on the drawings titled ………………………..
I believe on reasonable grounds that a) the building, if constructed in accordance with the drawings, specifications, and
other documents provided or listed in the attached schedule, will comply with the relevant provisions of the Building Code
and that b), the persons who have undertaken the design have the necessary competency to do so. I also recommend
the following level of construction monitoring/observation:
CM1 CM2 CM3 CM4 CM5 (Engineering Categories) or as per agreement with owner/developer (Architectural)
Date……..……………...………...…… (signature)…………………………..…...……..……………………………….………..…
Note: This statement shall only be relied upon by the Building Consent Authority named above. Liability under this statement accrues to the
Design Firm only. The total maximum amount of damages payable arising from this statement and all other statements provided to the Building
Consent Authority in relation to this building work, whether in contract, tort or otherwise (including negligence), is limited to the sum of
$200,000*.
This form is to accompany Form 2 of the Building (Forms) Regulations 2004 for the application of a Building Consent.
THIS FORM AND ITS CONDITIONS ARE COPYRIGHT TO ACENZ, IPENZ AND NZIA
On behalf of the firm undertaking this review, on the basis of the review undertaken, and subject to:
I believe on reasonable grounds that a) the building, if constructed in accordance with the drawings, specifications, and
other documents provided or listed in the attached schedule, will comply with the relevant provisions of the Building
Code, and that b), the persons who have undertaken the review have the necessary competency to do so.
This form is to accompany Forms 2 of the Building (Forms) Regulations 2004 for the application of a Building
Consent.
THIS FORM AND ITS CONDITIONS ARE COPYRIGHT TO ACENZ, IPENZ AND NZIA
PRODUCER STATEMENT PS2 October 2013
AT: ……………………………………………………………………………..…………………..…..………………………………..
(Address)
…………….…………..……………………………………… LOT……………………………… DP …………… SO …..………...
or other ………………………………………..……………………………………………………………………………..services
(Extent of Engagement)
in respect of clause(s) ..……………………..……………………...…. of the Building Code for the building work described in
or by the attached Schedule have been issued during the course of the works.
On by the basis of this these review(s) and information supplied by the contractor during the course of the works
and on behalf of the firm undertaking this Construction Review, I believe on reasonable grounds that All Part
only of the building works have been completed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Consent
and Building Consent Amendments identified above, with respect to Clause(s) ………..……..……….of the Building Code.
I also believe on reasonable grounds that the persons who have undertaken this construction review have the necessary
competency to do so.
The Construction Review Firm issuing this statement holds a current policy of Professional Indemnity Insurance no less
than $200,000*.
The Construction Review Firm is a member of ACENZ :
Complaints Processes
There are established processes for filing complaints against Chartered Professional Engineers,
particularly for working outside of practice area or competence level and for breaches of their code of
ethics. BCAs are well placed to observe the work of Chartered Professional Engineers. BCAs can and
should play an important role by reporting to the relevant Registration Authority incompetent practice or
unethical behaviour.
Information for lodging complaints about Chartered Professional Engineers is on the IPENZ website.
10078