Victor M I feel a rant coming on. We could have nipped this in the bud but could not stomach the battle in the construction group - same goes for the now famous register run by APS. Bob

Canopener Problem is though the HSE started this ball rolling with their outright support of this system alone. Bob

The CSCS thing has become a 'cash cow' like so many other well intentioned ideas. If there was any doubt, I recently found a provider for CSCS test/card, presumably under licence, who charge £90 for the service, which is normally £35 I believe. I ran this past the CSCS organisation who were not really interested.

This from hse: http://www.hse.gov.uk/co...n/cdm/faq/competence.htm 'There is no legal requirement to have a card before you carry out construction work. However, all the major contractors who are members of UKCG, the UK Contractors Group, have agreed that workers on their site must have a CSCS card. The law allows principal contractors to set site rules all workers are expected to follow. Many other contractors have now followed this practice.' Seems that some are losing sight of the intended meaning of & application to "workers".

achrn Makes you question the competence of the CSCS board then!!!! It should not have been possible for a competent set of managers to lose money in this scheme which is a monopoly after all. Victor I know what you mean BUT I think that the blancmange nails were not ordered even. Bob

My understanding of Procurement Law as it applies to Local Government is that it would be essentially illegal for a LA to insist on Card Scheme membership. Similar issues arise where LAs insist on CHAS etc. Whilst I'm supportive of such PQQ schemes, LAs cannot insist on particular memberships.

Bob, we have to accept (and hopefully embrace) prequal schemes for what they are - a useful (to both parties) way of avoiding this tedious and repetitive form filling to demonstrate a baseline compliance. The test of competence starts with prequal. it does not and should not end there. The whole idea is that PQQ schemes free-up everyone's time to focus on the project and task specific risks and measuring competency to deal with them (and hopefully free up some resource to measure performance on task - confirm the contractor actually does what he said he'd do, the things you paid him to do!). Anyone basing selection purely on PQQ return (SSIP or otherwise) isn't complying with CDM. This Stage 2 assessment is where we should come in - the practitioners who can determine whether the contractor knows what he's talking about for the project specific risks. Unless we all strive to sell these schemes and concepts, the whole procurement process degenerates to a "tick box" process of pqq membership/accreditation and card holding -a red-tape farce. Part of the problem for some of us (in local gov for example) is that the HSE in their roadshows have managed to convince those in public construction procurement (who didn't know the rules, or maybe choose to ignore them) that it's OK to insist in CSCS etc. One day they're in for a nasty shock when a procurement challenge comes in - settling these things can be VERY expensive.

RP That is how CHAS originated. The ground between Ron and I is not that great - I simply feel that many clients etc using these PQQ systems do so in he belief that it is ALL they need to do. Ron has faith that some will carry the process forward and will undertake additional assessment. We both recognise the need to do more than just a PQQ assessment. As I have said elsewhere these PQQ systems need competent assessors and the reality is that the number of such people available is far less than is needed to meet the demand if ALL clients and contractors insist on using them. Bob

@ Bob, agreed but need exploring 100% agree with the competence to assess PPQ's and of course the value of CSCS. i inspected a site last year, contractor ticked all the boxes, including CSCS, etc. On-site was very questionable. Dumper driver had no evidence of training (was not interested in any scheme card); Subby did not know what CSCS was; no evidence of site inductions, etc, etc. What to do? Shut the job down and report, carry on and report; kick them off site???? Well a bit of all of the above really with agreement from the PC and Client Managers. but it did bring in the bit on competence to assess PPQ's through the schemes and not at the start. But there does seem to be a heavy relience upon CSCS being quote 'the get out of jail free card' which makes up old pro's life very difficult. PS: I am now exploring the LA's procurement laws in detail to find the 'get out of jail card' where LA's would not need he CSCS card for specific contracts. And I found a frog in my garden...