Rank: New forum user 
|
I have to implement a contractor performance evaluation/review procedure before the end of January 2013. I was wondering if anybody out there could offer me some advice or point me in the right direction. I would like to introduce a simple scoring system for Safety, Environment and Quality that would then aid the decision on whether the contractor would be engaged again or what actions they need to take to improve performance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi,
You are asking a fair bit as such a process can be complex.
I assume you want to follow a process similar to a pre-qualification assessment? If so I would have thought you would want to ensure basic compliance. If I'm right you would do well to ask for "acreditation" to CHAS or a similar scheme. Some contractor evaluation agencies are members of the Safety In Procurement Scheme although their evaluation of H&S is pretty limited, Construction Line is one example. Some organisations provide certificates of compliance to contractors but this can also be misleading. On Environment and quality why not as for the relevant BS/ISO standard?
I would sugggest you set a base line of essential criteria rather than a scoring system. I have found this separates out organisations who don't understand H&S. Once you have a list you can set other criteria around SHE and Quality. I have added in some fire safety management questions recently as many stil do not seem to understand how the Fire Order should be managed, and can be managed along with the existing safety management system.
Do you have a professional network you can ask? Have you got a Safety Groups UK Group near you?
All the best.
Garry
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I concur with Gary's comments, the word 'simple' does not sit well with a contractor evaluation system. Now, if you were doing a dissertation or thesis I would say it was a great topic. You say engaged again which means post contract, which is different from a PQQ, in fact, a project close-out assessment is what you are looking for which some project managers complete post project.
The extent of the evaluation will depend on the size and complexity of the project, however keeping it simple would be accidents, incidents and near misses, followed by compliance with PPE and other standards, if recorded. In terms of Quality you would be interested if there are any NCRs associated with the work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Thank you for your responses. A project close out assessment is indeed what is required. We have in place a PQQ system in place which has been used successfully for sometime. However, following a visit from our HID inspector the HSE now require that we assess contractor performance following completion of the project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Plus any system you use must be seen to be fair, transparent and scoring must be 'like for like' additionally any fees you agree for any of your projects should be suitable so as the contractors can comply with the law / your systems and the standards to which you want them to perform. And if you remove a contractor from your supplier list you need to be watertight with your reasons and system for removal
NB: I have never known the HSE insist and/or request that a contractor performance assessment following completion of a project is required. I have a feeling that this is a QA request/want and not a HSE request/need!!! Especially so as H&S management is supposed to be proactive as noted by the HSE and not reactive as such activities after a contract has finished are - Or have I missed something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Lots of acronyms here!
What's a 'HID inspector '?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
One from the HSE's Hazardous Installations Directorate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Woolley
All systems once written are simple but they are complex to get to.:-)
Really you are asking for a great deal of experience from somebody to design this for free.
In essence you need to look at a defined group of general principles/attributes that you can measure via the "expert" opinion of a defined set of people. They would give a score to each attribute for the contractor and the total score would then place in one of a number of pre determined categories.These final rating categories would probably be something like
A - Can use again without concern
B - Can use but may need some prodding
C - Will need significant management input if used
D - Only use if there is no other option
E - Never again
The measurement categories should NOT be safety specific but more along the lines of leadership, responsiveness, Inspection/audit results, Behaviour etc. No more than ten categories though.
If you need more detailed help I can put you in contact with somebody but they will charge.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
boblewis wrote:
The measurement categories should NOT be safety specific but more along the lines of leadership, responsiveness, Inspection/audit results, Behaviour etc. No more than ten categories though.
FWIW, our system uses one category - 'performance'. That gets a score of 1 to 5, and a comment. If they score 1 or 2 (being bad scores) a comment is mandatory. The person that wants to appoint them then makes a fuzzy decision about whether their past performance warrants it. There's also a 'do not use' flag that could be set for truly abysmal performance, but it has never been set for that reason (it's normally used where some part of the paperwork is out of date, generally it gets set, then the paperwork gets fixed and it's unset). I don't believe that systems need to be court-of-law transparent, or that reasons for withdrawal from a list need to be watertight - there are requirements that public money have that sort of transparency, but a private company can have favoured suppliers. Provided you comply with relevant bribery and corruption law, you need go no further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Why not develop something based upon the PQQ question set (That's where the intelligence needs to be). Reverse it.
The PQQ I assume is written outlining your requirements. Gauge the performance against the PQQ/ITT responses and actual performance.
Don't get wrapped up in the theoretical positioning that is synonymous with this forum. Why make something which is easy, difficult?
Achilles and other reputable auditing schemes are middle of the road and not that helpful. Set your own measure from the PQQ/ITT response-simple
It's about what you need.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Extract from Woolley- whether the contractor would be engaged again
Bob Y response
NB: I have never known the HSE insist and/or request that a contractor performance assessment following completion of a project is required. I have a feeling that this is a QA request/want and not a HSE request/need!!! Especially so as H&S management is supposed to be proactive as noted by the HSE and not reactive as such activities after a contract has finished are - Or have I missed something?
You decide if you have missed something
Preferred supplier lists and ongoing HSE assessments are proactive I would suggest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.