Rank: Forum user
|
Morning all
Looking for a bit of advice and guidance here...
We are a private sector office based business occupying several floors of a multi tenant building. We use a range of contractors for maintenance and engineering tasks and currently send out a standard questionnaire prior to appointment based on the competency criteria set out in the Appendices to the CDM ACoP. This is then reviewed by the relevant facilities manager and the health and safety team to ensure the contractor meets our safety expectations.
I have been researching into SSIP schemes as a way of reducing the bureacracy involved with this. What are people's general experience with such schemes? My initial thoughts are that if contractors are registered with an SSIP approved body, e.g. CHAS, then this is sufficient for a stage 1 assessment and we don't need to send our own questionnaire, just ensure that they carry out job specific risk assessments prior to the works. Are such schemes only relevant to the construction industry?
On the other hand, we have recently received positive feedback from our enforcing authority regarding our management of contractor's, so I have some reluctance whether to change the system.
I know there are lots of CHAS threads out there, and I have searched through these too.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I'm sure you will get some input from CHAS in the very near future, but i will say isn't that why CHAS and the other similar organisations exist?
Why does a contractor sign up to CHAS and pay good money? It's so that companies like yours can apply to CHAS and receive full comprehensive information about the contractor's safety procedures.
If it works don't fix it.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
As a Client/Employer you are deemed to know that CHAS, and similar, do NOT check the veracity of information provised by contractors who are 'registered' with them.
So you need to ask yourself, what is the value of these schemes?
If you want to ensure that you only invite competent contractors, then YOU need to ensure that adequate/verifiable information is secured. The acclaimmed/exagerated "bureacracy" will pay dividends.
Finally, make sure that competent INDIVIDUALS are identified by contractors.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
this is something that I am faced with at the moment, our business has signed up to Constructionline and wants all our subcontractors to do likewise but its really not that practical.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
We used to scrutinise everyone but we have now taken the view that any contractor (construction or otherwise) who has been vetted by a SSiP member will have satisfied our core H&S criteria so there is no need for another initial check to be done by our client officers. All contractors are, however, required to demonstrate they have up to date insurance policies etc and must provide job specific RA/MS's etc for the work in hand. So some client officer checking is still necessary. Contractors are also expected to follow our code of conduct for contractors, which establishes the basic ground rules for anyone working on our sites. This is given to them as part of the contractor appointment process. The newly adopted system may not be perfect and is evolving, but it does reduce the degree of paperwork and this is appreciated by our staff. I guess the true test is if/when our system is scrutinised by the courts/inspecting officers/auditors etc.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In my opinion it is not too difficult for any well organised contractor to obtain SSIP accreditation. I echo Chas, the schemes are generally fit for purpose and a good starting point in vetting contractors as long as you are aware what they actually do and do not do.
I partly agree with James321, contractors can if they wish bluff their way through, particularly in demonstrating their implementation but a lot of the information is looked at and difficult to fabricate.
If you are not going to use SSIP then you will end up repeating a lot of what these schemes do and in my experience you are not going to verify most of the information submitted by contractors anyway. This depending on the numbers could be a very long and bureaucratic process.
The issue with SSIP is that there is no external audit, unlike OHSAS 18001, that verifies what they say they are going to do with what they are actually doing. I away focus any further vetting on this. SSIP does however pin down contractors and if things do go wrong you can refer to want they have submitted.
I always consider the risks involved as to whether to just accept SSIP accreditation or take the vetting further and always obtain a digital copy of their RAMS.
I have also found SSIP is not particularly good for sole traders as they can struggle to provide meaningful information to pass.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
SSIP is about reducing bureaucracy - lots of it - for both clients and supply chains.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I support SSIP and other commercial schemes. BEWARE though that asbestos awareness training arrangements IS NOT a standard question within these schemes.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I agree with james123
after donkies years in the game in all kinds of sectors whilst good intentions abound the reality on the ground is that U and only U will have to ensure that people work properly as others do not and its only u that can end up with a problem - some of the various schemes out there are OK as a starting point only
and even where the HSE is toothless in many respects the law is not when it needs to be
best of luck
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
We currently accept SSIP to meet the old stage one assessment this is also complemented by using companies that are experienced in the works they undertake, this is by references, checks etc carried out by the commercial team along side the safety dept for the competence side. In addition to this at site level we have the usual safe system of work assessment, by the project team and checked by the visiting safety adviser plus we also record competence of individuals i.e. Asbestos awareness training ( try to avoid the on line training as this can be completed by anyone on the end of the keyboard) gas safe etc. It works well but does take commitment by the individuals and the company to maintain a system of this type but is always a plus point in our British Standard compliance audits.
Regards
PaulR
|
|
|
|
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.