Rank: Forum user 
|
We are working on a project whereby we are installing a range of equipment at 100+ sites. When it is installed we will have maintainers in place who will maintain the equipment. The equipment belongs to our customer, will be located on their sites (some of them remote and unmanned) we will have contractors in place for specialist assitance where we can't fix it.
The issue: the contractors could be called in the early hours of the morning, the equipment is safety critical, they will have an allocated time against KPIs to fix the equipment. We physically don't have enough staff to supervise the contractors on site. One of the discussions I'm having at the moment is whether they should be issuing RAMs for each type of reactive job every time they are called out.
The problems individuals are describing to me is that 1.they won't know what the fault is until they get to the site so we were thinking of requesting generic RAMS for certain activities and place a deviation on them that their staff will have to re assess the situation when they attend sites via dynamic risk assessment (these ar the original equipment manufacturers for the equipment).
2nd problem is that our managers are saying if the contractors only have a few hours to complete a task as per the contract KPI's then the contractors won't "necessarily have the time to carry out the RAMs for each task and then send it to us".
Has anyone come across this issue before, if so, how have you managed it?
I was thinking along the lines of the generic RAMS route, a competency check and holding certificates of the staff that will come on site. Where the work is high risk and very different they will have to supply specific risk assessments obviously but I am concerned about the supervision element of it and the site induction side of things.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
This is not going to help much but here goes...these matters should have been thrashed out between you as the PC (I assume) the client and the principal designer's pre-construction input. The principle of CDM is good co-operation and communication between all parties with sufficent time and resources allocated to ensure good health and safety is maintained. From your post these aspects of the project do not appear to have been considered properly.
A suite of generic RA/MS/CPP with a dynamic RA for operatives to complete on site appears to be your best bet. Reactive repairs are always difficult to pre-empt and to ensure the proper documentation is in situ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks Ray, several issues that weren't considered in terms of CDM during the bid phase. The project is a 1 billion pound project to upgrade equipment, once the equipment is upgraded it then gets handed over to the customer but then we are contracted to maintain it and where we can't we have contracts in place with the original equipment manufacturer to do so.
So not sure that the maintenance aspect falls under CDM although I have seen a few posts on here about that.
Under contract we have been designated or given the duty of the client to manage the construction element although it's not our sites or our equipment, anyway that's a long story.
Just trying to work out how we apply so far is reasonably practicable in this. I think the best we can do is request generic RAMS where possible and then apply the deviation that it is expected upon arrival, once the fault is known, a dynamic RA is carried out. Keep and check competency records. Provide an overall briefing on the emergency arrangements for the sites that are unmanned and remote that the subcontractors will need to include planning for emergencies in their overall risk assessments etc. Request RAMS annually from subcontractors to ensure we have the most up to date copy as they won't send RAMS each time they are on call. Obviously we will request RAMS for specific aspects of work and perhaps even audit certain subcontractors where appropriate to provide another level of assurance.
Still concerned about the lack of supervision of subcontractors though.
Thanks again
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi there, I finished on a project (that's still ongoing) thats is scarily similar to what you are describing here. I was working in the PD team for the project. Ours was to install a number of equipment at client sites, followed by 3 month commisionning period and then maintenance contract for the next 10 years. We arrived at a joint conclusion as to when "construction" works had finished and removed each of the sites "out of CDM" as that point was reached (after T&C). When handed over to the maintenance regime, the contractor was then managing there works by submitting a range of standard RAMS for the activities that fell under the maintenance banner (these were agreed, anything out of maintenance scope was to be treated as construction). When an engineer was required to attend site, a cover sheet was submitted to identify who was attending to ensure their competence, what RAMS their works referred to. Once on site the engineer then undertook an on site risk assessment/site inspection to ensure no further risks were present or if they were a record of how they were controlled. Due to similarities here, I am happy to discuss further on telephone if you would like, shoot me a PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Good input from fhunter. I should have mentioned that whatever controls are put in place i.e. supervision, documentation, etc, they should be proportionate to the risks. Clearly there are some risks, possibly Lone Working, Confined Spaces, WAH, etc.
It's a moot point whether mainteance does include CDM, I think where there is remote working involved I would be inclined to suggest it does come within the ambit of CDM. Notwithstanding this, the controls would be much the same regardless of whether it is CDM or not. For example, the management of sub-contractors and ensuring their health, safety and wellbeing. Good luck - sounds a utility contract.
|
 1 user thanked RayRapp for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: fhunter  Hi there,I finished on a project (that's still ongoing) thats is scarily similar to what you are describing here. I was working in the PD team for the project.Ours was to install a number of equipment at client sites, followed by 3 month commisionning period and then maintenance contract for the next 10 years. We arrived at a joint conclusion as to when "construction" works had finished and removed each of the sites "out of CDM" as that point was reached (after T&C). When handed over to the maintenance regime, the contractor was then managing there works by submitting a range of standard RAMS for the activities that fell under the maintenance banner (these were agreed, anything out of maintenance scope was to be treated as construction). When an engineer was required to attend site, a cover sheet was submitted to identify who was attending to ensure their competence, what RAMS their works referred to. Once on site the engineer then undertook an on site risk assessment/site inspection to ensure no further risks were present or if they were a record of how they were controlled.Due to similarities here, I am happy to discuss further on telephone if you would like, shoot me a PM.
Thank you I may just be in touch, be good to know how you managed it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.