High-Rise Safety-Case Platform Director — Occupied Buildings

The mandate

The operator’s building evidence sits across drawings, surveys, fire strategies, inspections, resident reports, remediation projects and contractor systems. Teams can assemble safety cases for individual submissions, but cannot consistently show which configuration and controls remain effective after occupied-building change. Leadership needs a governed operating platform, not a document repository that mistakes uploaded evidence for managed safety.

The deliverable is a High-Rise Safety-Case Platform Blueprint for six representative buildings, covering asset and space identity, configuration, hazard, control, evidence, responsible person, issue, remediation, resident communication and effective version. It will include reference safety threads, change governance, supplier obligations and a scale model while preserving professional and statutory decision rights.

Milestone one at week four supplies building journeys, evidence gaps and consequence ranking. Week nine concludes milestone two with information model, contracts and operating design. At week sixteen, milestone three delivers six reference threads and change exercises. The accepted blueprint, migration sequence, supplier schedules and internal qualification playbook form milestone four at week twenty-two.

Acceptance requires building-safety professionals to reconstruct twelve unseen control decisions from configuration through current evidence; a building change must update affected hazards and resident information correctly; and Internal Audit must reperform sampled provenance. The chief safety officer signs only after internal owners run a contractor-withdrawal and urgent-remediation scenario without consultant assistance.

The client will provide building records, safety cases, surveys, inspection, incident and remediation histories, resident communications, contractor terms and regulatory correspondence. Fire, structural and asset professionals will join tests; client engineers implement references. Authorised professionals retain technical judgement and submission approval, while the safety chief resolves evidence ownership within three working days.

Why this is external work

Asset teams, specialists and contractors each maintain valid fragments, while platform suppliers promote central document control. No internal team can independently define the thread from changing building configuration to accountable safety action across occupied assets. External work provides information and operating discipline without purporting to author or certify the safety case itself.

What you will own

• Map building, space, system, element, hazard, control, evidence, inspection, issue and remediation through effective configuration.
• Define authoritative source, professional status, version, applicability, approval, correction and retention for each evidence class.
• Design change impact so alteration, defect or remediation identifies affected controls, decisions and resident communication.
• Exercise missing contractor record, conflicting survey, urgent defect, changed compartmentation and unavailable specialist scenarios.
• Establish supplier contracts for evidence format, provenance, handover, correction, access, retention and orderly exit.
• Compare platform options through professional usability, auditability, resident service, integration, security and lifecycle cost.
• Transfer qualification, change and periodic safety-thread review to permanent building and information owners.

Candidate qualifications

• Led building-safety, asset-information or safety-case platforms across occupied high-rise or complex regulated property portfolios with accountable-person scrutiny.
• Connected changing physical configuration to hazard, control, inspection and remediation evidence at the effective time of occupation.
• Governed fire and structural professional evidence without allowing document workflow status to impersonate technical or statutory approval.
• Designed contractor handover and exit controls for long-lived building safety information, incomplete surveys and disputed asset identity.
• Ran change-impact exercises involving occupied buildings, urgent defects, resident communication and temporary compensating measures.
• Delivered vendor-neutral architecture that internal safety and information teams successfully qualified after engagement closure.

Non-negotiables

• The named director must lead London building observation and safety-thread exercises across representative occupied assets.
• No commercial attachment may exist with safety-case, BIM, common-data or remediation-platform suppliers evaluated.
• Statutory, fire, structural and building-safety decisions remain with authorised client professionals.
• Resident and protected building evidence must remain within approved use, access and retention boundaries.

1. 49 words maximum. Describe a building change that invalidated part of an apparently complete safety evidence set.
2. 49 words maximum. How would you distinguish document approval from current professional applicability in an occupied building?
3. 49 words maximum. Which client evidence is needed before testing a contractor-withdrawal safety-case scenario?