Works manager vs coordinator for execution: the centrality of the construction site monitoring action

The legislation as a compass essential to face the construction site

The legislation is the undisputed “queen” of our professional knowledge: She guides us and we have to guide you to find the most suitable and correct solutions to manage and solve what we do not want to define problems but themes, and that promptly in our business are there.

THE principles who guide the activity of these professional figures – which mainly carry out an intellectual performance and therefore regulated by an obligation of means – they are ancientbecause as regards the works manager they even date back to the late 19th century (L. 2248/1895 and in particular the RD 350/1895), and therefore all in all consolidated and metabolized; Different thing for the coordinator for the execution whose institution is quite modern (we are talking about the year 1994).

The two figures for most of the 90s went hand in handin the sense that Very often the two roles were covered by the same person. Then the quantitative limits on the races, the proliferation of certifications/qualifications, etc., have meant that more and more often, especially in the contracts of different economic entity, we find Two distinct subjectsand this from a certain point of view complicates the administrative action.

Let me explain better: if first a person covering both roles undertook an action, all in all he did not worry with what “dressed” did it, because it was to be implemented and was implemented without having to spend time to understand if it was a competence of the works manager or the coordinator for the execution. Being both high specialization profiles they certainly knew it but they did not focus on thinking about it too much, to codify the action, because There was no risk of interference and to bring non -their own responsibilitiesanalysis that must be carried out when the skills are split.

The risks of overlap: distinct roles but shared responsibilities

I read these days of the security jurisprudenceand The Legislative Decree 81/08 never appoints the works managerwhich instead at the time of the accident determined on it and therefore criminal responsibilities, and consequently many even civil cases. Therefore, have clear the border between these figures It is very important. Much easier to say than to do, and the jurisprudence just mentioned is a confirmation, but Some fixed points are there And therefore we must make them be enough and try as much as possible to confront and remain adherent to them.

In particular, on topics such as regularity of work and subcontracting, The concept of security has dilated and The boundaries of competence among these figures have approached very muchsometimes tending to overlap and complicate the identification of what one must do one and the other, and above all with what tools.

This is the painful note, because – if it is true that the norm is mandatory and indicates us perfectly in terms of principle and address what to do – on the other hand it does not indicate us with the same precision with which tools to achieve the goal, and therefore in some cases it is necessary (pass me the term perhaps improper) improvise.

Improvise in the sense of build tools – that they are spreadsheets, models, minutes, etc. – that allow us to translate the regulatory fulfillment into a traced documentary action: This is what you need in most cases. The timely operational prescription, for obvious reasons, is identified only at the time of the specific case, but the methodology of approach and management can be preparatoryly coded, as happens for example, (I do an example) with the non -compliance management procedure.

Communication as added value: technicians, referees and stakeholders

But we return for a moment on the two figures and identify the pre -eminent characters: they are not only of the referees who move on a field (the contract, from which the construction site), trying to put together and find a meeting point in the instances of the client/contracting authority and the contractor, but today also stakeholders, That is, all those figures, people, entities, etc., who can be touched, involved, by the contract process.

This activity already presents itself very complex, because beyond the technical fact there is the relational aspect that plays a very important role. Covid experience also taught us, or perhaps it is better to say, remember, how much we are relation And what happens to us when this is missing. The appearance of communication It is really today the true added value that even a technician can bring to his profession, and that he materializes in tangible results in the execution of the work. And when I say tangible I refer to respect for times, quality and costs and in any case when completing a public work that has a high social value.

The latter reflection underlies the whole spirit of the new rule or of Legislative Decree 36/23 which has focused a lot on the part of the principles. Two above all: Result and trust. How do we translate this focus on the relationship aspect? With two terms: “Effective communication” And “Impact communication“. The works manager and the coordinator for execution is required to be Excellent communicatorsas well as of the technical vouchers.

Works manager: the regulatory framework of Legislative Decree 36/23

What are the main regulatory references, today in Legislative Decree 36/23, which define us the role of the works manager?

Art. 114, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 6, of Legislative Decree 36/23 – “Management of the works and execution of contracts”
The field of action is very clear and reported in paragraph 3: “in charge of the technical, accounting and administrative control of the execution of the intervention … to carry out the work in a workmanlike manner and in accordance with the project and the contract“

Art. 1, of Annex II.14, of Legislative Decree 36/23 – “Activities and tasks of the works manager”
It is a summary article (and this is its value) which, in summary, also syntactic, reports the main obligations against the works manager. Many of these have been known for some time, others result of the evolution of the times, especially on subcontracting and environment, but above all they are almost all together in a single point, which facilitates the reading and understanding of the general framework. The field of action also in this article is very well represented in paragraph 1: “… the works manager operates in full autonomy … evaluating and taking care of the technical, accounting and administrative profiles in the exclusive interest in the efficient and urged execution of the intervention.”

Coordinator for execution: skills and limits in Legislative Decree 81/08

What are the main regulatory references, in Legislative Decree 81/08, which define us the role of the coordinator for the execution?

Art. 92 of Legislative Decree 81/08 – “Coordinator obligations for the execution of the works”
Also in this case paragraph 1, letter a), it seems to me that the general task paints quite well: “verifies, with appropriate coordination and control actions, the application, by the executive companies and self -employed workers, of the relevant provisions contained in the safety and coordination plan referred to in Article 100where expected, and the correct application of the related work procedures“.

Here, in the following two points of art. 1, paragraph 2, letters h) and m), of Annex II.14, of Legislative Decree 36/23, that I see the greater critical issues of overlapping and interference Between the two figures:
“2. The following tasks are attributed to the works manager:
h) periodically check possession and regularity, by the executor and subcontractor, of the documentation provided for by the laws in force regarding obligations against employees;
…
m) verify, also with the help of the Management Office, the presence in the construction site of the authorized subcontracting companies, as well as the subcontractors, ascertaining the actual performance of the part of services entrusted to them in compliance with the current legislation and of the contract stipulated, recording the relative and any disputes of the executor on the regularity of the works carried out in a subcontract providing, in this case, to report it to the RUP “.

A principle above all to settle the question can only be of a general nature, that is Stay on different regulatory plans. For example, in terms of subcontracting and regularity of the work The works manager must be maintained more on an administrative planverifying the documentation relating to that aspect (qualification, subcontracting limits, services adhering to the contract, DURC, etc.), while The coordinator will have to move more on the level of safety and therefore the verification of the work procedures (PSC and POS) and the regularity of attendance on site.

All until when? Until a judge in a judgment is expressed in different termsas I revealed at the opening of the article. Because basically and finally as someone said “of Di Di there is no certainty”.