I just want to vent, I am so sick of PQQ's. I fully understand why they are required, and dont mind completing them, but can the industry not finalise ONE that ever main contractor must use. Again Yes I know that Achilles/CHAS and other SSIP schemes cover the majority but each client has their own requirements. Sorry for this!

We have two H&S Advisers. My colleague's just submitted (today) our CHAS application after spending ages gathering evidence, and meanwhile I'm completing a PQQ asking a whole different set of questions for a PC which doesn't accept CHAS. The one I've done today starts with a statement from the client we have to sign up to detailing our commitment to H&S, covering an entire side of A4. It's practically a new OH&S policy (but we have to attach ours as well) and is poorly written, inaccurate and may well contradict our own policy... yet I bet if I sign it no-one will ever check. This box-ticking is ridiculous and protects no-one when taken to such an extent. Last month I spent most of a day on one for a £20k job (this one required us to write extensive answers to open questions on our approach to x, y and z as well as demanding minimum qualification levels which are inappropriate for the work we were doing). Sorry about the rant, I'm just running out of time to do the planning which is actually relevant to preventing injury.

The only positive feature of completing/supplying PQQ is that it keeps a vast army of those who would otherwise be unemployed (or unemployable) off the streets and in the warm. Rodger Ker

I know it is frustrating but companies use these PQQs initially as part of the process of managing contractors/sub-contractors. I have recently been involved with assisting a client as a result of a major accident involving one of the sub-contractors. He didn't send out a PQQ to his sub-contractor prior to engagement. The Director said in response to the question from the HSE under PACE, "...what was your process for selecting the sub-contractor? He replied that; "...the sub-contractor had CHAS & his boys had CSCS Cards........" The response from the HSE Officer was not favourable. After the interview the HSE Investigating Officer not surprisingly, suggested he used a PQQ or similar.

A PQQ is only the initial phase in contractor/sub-contractor selection. A good one will ask all the pertinent questions and request certain documentation e.g. references, Policies, stats, examples of work/projects similar to what they are quoting for etc. It's a guide & gives you something to start from. In the HSEs eyes it is part of the process of showing due diligence - it's no different really to if 'we' wanted a major job done in the home really, 'we' may not send out a PQQ but we do some research and/or ask questions of people who have had a good job done similar to what 'we' want. PQQs are a 'pain' I know but necessary.

You make valid points Victor however a lot of the PQQ's have duplicated info that is held with SSIP companies! For example EXOR is the most thorough one i have ever done above and beyond CHAS however i have to duplicate it all on the PQQ!! However some PQQ's dont go into so much depth and some sections dont need to be repeated if you have a current compliance certificate with the likes of EXOR. I would defy any investigation brought about by the HSE stating that they dont think EXOR was a stringent enough assessment to show the contractor is compliant! I totally understand there are certain additional questions dependant on the job/company that need to be asked on the PQQ however they could be scaled down!! And yes more often than not it comes down to whos cheaper!!

The HSE are ultimately at fault for this plethora of questionnaires as they keep ducking the whole issue of Competence and competence management. They issued one good document on competence in safety critical control systems and failed to follow though to the logical conclusion. This was compounded by the sketchy advice in the CDM07 ACoP. Bob

Well progress is being made with SafeContractor, EXOR & CHAS. If you have undergone a full renewal process with any of the 38 members of SSIP, then an application and/or renewal with any of the other members is now a simple 'one pager' 'Deem to Satisfy' document. Much easier. Is that enough to show 'Management of Contractors and/or Sub-Contractors, or alternatively get three quotes & go with the cheapest - well in this 'game' you're alright until you're not. I'll let you know after the 13th March as the Client who has now asked me for support, guidance etc since a Major Accident involving a sub-contractor has been charged and will be 'in the dock' on that day.

Sutty. The issue here is quite simple. The completion of these documents over and over again is a complete and utter waste of time and effort for all concerned. The vast majority are never read or commented upon, and as stated previously what is the point when it will end up as "get three quotes and go for the cheapest". Rodger Ker

Hi sutty - I couldn't disagree more! This is my biggest complaint - almost EVERY pqq I receive asks different questions, many requiring quite detailed answers.

Very sweeping comments there - not the way my clients or I work, more especially on major CDM projects. The vast majority of my clients tend to find contractors / sub-contractors via the PQQ and then it's about relationships, working together, updating records etc. Thereby reducing the need for the constant PQQ / quoting process. I know back in the '70's & '80's when I was on the 'tools' yes, get three quotes & go for the cheapest was the norm. I would have thought that is a very dangerous path to tread or advocate now. Never mind.... you crack on chap.

Just couldn't resist any longer! Before the Friday trolls slaver all over me; let me identify that I have total support for requiring that those who provide services to others should be able to demonstrate that they are sufficiently competent in that area of activity! My experience is as an adviser to those who have to complete the PQQs for their propective clients; however, my clients tend not to be "Construction"; and their clients may not be either. I am currently providing assistance to a Fire Safety company who has been required by their client to attain "SafeContractor" registration [for advising on a manufacturing site]. Despite the fairly obvious issue of my client not being in any of the identified categories in the scheme, their client requires that they complete the SafeContractor PQQ or they will be excluded from tendering - this is arrant nonsense to say the least! This is not an unusual situation and, to me it illustrates just how limited those who advise industry generally are in knowledge, skill and overall understanding of the limits of a PQQ system that is focussed so tightly on one area of activity but used so widely beyond it. Basically, it's lazy and primarily seen as a means of evading liability by so many. Also, it illustrates how good the sales people are for the various PQQ schemes. I've assisted with a few of these, and I've never seen or heard any comments from the chosen PQQ scheme that their scheme is inappropriate for my clients activities - although it invariably has been. I have started to form the opinion that those who "vet" the completed applications actually know very little and simply work to a script [as in Call Centres] and it's about revenue generation rather than ensuring that applicants truly are sufficiently competent! Frank Hallett

My earlier comment has drawn a number of responses. Sutty, at 18. Yes I represent a contractor. Yes we do use PQQ's, but not as a blunt instrument, and hopefully, in a sensible and rational way. Victor, at 21 and 24. I accept that is not how your clients work, but a hell of a lot, in my experience, do. You state that they are "hardly expensive". I would disagree, if you add up all the time and effort that has to be expended. Frank, at 23. An accurate description that I am sure many will recognise. I fully accept that they have a role to play as has been described. However, one of my major dislikes is being asked to complete a PQQ AFTER being awarded a contract, or worse, AFTER THE CONTRACT HAS BEEN COMPLETED, usually following a communication to the effect that "the QS won't sign off the submitted invoice because a PQQ hasn't been completed!" or having to send the same information for every contract (even if only a few weeks after the last) because the client has not got the competence/ability to set up a simple system to keep track of expiry dates for insurances etc. Rodger Ker

Forgive me for banging on the same drum...but cannot IOSH take up this issue with PQQs. After all, they are supposed to support members and promulgate good practice, so why not highlight poor practices?

I agree Frank - there certainly is work to be done in terms of competence and inappropriate use. Perhaps there is some mileage in Ray Rapps point.

Graham You definitely need to get out more!

I've ben going on about this scam for years. Why not, like I have done, raise your concerns with the HSE and or SSIP. I've made progress and have saved my employer nearly £K5 by not duplicating . Next step is to rid their industry of non qualified "assessors". At least CHAS and one or two others do have qualified bods to assess. Jon

At the risk of repeating myself, surely PAS 91:2013 is worth a look, unless I am getting something wrong. It was developed by BSI in conjunction with the HSE, CHAS, SSiP and many others. It is free to download, its objective is to streamline the PQQ process and reduce costs. It includes a form that clients can use which allows those tendering to claim an exemption from completing the full PQQ if they are members of an SSiP scheme (there are other exemption routes also). A

Qualified as what? and how? and who? From someone who very nearly was I question that statement.

Frank 100% correct on the check-the-checker aspect, it isn't there. That was the main reason we decided against it. That and the fact that the financial rewards made it not worth our while.