Posted By Bob Youel

Hopefully the new regs will give more scope to somebody / company undertaking the coordinator role to manage this area

failed a job interview last year because the lead designer did not like my answers to CDM questions as I said that not all designers are competent in all areas so there should be room to consult/bring on board competent others - his view of competent others did not match mine

However buck passing / head in sand areas may still be around even with the new regs

Posted By I McDonald
MAK

First I would like to say I would not like to see this thread turn into an argument on the role of the PS.

With regard to your question, "Yes" you could leave yourself open to potential prosecution. The role of the PS is aimed at the documentation and design aspects of the regs as well as provision of advice to Clients "if requested!". Once the CPH&S Plan is sufficient for a start on site, further development has nothing to do with the PS.

I realise you may find this frustrating as I agree, most development of the CPH&S Plan is by way of RA/MS however; the PS should only be interested in this if it has design implications (i.e. strict adherence to a specified construction sequence, etc). The only other instance I can see when a PS should review and comment on RA/MS during the Construction Phase, is when the method of construction could have implications on maintenance/demolition/etc.

The main problems with the PS reviewing the information used during construction:

1 - what knowledge has the PS of the co-ordination of different tasks;
2 - what knowledge has the PS relating to future tasks due to commence on site;

The 2 examples are just to try to give a feel for the additional knowledge needed to allow the risks to be suitably controlled and coordinated. You don't get that knowledge from periodic visits to site.

In a previous employment, I under took the point of contact role for the PS duties for the consultancy I worked for at the time. I had the pleasure to meet one of the most professional PS I have ever worked with. 2 years ago, that guy went through interviews under caution, paperwork went to CPS to consider if it was in the public interest to prosecute him for his involvement in a failure of a safe system of work that lead to a fatality. The area concentrated on by the HSE during their investigation was the RA/MS for the task. Suitability had been questioned, the PC put his points across as to the reason for the specified work method. A revised safe system of work was agreed but failed.

I am glad to say he was not prosecuted but to quote his own words to me "wish I had sat in the designers office helping them to reduce risk earlier rather than trying to manage it on site".

The duties holders each have their own jobs to do. If they do those jobs, the principals of the regs work. When we interfere in each other duties, it has disastrous consequences (normally to the people on the ground and their families).

Ian

Posted By Ron Hunter
Your post reflects the routine practice of CDM being left to the Planning Supervisor to the manage. I think "new" CDM helps to clarify the required interaction of duty holders and Client role, however the reality remains that many Cleints will still lack understanding and competency in CDM/construction safety matters.
A couple of points:
1. If the issue to be addressed by the Principal Contractor arises from a residual significant risk arising from the Design, then you should at least check with the Designer that the PC's approach matches with his assumptions/expectations.
2. No-one can see the unforseeable. If a new risk arises or is discovered on-site there should be a method described within the pre-tender Plan as to how these 'new' risks are communicated back to Designers, Clients etc as appropriate - due diligence and all that.

Posted By MAK
Thank you all for your responses this is why this forum is of such interest to many, and I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Can I now ask if you have a major long-term project for which all known risks inherent to the design of course have been addressed as far as possible by the design team, if technically the inital 2-3 works of the project involves only the enabling works, do we not have a duty of care as H&S Practitioners to review subsequent packages for the works.

lets say for arguments sake the client contract expects a PS Scope based entirely on strict interpretation of the regs.

For example, the pretender plan and design package clearly details environmental aspects such as narrow turning areas, area defined for goods delivery, overhead powerlines etc, but the plant installation contractor does not acknoweldge previous written content and his submitted documents are forwarded on as accepted by the Prinicpal Contractor as sufficient. So we have the experience, we have first-hand knowledge of the site and programme, the contractor submits the docs which does not acknowledge key existing site aspects. the regs say we have no responsbility so what do we do?

Is any one of you of the opnion that the regs overlook a blind spot here and that the PS/CDM-C may be able to bring additional benefits to the H&S management of a project if assigned further responsibity.

This is of particular interest to me, as during my research, I have so far collated 75 responses out of 86 and so far, 59/75 responspendents answered YES to a question asking do they think the PS (under the current regs) should be given more responsibilities.

Posted By Raymond Rapp
MAK

Commenting on your original post, I think that far too many people opt for the easy 'scare' approach when quoting the law, most know very little about its working. I am no expert on the law either but I do not believe a jury would not convict someone for 'helping out' in the name of health and safety, even if they were not completely correct.

Only my opinion mind.

Ray