Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
stonecold  
#1 Posted : 21 April 2015 08:19:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stonecold

Hi, Where can I find details on what works would need to be covered by a construction phase plan? I have been looking at the new ACOP but cant for the life of me find the info I need. Just need to know what works are covered? Where is the actual HSE definition of what work is actually covered?
stonecold  
#2 Posted : 21 April 2015 08:24:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stonecold

Have a need for a contractor to fit some window restrictors to some six floor office windows. They have supplied RAMS but im not sure If I need anything else as per the new CDM regs
ashleywillson  
#3 Posted : 21 April 2015 08:43:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
ashleywillson

stonecold Have PM'd you
stonecold  
#4 Posted : 21 April 2015 08:48:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stonecold

cheers
stonecold  
#5 Posted : 21 April 2015 08:54:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stonecold

Thanks for the message but Its not quite answered my question. I think my original question wasn't too clear :) What im asking is, is a CPP required for minor works. E.g a contractor coming to one of our sites (a working office) to carry out a small ish job. E.g fitting restrictors to existing windows. Where abouts in the ACOP does it tell you exactly what works need to be covered by a CPP? is there a definition somewhere?
RayRapp  
#6 Posted : 21 April 2015 09:39:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

CDM Regulation 2.-(1) Interpretation...will give you a definition of construction work. However, it does not make any distinction between a small job and a large project because there is no difference except for notifiable reasons.
RayRapp  
#7 Posted : 21 April 2015 10:21:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Appendix 3 of L153 Guidance provides a short list of topics to consider for a CPP. Failing that, the HSE's 'Busy Builder' guidance for small works link below. http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/cis80.pdf
achrn  
#8 Posted : 21 April 2015 10:25:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

stonecold wrote:
Thanks for the message but Its not quite answered my question. I think my original question wasn't too clear :) What im asking is, is a CPP required for minor works. E.g a contractor coming to one of our sites (a working office) to carry out a small ish job. E.g fitting restrictors to existing windows. Where abouts in the ACOP does it tell you exactly what works need to be covered by a CPP? is there a definition somewhere?
Every construction work project (no matter how minor) needs a CPP. If it's a multi-contractor project the Principal Contractor must prepare it (under reg 12), if it's a single-contractor site the contractor must prepare it (reg 15). With respect to content, it needs to "set out the health and safety arrangements and site rules taking account, where necessary, of the industrial activities taking place on the construction site and, where applicable, must include specific measures concerning work which falls within one or more of the categories set out in Schedule 3" (reg 12(2) ). The CITB guiodance has some information in Annex C of the PC document (from http://www.citb.co.uk/he.../cdm-guidance-documents/ ) and has an example template at http://www.citb.co.uk/do...n-phase-plan-example.pdf
stonecold  
#9 Posted : 21 April 2015 11:32:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stonecold

Thanks for the replies. Our business has always managed contractors pretty well, we understand the need to use competent contractors etc and always ask for RAMS prior to the works taking place. We also supervise any contractor working at our sites to a level appropriate to the work being carried out. the contractors we use typically would be plumbers, sparks, roofers, air con enginners etc mainly doing general fixes or installs. So without sounding stupid, we now also need a CPP to support any RAMS a contractor may need to supply?
Dougc  
#10 Posted : 21 April 2015 11:40:13(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Dougc

Sorry to be pedantic but a number of posts refer to the 'ACOP' when in fact it is now only guidance, minor point but still an important one.
Ron Hunter  
#11 Posted : 21 April 2015 12:47:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

Stonecold, the concurrent post here "CDM 2015 Help" should provide some insight.
stonecold  
#12 Posted : 22 April 2015 05:55:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stonecold

Thanks for the replies and inbox messages, I appreciate peoples help, but im still non the wiser on my orginal query :)... Let me phrase my question differently.. If im a Facilities manager looking after several large functioning sites (Large functioning offices and warehouses) and I need a contractor to do some work for me. e.g a roofer to fix a leaking flat roof, or an air con guy to install some air con, do I now need a CPP from the contractor as well as RAMS? (currently i would ask any contractor working at one of my buildings for RAMS if the job has an element of risk.) The buildings in question house about 500 employees are are fully functioning, Im not refering to a building site.
ashleywillson  
#13 Posted : 22 April 2015 07:18:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
ashleywillson

Stonecold, let me try again... Yes you will need a CPP for any work which CDM deems as construction activities. The way I would do this if I were you, would be to look at how you employ your contractors. If you have a "contract" or agreement with them (i.e. the air con man has to visit every 12 months or whatever) then one CPP for the lot would be more than adequate (provided that the works are defined as construction by CDM). However, if you send a roofer to fix a leaking roof once, then to a different place this may be two separate 'projects' if you like, so you would need two CPP's. I know it sounds like a pain and sounds daunting but a template for repeated works can easily be made adding detail to make them specific for the works. It need not take more than 10-15 mins tops. I hope that answers your question?
stonecold  
#14 Posted : 22 April 2015 07:59:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stonecold

Ashley thanks very much, I get it now :-) I thought that would be the case and your answer clarifies it perfectly so cheers. However it does seem a bit much for minor works Not sure how that makes a job safer especially if RAMS are already in place, seems like paper work for the sake of it... Oh well lol Thanks agaim
ashleywillson  
#15 Posted : 22 April 2015 09:10:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
ashleywillson

Check out the CDM wizard app for the "busy builder". It is actually quite quick to complete and gives you a "legal" CPP. For small jobs it may also be of use.
Shelley Davis  
#16 Posted : 22 April 2015 13:16:29(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Shelley Davis

“construction work” means the carrying out of any building, civil engineering or engineering construction work and includes— (a)the construction, alteration, conversion, fitting out, commissioning, renovation, repair, upkeep, redecoration or other maintenance (including cleaning which involves the use of water or an abrasive at high pressure, or the use of corrosive or toxic substances), de-commissioning, demolition or dismantling of a structure; (b)the preparation for an intended structure, including site clearance, exploration, investigation (but not site survey) and excavation (but not pre-construction archaeological investigations), and the clearance or preparation of the site or structure for use or occupation at its conclusion; (c)the assembly on site of prefabricated elements to form a structure or the disassembly on site of the prefabricated elements which, immediately before such disassembly, formed a structure; (d)the removal of a structure, or of any product or waste resulting from demolition or dismantling of a structure, or from disassembly of prefabricated elements which immediately before such disassembly formed such a structure; (e)the installation, commissioning, maintenance, repair or removal of mechanical, electrical, gas, compressed air, hydraulic, telecommunications, computer or similar services which are normally fixed within or to a structure, This came from Gov.uk hope it helps
hawkridgechung@yahoo  
#17 Posted : 10 June 2015 10:06:39(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
hawkridgechung@yahoo

Hello Stonecold, The way the legislation is written it states that a CPP will be required for ALL construction work, which includes basic FM Work. We have implanted a CPP form that operates as a work authority or basic permit system. This includes the supplier information, scope of works, associated building documentation and known risks, as well as a review of supplier RA / method statement. We have managed to get down to a 4 page format that is less onerous and replies primarily on prevision of information from the property manager to the supplier (Contractor). If you want contact me and I will sent you a draft
Ron Hunter  
#18 Posted : 11 June 2015 12:46:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

IT concerns me that (once again) some in the profession choose to react to new or revised legislation by creating additional and unnecessary paperwork and bureacracy. In essence, the CPP comprises 3 elements. Let's place them in context for the type of job the OP describes: 1 Management Arrangements: Your Site, your arrangements for control of contractors (including scrutiny at tender stages). Welfare, first aid etc. all Yours? 2. Site Rules: Already established 3. Specific risks arising - as you correctly surmise, the contractor's RAMS. No additional paperwork required. None. Note that CDM2015 and guidance do not tall about the CPP existing in hard copy form, or all being contained within one document. HSE are constantly stressing the need for a PROPORTIONATE approach to compliance. Some of the approaches described in this thread are way OTT.
ashleywillson  
#19 Posted : 12 June 2015 08:47:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
ashleywillson

Ron Hunter wrote:
... a PROPORTIONATE approach to compliance. Some of the approaches described in this thread are way OTT.
I completely agree with this. The response always has to be proportionate. For our CPP, I have a "cover" document which will reference the other documents which make up the CPP. These can be pulled together quickly and effectively. For smaller jobs, we keep all the info in the office and communicate the specifics to the operatives verbally. For larger sites, we send the whole thing down to site in hard copy form (alongside the other paperwork we have such as site registers, site maps etc.
Ron Hunter wrote:
... No additional paperwork required. None. Note that CDM2015 and guidance do not tall about the CPP existing in hard copy form, or all being contained within one document.
With regards to this, this may be what is said now, but I have not heard of any prosecutions under CDM 15 yet, or spoken to anyone who has had dealings with HSE inspectors. If an inspector turns up on a busy job and asks to see the CPP and you either 1) can't produce it as it is in the office, or 2) have to gather information from different places it hardly smacks of competence (to me!). I would rather have the document ready to go. As I said, this hasn't been tested really yet, so we only have what has been said but for now, I'll play it safe!!
Ron Hunter  
#20 Posted : 12 June 2015 15:43:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

Anthony Lees (HSE Principal Inspector) was a key player in drafting CDM2015. His webinar on CDM 2015 (recording available on this Site) confirms the proportionate approach. To take the opposite end of the spectrum: Anthony discusses the very large Project scenario (e.g. HS2 rail project) where there are likely to be multiple "sites" established. Here, he suggests that the CPP may be located at some central location, with appropriate elements only at discrete site levels. Early days, but I do think HSE have been very clear about expectations. Horses for courses. If I can point to an existing resource - fine. If, as a very small builder, I don't have my arrangements and standards documents established at my head office, then my simple CPP will need to address all 3 key elements -as the HSE template provides for.
Stedman  
#21 Posted : 15 June 2015 12:22:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Stedman

Stonecold, If your organisation has a service department which supervises the work of contractors, then for the purposes of CDM 2015 your organisation is the principal contractor and if there is a safety management system for the management of these contactors, then that is your CPP.
RayRapp  
#22 Posted : 15 June 2015 12:35:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Interestingly I have recently had a discussion with one of our repairs and maintenance contractor's h&s manager. He gave me his 'interpretation' of the regs and specifically the requirement for a CPP. First, he states that a CPP exists for the whole contract. Second, a CPP is not required for every job. Obviously we disagreed on the later but I did say there is a need to be sensible about minor repairs where the RAMS would suffice or a generic CPP could be utilised. However for the larger jobs I would expect to see a CPP as we know it, regardless whether the job is notifiable or not. Whatever the outcome there is going to be a lot more bureaucracy involved both the client and the PC.
Ron Hunter  
#23 Posted : 15 June 2015 15:42:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

Agree on the proportionality Ray, but for some of us, the "CPP as we know it" is also a problem!
hawkridgechung@yahoo  
#24 Posted : 30 June 2015 15:40:14(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
hawkridgechung@yahoo

We are currently in consultation with our FM provider because they are also under the impression that a CPP for a contract is sufficent. Having seen the principal of CPP's implemented on international platforms, I would argue strongly against this, as it does not meet the intent of the legislation, to manage the risks associated with low / medium risk construction works. The onus should be on the person engaging the Supplier / Contractor to a) agree scope of works with supplier, b) provide all building related information to enable the supplier to properly assess risk associated with works c) review of RAMS (Risk assessment / method statement) to ensure that it is reflective of the work task and include site specific related risks / controls. In terms of assurance processes, the engager of works should than audit / inspect (where possible) to ensure that the Supplier / contractor is adhering to their RAMS. I keep hearing from persons, about getting around the implementation of CPP, without truly understanding the principal of the change in law, and reviewing their organisation systems to ensure the safe management of suppliers / contractors. The introduction of the CPP only adds to enable organisations to demonstrate that they are have safe systems of work in place. Having recently returned to the UK, I am disappointed by the lack of progressive thinking in terms of implementation of safety systems. The introduction of the CPP enables a more comprehensive consultation process between parties involved in low / medium construction work. The feedback we have had from other suppliers has been extremely positive, they are now receiving information from property managers that they were not getting before and the consultation regarding RAMS has resulted in more effective scoping on projects. As an organisation, we have gained a lot By introducing this system, and it is the start of an education process to up skills our property managers and suppliers on the identification of building related risk and development of appropriate RAMS.
Ron Hunter  
#25 Posted : 30 June 2015 16:04:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

hawkridgechung@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The onus should be on the person engaging the Supplier / Contractor to a) agree scope of works with supplier, b) provide all building related information to enable the supplier to properly assess risk associated with works c) review of RAMS (Risk assessment / method statement) to ensure that it is reflective of the work task and include site specific related risks / controls. In terms of assurance processes, the engager of works should than audit / inspect (where possible) to ensure that the Supplier / contractor is adhering to their RAMS. quote] I agree entirely. The process you describe is that of universal best practice in contractor management, much as is described in HSE guidance on the topic (which in turn is aimed at ensuring compliance with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974). (Notable also that CDM2015 places no specific duty on the Client to monitor performance on-site). The issue under discussion is one of proportionality. If all things are in place as you describe, is it always going to be necessary to produce another layer of stage 2 paperwork to satisfy an interpretation of subordinate legislation? My opinion is no, not always.
boblewis  
#26 Posted : 01 July 2015 09:39:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

RayRapp wrote:
Interestingly I have recently had a discussion with one of our repairs and maintenance contractor's h&s manager. He gave me his 'interpretation' of the regs and specifically the requirement for a CPP. First, he states that a CPP exists for the whole contract. Second, a CPP is not required for every job. Obviously we disagreed on the later but I did say there is a need to be sensible about minor repairs where the RAMS would suffice or a generic CPP could be utilised. However for the larger jobs I would expect to see a CPP as we know it, regardless whether the job is notifiable or not. Whatever the outcome there is going to be a lot more bureaucracy involved both the client and the PC.
I totally agree with your Maint. Contractor. One sets up a management plan, oft called CPP in the regs, for a project because so much is common throughout. It is only the nuts and bolts of the specific task in a specific location that need additional information such as RAMS etc. This approach worked well with CDM 94 and 2007 so what is new? Cut the paper to the bone.
firesafety101  
#27 Posted : 02 July 2015 09:06:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

I think one question is "what happens to the CPP when it has been written? Does the contractor keep it to himself or does he have to hand it over to someone? Is it really up to the Facilities Manager to demand the CPP in the first place? OK that's three for the price of one ha ha.
RayRapp  
#28 Posted : 02 July 2015 09:13:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

boblewis wrote:
RayRapp wrote:
Interestingly I have recently had a discussion with one of our repairs and maintenance contractor's h&s manager. He gave me his 'interpretation' of the regs and specifically the requirement for a CPP. First, he states that a CPP exists for the whole contract. Second, a CPP is not required for every job. Obviously we disagreed on the later but I did say there is a need to be sensible about minor repairs where the RAMS would suffice or a generic CPP could be utilised. However for the larger jobs I would expect to see a CPP as we know it, regardless whether the job is notifiable or not. Whatever the outcome there is going to be a lot more bureaucracy involved both the client and the PC.
I totally agree with your Maint. Contractor. One sets up a management plan, oft called CPP in the regs, for a project because so much is common throughout. It is only the nuts and bolts of the specific task in a specific location that need additional information such as RAMS etc. This approach worked well with CDM 94 and 2007 so what is new? Cut the paper to the bone.
I can see the need for a management plan or execution plan, call it what you like, however the principle of CDM does not include the aggregation of all the repairs/maintenance work into one CPP.
RayRapp  
#29 Posted : 02 July 2015 09:23:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

FireSafety101 wrote:
I think one question is "what happens to the CPP when it has been written? Does the contractor keep it to himself or does he have to hand it over to someone? Is it really up to the Facilities Manager to demand the CPP in the first place? OK that's three for the price of one ha ha.
As I see it the client/FM should have some confirmation the CPP has been prepared by the PC. How this done is up to the client. That said, I would want visibility by sending it to either me as the H&S Manager or a responsible person within the organisation where I can request it. The client does not approve the CPP but would be within their rights to review and comment accordingly. If the client is not satisified with the CPP, they have the power to stop the work until it is amended satisfactorily - only in extreme circumstances. If the CPP has not been sent then the client/FM can and should request it. There really should be some protocol agreed between the PC and client so that the CPP is provided without a request, otherwise it could become a tedious exercise.
Shelley Davis  
#30 Posted : 02 July 2015 12:06:43(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Shelley Davis

stonecold wrote:
Thanks for the replies and inbox messages, I appreciate peoples help, but im still non the wiser on my orginal query :)... Let me phrase my question differently.. If im a Facilities manager looking after several large functioning sites (Large functioning offices and warehouses) and I need a contractor to do some work for me. e.g a roofer to fix a leaking flat roof, or an air con guy to install some air con, do I now need a CPP from the contractor as well as RAMS? (currently i would ask any contractor working at one of my buildings for RAMS if the job has an element of risk.) The buildings in question house about 500 employees are are fully functioning, Im not refering to a building site.
Yes you do need a CPP for building maintenance work from the contractor. If you go on gov.uk it does list and gives an example or two of what work is covered. Are you a contractor yourself ?
boblewis  
#31 Posted : 02 July 2015 12:39:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

In truth any Outsourced FM organisation is a Contractor by definition ie is working under contract to a client. Thus in general terms I would anticipate that they effectively function as the PC for any works undertaken within the ambit of their contract. Thus the CPP is theirs to manage and implement. I think we are going backwards with desperate attempts to move responsibility. If the FM holds a contract for categories of work in a location then he should/ought/must create a plan for the undertaking the works as and when required. It is a CPP for his contract with individual tasks assessed as they come along. Just as happens in a pure construction contract. It is not rocket science.
Peter Clifton  
#32 Posted : 18 September 2015 15:07:25(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Peter Clifton

This is madness, a CPP is great for a large / medium sized jobs, but when our guys unjam a door which takes 10 minutes and they have got to complete a CPP, it's just daft. No help from the HSE on a practical way of how to do this most people I speak to are doing nothing. I have tried for months to get an answer from lots of colleagues, but there does not seem to be one. I also bet that 90% of one man band builders have no idea of what a construction phase plan is, or if they do they would not complete one. "Just more pointless bureaucracy" as a friend who runs his own business told me, and I tend to agree with him.
RayRapp  
#33 Posted : 18 September 2015 18:27:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Peter Clifton wrote:
This is madness, a CPP is great for a large / medium sized jobs, but when our guys unjam a door which takes 10 minutes and they have got to complete a CPP, it's just daft. No help from the HSE on a practical way of how to do this most people I speak to are doing nothing. I have tried for months to get an answer from lots of colleagues, but there does not seem to be one. I also bet that 90% of one man band builders have no idea of what a construction phase plan is, or if they do they would not complete one. "Just more pointless bureaucracy" as a friend who runs his own business told me, and I tend to agree with him.
Sorry to say I can´t disagree one bit. Most small builders will just ignore the requirement for a CPP. Indeed, empirical evidence suggests that many larger organisations are also not complying with the regs. Hardly a surprise given the onerous nature of the provision, which incidentally, will add nothing to health and safety on small projects.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.