Building Safety Act Competence vs a Training Matrix

Keep two different questions visible

Competence assessments ask whether a person or organisation can perform a defined function safely and effectively, considering skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours. A training matrix asks whether assigned courses, cards and dates are recorded and current. Both matter; they are not interchangeable. When project teams request “BSA competence evidence”, clarify whether they want organisational arrangements, individual assessments, gateway documentation, or simply up-to-date training records for the attending workforce.

What still belongs in the matrix

• Assigned statutory or company training requirements for site roles
• Card and certificate expiries with attached evidence
• Role titles aligned to how people are actually deployed
• Gaps and renewals owned by a named coordinator
• Links or references to separate competence-assessment documents—without duplicating their conclusions as fake matrix scores
• Induction and project briefing acknowledgements where you track them as requirements
• Clear not-required markers for people outside higher-risk scopes

Workflow when a higher-risk project asks for both

Coordinate early so competence paperwork and training extracts do not contradict each other on names, roles or dates.

1. Identify which roles on the project fall under enhanced competence expectations in your process.
2. Confirm which training requirements those roles still carry in the matrix.
3. Locate the separate competence assessments or organisational statements owned by competent persons.
4. Produce a named training extract for mobilisation and keep it versioned.
5. Review both sets of documents when people or scopes change.
6. Brief commercial and site teams not to describe matrix RAG as a competence verdict.

Operational guidance that reduces muddle

Do not create a matrix column called “BSA competent” with yes/no ticks unless your controlled process truly defines that field and who may set it. Prefer linking to the assessment record held in the document control system. Training administrators should not be asked to invent competence ratings from course attendance alone. Conversely, competence assessors should not ignore expired safety-critical cards when recommending someone for site attendance—raise the training gap through the normal renewal route.

For supply-chain partners, request their competence arrangements and their training extracts as separate submissions. A principal contractor consolidating evidence should label sources clearly. When golden-thread or handover information references training, point to controlled records rather than embedding stale spreadsheets in uncontrolled email chains. Revisit assignments whenever design responsibility, principal contractor appointments or occupancy assumptions change.

FieldClear boundary

FieldClear tracks assigned training requirements only. It does not assess Building Safety Act dutyholder competence, approve gateway submissions, or guarantee regulatory compliance. This guide is operational information, not legal advice. Seek competent building-safety and legal advice for your projects.