Print Page   |   Contact Us   |   Sign In   |   Register
News & Press: Announcements

SACAP: Identification of Work (IDoW) Interim Rule - Board Notice 10 of 2016

03 February 2016   (12 Comments)
Posted by: Jacquie Cullis
Share |

BOARD NOTICE 10 2016

SOUTH AFRICAN COUNCIL FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION

INTERIM RULE ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF WORK FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION

In terms of section 36 (1) and (3) of the Architectural Profession Act, 2000 (Act No. 44 of 2000), Notice is hereby given that the South African Council for the Architectural Profession (SACAP) has made the rules as set out hereunder.

PREAMBLE

The purpose of these rules are to regulate the type of work which may be performed by persons registered in any of the categories referred to in section 18 of the Act.

1.     Definitions

In these rules any word or expression to which a meaning has been assigned in the Act shall bear the same meaning, and unless the context otherwise indicates –

"
Code of Professional Conduct" means the code published in Board Notice 154 of 2009.

Act” means the Architectural Profession Act, 2000 (Act No. 44 of 2000)

“Categories of Registration” means the categories in which a person
is registered with SACAP in the architectural profession in terms of section 18 (1) of the Act.

2.     The Interim Identification of Work (IDoW) Interim Policy -  Board Notice 154 of 2011 (Part 1 of 2, Part 2 of 2), has been withdrawn by way of Board Notice 258 of 2015 at the instance of the Council for the Built Environment (“CBE”) and the Competition Commission, given the fact that neither of these organisations had approved such.

The new IDoW Policy is due to be adopted by Council after a public participation process has been duly completed. Thereafter, the new IDoW will be provided to both the Competition Commission and Council for the Built Environment for approval in terms of Section 26 of the Architectural Profession Act which must be read together with Section 20 and 4(q) of the CBE Act.

However, while a new IDoW is under consideration, the Principle of the demarcation of work regulation, which is in accordance with - qualifications, skills, experience and competencies, is applicable and serves as a regulatory guide within the architectural profession. 

Therefore, a Registered Person (Professional) undertaking work for a client, shall do so in compliance with Rule 2.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct.

This means that registered persons may only perform such work as they are professionally qualified and competent to undertake.

Please click on the following hyperlinks to access the Board Notices :

IDoW - Withdrawal Interim Rule of IDoW - BN 10 of 2016
IDoW - Withdrawal of Interim IDoW Interim Policy, BN 154 of 2011, Part 1 of 2, Part 2 of 2. BN 259 of 2015



Comments...

Stephanus J. Bronkhorst says...
Posted 05 May 2016
their disposal. On another note. Does anyone know what SACAP’s yearly turnover is and what they are using our registration fees for? (((Please forgive me for posting over 3 comments)))
Stephanus J. Bronkhorst says...
Posted 05 May 2016
adequate fire protection, parking, office with paraplegic toilet etc. This is not Rocket Science and the Structural Engineer is going to voice what size steel members and bracing and footings etc? And don’t even get me started with the SANS 204 calculations. Local councils just glance at them and they do not even try to see if they are correct/comply… Any NQF level 3 person should be able to do them with half a day’s training. SDP’s are another thorn in many a Draughtspersons side. You will not believe the “basic” incompetence/mistakes I have seen on experienced architects plans. It is astounding. As Mr. Opperman and the rest said. There are bad apples on all levels, keep in mind that even good “architects” can make mistakes. I think that if more Architects would make time for Draughtspersons that are trying to build their own empire, under quoting would not be such a big issue and said Architect will need less permanent staff as he/she would have many “freelance” Draughtspersons at t
Stephanus J. Bronkhorst says...
Posted 05 May 2016
Herbert, you make it sound as if a “Draughtsperson” is responsible for the collapse of the house in Meyersdal? Who is to say it was not an Architect with 20 years of experience that managed that project? Where is the structural engineer or do Architects sign off on structural designs? You and Mr. Van Zyl have a very good point, but it is flawed. I agree full-heartedly with you that there are many projects that a Draughtsperson should not be doing and should only be allocated to Architects, but most of the SACAP restrictions are ridicules in my opinion. A draughtsperson may “design” a house, but if said house is to be used as a small school. Then all of a sudden a Draughtsperson may not “sign off” on said “house/school”. Yes, there are changes with parking and restrooms etc. But it is not Rocket Science. Same goes for a warehouse (portal frame), it’s a square/rectangle box that any structural Draughty can draw. If it is a 12x15m or a 12x200m… It’s the same thing. Yes, make sure there’s
Herbert Bogusch says...
Posted 21 April 2016
I read this comments with very much interest. In advance, sorry for my bad English, I am a German. Firstly: I like to say Mr. Francois Van Zyl say the truth. It is much worse in the construction industry in SA. Beginning with a registration of daughtpersons. A draughtperson is and remains a draughtperson and also experience modify nothing. You can call then profession architectural or not the knowledge about what going on in building is the non plus ultra. What is NQF 5 (Low professional competence) if a draughtperson have it. The course for draughtpersons with INTEC College give no NQF but they will be registered with NQF 5 from SACAP?! In the IDoW draft stay the Daughtperson can make plans for "Low risk indusrial and simple single story dwellings", how, we playing with peoples life!!!! See Meyersdal incident in 2014. Seven construction workers death and 9 injured. Who knows the formula "Eula Buckling" and cancalculate the dimension of Columns? Is follows second in the next comment.
Charl Opperman says...
Posted 10 March 2016
I am of the opinion that you attract a certain type of client according to the standard of your previous work. I'm sure many would agree that most of the work we receive in this industry comes from word of mouth. If a certain client approaches me to design a new house / renovation / addition for them because they liked what I did on another project/s, I would like to assume that I fully deserve the work? No right minded person would choose a builder to build your dream house before looking at his previous work, so why would you do it with your architect/technologist/draughtsman? A major concern to me is that SACAP does not take experience in the profession into account AT ALL when writing the new IDOW. As an example: Is a technologist with 2 years experience a better choice than a draughtsman with 15 years experience...? There are good and bad professionals in all 4 categories, and I just hope that common sense prevails with this process.
Nicola Anne Pollard says...
Posted 10 February 2016
Francois Van Zyl I gather from your comment that you are one of the good Architects. You Pay you staff a decent salary, You don't retrench your technologists and draftsman as soon as times are tough, only to employ a cheaper less experienced person as soon as you can. Your Technologists are expected to do everything whilst you sit at the coffee shop having breakfast. When you neglect to invoice your clients you still pay your staff. Unfortunately this is not always the case.
Francois Bosman says...
Posted 09 February 2016
Francois, I really think you should refrain from attacking only a certain category of registration. Unfortunately I have seen many plan applications by architects which are a shameful representation of the quality we want to achieve in the practice. There are problem cases in all the categories of registration which need to be addressed. Many a architect has left the city life to play top dog in the country side without delivering top dog quality work. I have said it in the past. You can not expect the draughtsman and the technologist to study to do a job and then tell him he can only apply 40 or 60% of his knowledge. A Lot of the work claimed by the architects in the IDoW can be done by all categories. We all need each other in the industry. Maybe we should just show that we are professionals and that we can treat each another as such. The fly by nights will always be there in all categories. Your quality of service will put you above them.
Julian V. Smith says...
Posted 08 February 2016
Francois, for a moment there it seemed like you have never submitted a more competitive fee proposal. The issue here is not necessarily fees, or misrepresentation. The issue is that SACAP was brought into being as a mechanism to protect the public and regulate the architectural profession, needing to have documents and regulations in place in order to satisfy their core mandate. To put it into context, so most of us could relate, what has been done here is not dissimilar to issuing contract instructions without consulting the quantity surveyor on costs and getting the clients' approval therein before the fact.
Francois Van Zyl says...
Posted 07 February 2016
We need to face it....the architectural profession has become like the building profession....if you have a wheelbarrow, you can build. Every semi-engineering tech\draughtsman is a wannabee architect, who will undercut the fees and will win contracts, because design does not matter to clients on certain jobs. In small towns all work is valuable, so the industry is flooded with these 'architects'...they even call themselves architects on the construction boards.
Mahuntsi A. Mbiza says...
Posted 04 February 2016
The Interim iDow Policy that was published by way BN 154 of 2011 took since the inception of Sacap[2005/2006] to 2011 to formulate.The one which was to replace it took since 2011/2012 to 2015 to formulate.To give the impression that a new IDoW Policy will be adopted after the Public Participation Process to be held on the 10th of March 2016 [BN 10 of 2016] is a bit rich.Those of who have been following the affairs of SACAP knows that this not going to happen anytime soon.We are looking at a minimum of 2 to 3 yaers before anything can be put to paper.By that time the term of the current BOARD will have expired.Then there will be more delays in appointing/electing a new board. And there's a small matter of getting it to the CBE and the Competition Commision for their perusal.These two institutions are Government Entities.They are not sitting and waiting for SACAP to get its act together.They work at their own pace.THE BOTTOM LINE is we are in for a long and CONFUSING wait.
Julian V. Smith says...
Posted 04 February 2016
I don't understand how a statutory body withdraws a recognized document before having an accepted replacement ready to put in its place, it seems somewhat disorganized to say the least. Also, I've contacted SACAP using the online facility (18/01/2016) and on twitter (24/01/2016) regarding this, but it seems public participation and public interest does not carry much weight, neither does communicating with a paid up member. This won't be the first time SACAP has neglected to respond to communications as is required by their mandate...
Mahuntsi A. Mbiza says...
Posted 03 February 2016
In plain English,it translate into: There is no published document governing Registered Professionals with what work they can or cannot do.Which as well,because this whole thing of Idow is anti-compitative and will NOT pass the Competition Commission test.