Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi,
these new regulations came into force on 26th of February 2015. One change the regulations make is that the PQQ process is now banned for contracts below the EU threshold (about £ 134, 000 I think). My concern is that our procurement team will use the regulations as a reason not to have our corporate health and safety team vet tenderers for contracts. Does anyone have information on how the new regulations apply/may apply to the vetting of health and safety risk management standards of tenderers? The Lord Young de-regulation initiative has also been applied via the Cabinet Office to the procurement process and I fear this means that effectively any company can bid for a contract without basic checks such as notices/prosecutions by HSE, fire brigade, health and safety policy etc.
Any thoughts anyone
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I raised the very same question with our own Head of Procurement (in a large Local Authority) and received the following response:
' The banning of PQQs does not mean we can't ask bidders to demonstrate their H & S competence, but just that this will need to be done as part of a single stage process i.e. we will include a supplier questionnaire (covering all relevant aspects e.g. financial status, H & S competence, Equality standards) to capture the information we need about the company in order to make a decision about their suitability to undertake the contract in question. Ideally they will demonstrate their H & S competence by identifying their accreditation with S.S.I.P (Safety Schemes in Procurement) but this may not always be the case and we may be required to undertake our own assessment. At tender/quotation stage bidders will be asked to confirm they have appropriate policies and procedures in place, bids will be assessed on this assumption and the preferred bidder identified. We will then need to check their credentials before awarding a contract, so this could cut down on the number of assessments we need to conduct.'
Hope this clarifies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
This clarifies an issue I have become involved in, where our procurement department have claimed that our safety competence checks can no longer continue.
It strikes me that a self employed contractor, exempt from the Act as per current Deregulation Bill proposals and providing services to a value under £134K could do a heck of a lot of damage on our behalf and we could become criminally liable because we're not allowed to check their competence. Is this so?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Yossarian wrote:This clarifies an issue I have become involved in, where our procurement department have claimed that our safety competence checks can no longer continue.
It strikes me that a self employed contractor, exempt from the Act as per current Deregulation Bill proposals and providing services to a value under £134K could do a heck of a lot of damage on our behalf and we could become criminally liable because we're not allowed to check their competence. Is this so? I would turn the penultimate sentence on its head and ask if any of the SSIP outfits would be criminally liable if they "assessed" a contracting company who subsequently caused "a heck of a lot of damage on {your} behalf. Of course you can check the competence of your own contractors - I would, do and consistantly assess our contractors and have successfully argued that this is the only correct way to assess - not rely on any SSIP outfit. They will not be around to aid your defence when there is a claim. Hope this offers another perspective. Jon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The abolition of a pre-qualification stage below £ threshold does not preclude the LA or Government Body from making any justifiable reasonable enquiry at tender stage.
I'm no expert, but I thought the thrust of reform (via Lord Young et al) was to stop potentially restrictive practices such as maintained lists?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Could someone please refernce these new regulations - thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
John M wrote:Yossarian wrote:This clarifies an issue I have become involved in, where our procurement department have claimed that our safety competence checks can no longer continue.
It strikes me that a self employed contractor, exempt from the Act as per current Deregulation Bill proposals and providing services to a value under £134K could do a heck of a lot of damage on our behalf and we could become criminally liable because we're not allowed to check their competence. Is this so? I would turn the penultimate sentence on its head and ask if any of the SSIP outfits would be criminally liable if they "assessed" a contracting company who subsequently caused "a heck of a lot of damage on {your} behalf. Of course you can check the competence of your own contractors - I would, do and consistantly assess our contractors and have successfully argued that this is the only correct way to assess - not rely on any SSIP outfit. They will not be around to aid your defence when there is a claim. Hope this offers another perspective. Jon An SSIP accredited company/contactor will simply have demonstrated that they have H & S policies and procedures in currently place that satisfy an agreed and published set of standards. The contractor will need to have provided some documented evidence that demonstrates these policies/procedures are being implemented. The process is commonly called a 'Stage 1' H & S assessment. Whilst the stage 1 assessment is very important in the procurement process these schemes quite rightly make it clear that the Client (or Buyer) will still need to complete their own 'Stage 2' assessment. This will need to examine the risk assessments, safe working procedures, H & S competencies relating to the particular contracted work i.e. contract - specific.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
RayRapp wrote:Could someone please refernce these new regulations - thanks. I think this is them: http://www.legislation.g...i/2015/102/contents/madeHowever, as I only just found out about them via this topic, I will have to spend some time familiarising myself and may yet ask some dumb questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Guys,
from you responses I think I have some arguments to put to our procurement team as to why they need to keep us on board to assess potential contract bidders HS risk management standards. My basic lay persons reading of the regulations was that any bids below the EU threshold were not to be scrutinised or have a pre-requisite of meeting HS standards, although I could be wrong. The EU legislation on procurement certainly fits the de-regulation agenda that has already been applied to HS enforcement and regulation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In my experience it is down to cultures and relationships as a professional procurement team will have a positive H&S culture and good relationship with their H&S bod but many do not and that's the problem as most will be saying 'why spend effort when we do not need to do' and this is where the skills of the H&S person comes in as they need to get their MD & other senior people on board noting that problems can & do come back to the company irrespective of the new law, rules, guides etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.