Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Tony Murphy
I recently started as a Safety Advisor working for a company that has been appointed as Principal Contractor on a refurb project.
The work is to take place on a live Hotel, with issues regarding Asbestos Removal, and a management Company has been appointed to liaise with the client. All decisions that have cost implications must be sanctioned by the Management Company, which has an effect on our/my ability to effectively manage safety on site. In particular, welfare facilities cannot be set up until the costs have been agreed.The Planning Supervisor has audited the site and slated our/my competence to act as Principal Contractor. He based his observations on a prompting from the Management Company.
Do I/We have powers to overide the Management Company. They are a nightmare to deal with and the Liaison Manager is unable to make decisions
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By holyterror72
It sounds like a good time to 'down tools' to me.
You mention a Planning Supervisor but has CDM been applied to this project?
Who approved the construction phase health and safety plan and what was in it if there is no welfare. It all sounds a bit of a mess.
Ultimately if you cant carry something safely you shouldn't do it. And you dont mess about with asbestos.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Tony
Simple answer is no welfare - no project start. At the same time get your QS to write to the client entering a letter of claim for delay of the works. It is often remarkable how clients faced with additional costs are able to take control.
As far as the management organisation is concerned if their role is set out in your contract then you are stuck with them, if they are not then again the QS can have a field day with claims for delay and extra cost. - I am not sure who you mean by Liaison Manager though.
It really is a shame that you are stuck with these arrangements as the 2007 CDM revisions could have been potentially useful. But even now I fail to understand why the PS is auditing your site - again if this was not mentioned in the contract you have every right to exclude him from these actions - they are not part of the PS, or new CDM-C role. Drop me a line if you need a more detailed conversation.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Crim
Hi Tony,
I've been there myself and got all the T shirts.
Who appointed the management company?
Who appointed your company as P Contractor?
If the Client, then you should be working together not against as appears to be the case.
The areas where asbestos is to be removed will be handed over to the specialist contactor who will take control over all asbestos removal. Once that work is completed the areas will be handed back to the PC.
I would suggest that, if possible, all asbestos removal work should take place before the P C takes over for the rest of the work.
If not then the P C will have total control of all areas.
P C is responsible for the site and can over rule the management company. The P C can even prevent the management company from entering the site.
The Planning Supervisor has a responsibility to advise the Client re the P C's competence. He is only doing his job but that's as far as he/she can go unless you enter into some mutually arranged discussion, i.e. contract meetings which should be happening anyway.
It all sounds messy to me but just make sure you have everything in the correct order before starting, yes welfare should be sorted from day one (or earlier).
You could advise the Client as to their responsibilities re CDM, as well as Robert's suggested letter regarding delay payments.
Good luck
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Crim
I think that the regulations are not about the PS assessing competency once the contract is awarded, although it is about advising the client pre-award of contract. Of course by April 2008 all parties involved will have to again demonstrate competence under the new regulations, including the current PS - Might be interesting if the contractor was to suggest to the client post April 6th 2007 that the competency of the other parties might be in doubt.
I think that the HSE in their consultative document on competence management systems last January 2006 made a useful point that Behaviour and Attitude were essentials of competence though this tends to be overlooked. Is an organisation competent who habitually causes issues with regard to health and safety providsion to arise, ie if the management company prevents adequate welfare provision because of financial haggling are they competent under the relevant provision wrt Health and Safety?
Of course the friendly HSE inspectors in some areas do like to become involved in these discussions. But they may then start deep discussions concerning the asbestos issues and the contractor will need all the ducks in a row to answer the questions. This raises then comments over the depth of the asbestos survey, type 2 or type 3 done. This again leads to PS competency issues. All good fun for the lawyers and politicians - a bit like student union politics!
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Crim
Hi Bob,
You make some very good points but this thread is quite messy as I think the management company are interfering and should allow the P C to get on with their job.
Tony is asking for some guidance and I gave my response based on the facts he gave.
I have had experience of refitting a "live hotel" and accidents did happen, and a sub contractor was prosecuted, hence the "T" shirt etc.
We are not informed of start date for this project. Perhaps if it was delayed until after 6/4/07 Tony would then have a stronger case for his managing safety on site?
I wonder if you would comment on the Civil Liability exemption being removed from CDM 07?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tony Murphy
Thanks guys
I did indeed go one better. I spoke to the HSE.
The truth of the matter lay more in the political wranglings than any negigence( Isnt that often the case?)
What transpires is that the "reasonably practicable" scenario has been adopted by all and we now seem to moving forward. I am still very angry that the Planning Supervisor used very emotive words such as "prison sentence" in his summary of what we should be providing in terms of welfare. In all honesty it is one of the best managed sites I have been on but due to the politics it looks as if we are building in Beirut.
As for asking for QS support I am of a mind that it woul exacerbate the problem.
Thanks again
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By tony blunn
Tony
Thanks for the complement about the site.
Still got a long way to go but I am convinced we will get there safely
Cheers
Tony Blunn
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tony Murphy
Well Tony
Nice to see your on line.
Without going into too much detail there is a major leak on the 2nd floor which we pointed out to Adam on Friday. It doesnt look good.
See you Monday
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.