The Australian Institute of Building Surveyors has questioned a Cladding Safety Victoria report that blamed the profession and other construction practitioners for the state’s cladding crisis.

The institute says the government agency’s report “makes observations [about surveyors] that are out of date”, noting its members have “lifted their game considerably”.

“It is difficult not to take exception to the CSV report,” the institute said. “Indeed, members are asking who commissioned the report and why it was released now.

“There is no cause for members to be alarmed about the CSV report in the current context, which, in the main, makes observations that are out of date. It is disappointing to receive the CSV report at a time when the vast majority of the concerns raised regarding building surveyors have been actioned and remedied some years ago with the ongoing support of AIBS.”

CSV released the report after reviewing more than 800 apartment blocks. The report says “substandard” documentation and “widespread misapplication” of regulations contributed to the use of non-compliant cladding materials on residential buildings.

“Documentation reviewed by CSV demonstrates that responsibility for the specification of dangerous cladding is shared between consultants and building surveyors and is widespread across each discipline,” the report said.

“CSV’s findings confirm that in a large number of cases, substandard building design documentation contributed to the installation of combustible cladding on residential apartment buildings, necessitating state intervention.”

The agency flagged several compliance failures among the various professionals and “a considerable need” to work on issues identified in the report.

The AIBS says government agencies should have been included in the report because they “must share the accountability for the cladding situation that arose despite the fact that it was their responsibility to carry out auditing over a very long period of time”.

It says the report shows reforms it has been pressing for are urgently needed. Issues the peak body has raised include lack of accountability and oversight of project managers, and problems concerning design and construct procurement methods.

“It is regrettable that while AIBS members have lifted their game considerably, and despite advocating by some sectors of industry, government agencies continue to allow the design and construct procurement practices to continue unrestricted and unchecked, paired with attempts to bully the [relevant building surveyor] into making decisions they may not be comfortable with, unregulated and unregistered project managers, as well as the use of consultancy agreements which support the notion of conflict of interest and are in breach of the [Building] Act.”