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
Leone37  
#1 Posted : 30 March 2016 09:57:03(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Leone37

What's your view on employing small contractors that do not have any SSIP, stating that they find it too time consuming to complete the application? In my prior "corporate" job - most of the contractors did not have this as we used a lot of "one man band" type companies, so we just checked and reviewed all of their H&S documents. I have now moved into the Public Sector and find they require even the smallest companies to be accredited - is this really feasible - I would be more inclined to ensure they complete a type of PQQ and review all documents according to the work they will be doing Any opinions/advice?
Roundtuit  
#2 Posted : 30 March 2016 10:19:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Lazy tendering and buck passing to exclude those without SSIP. Seen this from the other side - you must have.....x, y, z Didn't stop the company getting work just meant we were never considered for principal contractor. We still ended up on site which proved the process adopted was no more than ticking boxes to give the client a false sense of security. Also benefited us that we then worked under the principals RAMS rather than presenting our own.
Roundtuit  
#3 Posted : 30 March 2016 10:19:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Lazy tendering and buck passing to exclude those without SSIP. Seen this from the other side - you must have.....x, y, z Didn't stop the company getting work just meant we were never considered for principal contractor. We still ended up on site which proved the process adopted was no more than ticking boxes to give the client a false sense of security. Also benefited us that we then worked under the principals RAMS rather than presenting our own.
Alfasev  
#4 Posted : 30 March 2016 10:36:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Alfasev

While SSIP is not the panacea is says it is, it does offer a quick and easy method to ensure contractors have basic policies and procedures in place. It can appear onerous and is not suited to "one man bands" but for any SMC contractors gaining SSIP accreditation should not be a problem. There are pros and cons with both PQQ and SSIP routes. I prefer SSIP but I am not involved in "one man bands" and it’s only one element of our PQQ. I know a lot of small Principal Contractors do not use SSIP for their subcontractors for the same reasons. They use PQQ, RAMS and site feedback.
Binniem  
#5 Posted : 30 March 2016 11:41:11(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Binniem

I don't think using SSIP schemes are feasible for ALL contractors, and that common sense must prevail. consider things from the contractor's point of view, they may be quoting for a low value job of say £1000, but you need them to pay £300 to a SSIP scheme, plus the day or two of their time to actually jump through the proverbial hoops and submit all the information needed. So your contractor is losing 16 hours (ish) chargeable hours, plus the £300 SSIP membership fee, and they might only be making a few hundred pounds out of the whole job? We will be going through this in the next few months, with small companies and one man bands asked to join a SSIP scheme, which ultimately, we will be paying for, whether directly or indirectly. Will the SSIP scheme make the contractor safer? I'm certain it won't!
GerryT  
#6 Posted : 30 March 2016 13:22:54(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
GerryT

It is not that difficult for a "one man band" to get through SSIP, they only need to provide evidence such as RAMS, qualifications, insurances and H&S Policy Statement. The cost is more like £180.00 for 12 months.
torkee878  
#7 Posted : 30 March 2016 14:59:54(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
torkee878

I would be very reluctant to award a contract to a small contractor who cited lack of time and 'high' cost to get through SSIP. Not sure where Binniem got his figure of £300 from but CHAS for example is just £157 + vat for businesses with les than 5 employees. As an alternative to SSIP requirement there is always the option to request small contractors to access and complete the following HSE document http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg449.pdf. There is a simply policy document and risk assessment template for the small contractor to complete. I would also expect the contractor to demonstrate their arrangements for the various topics that come before the template. But my view is why should the Client organisation have to resource and fund the labour intensive task of assessing the non SSIP responses just because a small contractor is too lazy or penny pinching to apply for SSIP accreditation?
torkee878  
#8 Posted : 30 March 2016 15:18:40(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
torkee878

Apologies, I've just noticed the HSE link I inserted does not work. Just type 'indg449' (Health and Safety Made Simple) into your browser to access the document.
Peter Clifton  
#9 Posted : 01 April 2016 09:32:39(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Peter Clifton

We went with Safe Contractor (SSIP) two years ago. Some managers and contractors have tendered to ignore it but enough is enough. I'm just about to email out all non registered contractors to sign up or they will be removed from the preferred suppliers list. The £160 for a one man band for 12 moths subs is not a lot, but it's the paperwork that they are struggling with, but would you employ a contractor with suspect rams and insurances. I think not!
Leone37  
#10 Posted : 01 April 2016 09:54:24(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Leone37

Thanks for all your responses, agree that common sense must prevail Have just spent a lot of time this week with a small contractor trying to help him get his RAMS together to complete a small job - even he admitted he's never had to do it before and was really struggling with the paperwork side of it, he really had no clue and was putting things like refuelling of plant on his RA (the job was to install a grab rail in a bathroom) ....I guess the smaller ones just need some guidance sometimes.....but if I was a small business I would put the effort in and ensure I had all the correct documentation in place and even go on a H&S course!
RayRapp  
#11 Posted : 01 April 2016 10:03:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

I am not too keen on SSIP, or procurement processes, it's basically a tick in the box. That said, no system is perfect. Whilst I prefer to review contractor's RAMS and CPP, small one-man band types still tend to not have these which is a concern. Even where they do provide documentation it's often generic and of poor quality. With the revision of CDM 2015 there is a greater onus on contractor documentation and of course it now applies to domestic work. So there is no good reason why even small contractors should not be able to provide RAMS and CPP in my view.
torkee878  
#12 Posted : 01 April 2016 11:10:46(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
torkee878

There continues to be lots of misunderstandings about the purpose of SSIP H & S assessment schemes. The assessment covers what is termed 'Stage 1' of the process and never purports to be anything further. Stage 1 involves assessing (through provision of documented evidence) whether a business or organisation has satisfactory h & s management arrangements appropriate to its size and work activities. it's an important stage to assess but does not and never claims to be) an assessment that the business or contractor has sufficient competencies/arrangements in place for the specific scheme of work they are bidding to undertake. Stage 2 covers that part of the process and must be carried out by the Client themselves e.g. scheme specific RAs/Method statement, Construction Phase Plan, competent experienced site manager (for appropriate schemes) etc.
HSE Chris Wright  
#13 Posted : 01 April 2016 11:24:42(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
HSE Chris Wright

the top and bottom is the SSIP and other schemes available are sometimes useful but depending on internal policy shouldn't be the be all and end all. There's nothing wrong with completing internal PQQ. as long as you do you due diligence. I prefer to do my own personal checks and not rely on an administrator of a scheme whom probably has no actual experience.
edwill7  
#14 Posted : 01 April 2016 11:27:13(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
edwill7

You can have CHAS, SMAS, Constructionline, Achilles, Exor, Safecontractor a letter from your Mum. I will still put your through our PPQ. Because only I know what I want you to do and what skill set and competence you require. As a sub contractor I am sick to the back teeth of yet another PPQ scheme being set up. There are too many and they are all the same and they all cost time and money. rant over
HSE Chris Wright  
#15 Posted : 01 April 2016 11:30:33(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
HSE Chris Wright

edwill7 wrote:
You can have CHAS, SMAS, Constructionline, Achilles, Exor, Safecontractor a letter from your Mum. I will still put your through our PPQ. Because only I know what I want you to do and what skill set and competence you require. As a sub contractor I am sick to the back teeth of yet another PPQ scheme being set up. There are too many and they are all the same and they all cost time and money. rant over
EXACTLY........ Most are nothing short of money making schemes, do your internal PQQ and your fine.
ACESAFE  
#16 Posted : 01 April 2016 15:05:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ACESAFE

If you have BS OHSAS 18001:2007, Why would we or should we need any of these other schemes?????
bob youel  
#17 Posted : 03 April 2016 11:11:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bob youel

This subject has been done to death in the past & with all due respect all these 1 man bands who cannot DO H&S seem to have no problems doing their tax, insurances, NI or buying new cars, nor employing other occupations to help them as the see the need so in this case they should employ 1 man band H&S bods to help them A big problem is that these people see no gain in doing H&S properly, and in many ways I see & agree with their their point, especially so as clients & procurement people want cheap so many 1 man bands trying to do things right get priced out of the market
boblewis  
#18 Posted : 03 April 2016 14:18:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

In reality you cannot simply ignore your employers current policies so you need to change those first before you can do your own vetting. The Public Sector is however very resistant to such change and I think you will need to accept the decision unless you are very persuasive
torkee878  
#19 Posted : 04 April 2016 10:46:17(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
torkee878

bob youel wrote:
This subject has been done to death in the past & with all due respect all these 1 man bands who cannot DO H&S seem to have no problems doing their tax, insurances, NI or buying new cars, nor employing other occupations to help them as the see the need so in this case they should employ 1 man band H&S bods to help them A big problem is that these people see no gain in doing H&S properly, and in many ways I see & agree with their their point, especially so as clients & procurement people want cheap so many 1 man bands trying to do things right get priced out of the market
I totally agree with every word Bob has written in his post.
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.