Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MAK
Hi,
I am a Planning supervisor who has just joined a new company. I recently rejected a Construction Phase H&S Plan for
various reasons but the main points were there were key risk assessments and method statements missing.
Our client has just told me the Construction works are nearly complete...!
I am understandably concerned that this is the case as I have never heard of this happening to any of my colleagues or previous ones for that matter.
Can anyone advise what would be the best steps for me take next?
MAK
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Clarke Kent
Very big ones in a backwards direction.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
I also get the impression that the additional F10 notification has not been submitted and therefore it was not displayed on site.
I think you have two choices, either you walk away from the project and upset the client and probably your employer or you need to move very quickly to protect the interests of your client.
In my experience a principal contractor who is finding difficult to communicate with you before the construction phase, is also going to be difficult to communicate with in the process of assisting or completing the H&S File.
I would recommend that you advise the client to retain a significant sum of the final payment against the satisfactory completion of the H&S File.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martyn Hendrie
Setting aside any other issues, may I ask why you are reviewing the Construction Phase plan if the works have already started?
The only duty in the regulations for the Construction phase plan to be revieved and rejected is on the client and even then the only time it has to be checked is prior to letting the works start.
As Planning Supervisor you only 'formal' interests are in ongoing design issues and the health and safety file.
Failure to manage the construction works, including the risk assessments/ method statements is a matter for the Principal Contractor.
It may be prudent to find a diplomatic way to explain to the client that they may well be in a position where they are at risk of prosecution.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By wesley james mason
I ahve had this problem before and the way I would deal with it is as follows.
Firstly, check that a copy of the Plan is on site and ensure the a pre-tender plan is in place and that an F10 is on site and a copy sent to the HSE.
In none of this has been done or even if some of this has not been done, advise the client of the shortfalls and explain their duties under CDM. Also if there is a contract administrator, advise him of his duties and explain the situation........including that work should not have started until a sufficent Construction phase plan (CPP) is in place.
If you send the F10 to the HSE with a back dated start date, they will probably write to you and advise you to tell your client that work should not have started etc.
Ultimatley, I would also say to the client, that work should stop until this has been sorted out. They do not have to agree with you, but you have to cover yourself and and the client. If he chooses to ignore you.....then on his head be it.
The key is to get everything in writing and make sure that you get a sufficent CPP today if work is going to continue. I would not worry too much about MS & RA's as it is their duty to ensure that they have them and that they are prepared, but if the plan CPP covers what they are doing then this should be sufficient. e.g. if they are installing a lift and you want a MS for it. If their plan says that a competent sub-contractor will be used to do this, then you have to assume that they will do this.
I will often ask for Method statements for tasks with significant risk, and if you feel that these are required before you approve the plan, then stick to your guns and make sure they provide it.
There appears to be a clear breach of the CDM regs here, so if you state this to the project team and state that they could be prosecuted....they will listen. Remember, their PI insurance may not cover them if they fail to comply with legislation, and they could be personably liable for prosecution.
At the end of the day this could be sorted out today, but if may only take an reportable accident on site and/or the HSE to turn up and all hell could break loose.
Maybe ring the HSE and get their advice? I'm sure that they would be keen to help!!!!!!
Good luck! And remember to explain the benefits of an early appointed of a planning supervisor!!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MAK
Thanks all. I spoke to the HSE and then reported it to my senior managers and the client. In this case we are required to act on behalf of the client to ensure that the plan is suitably developed under the CDM (and in so doing ensure that all else conforms to best practice or current standards. However I found that it was not and no response was received prior to the contractor starting work. I.e. I had also asked for a traffic management plan as cranes and other work vehicles will be involved and this is a public area etc. The issue has arisen due to lack of information on the client representatives’ part as he feels that once a construction plan is delivered – regardless of content – that all legal requirements have been met.
Needless to say Construction is still progressing on this site but my company has advised the client that we clearly cannot be held responsible for any breach of contractual or legal requirements here.
Martyn a PS contract, more often that not, includes for us to act on the clients behalf to ensure the Construction Health and Safety plan is sufficient i.e. he employs us as safety practitioners, and I believed I was reviewing the plan prior to works commencing.
Lastly thanks Guys for your responses to my plea for help, it is invaluable to feel that you can find this kind of support.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
MAK
Have to fully support Martyn, why are you vetting construction phase plans once the work has started. You actually have no duty to stop any activity, or the power to do so unless the client has written it into the contract with the Principal Contractor, regardless of what is in your own contract. Once work has commenced it is the responsibility of the PC to manage the work. By becoming so involved you are making yourself responsible for the works not under your control.
The issues of the F10 display are irrelevant to you, providing your organisation supplied one in the first place. Concentrate on the tasks that you need to and ensure they are done- doubtless the PC will make a pigs ear of giving you the information in the same way he ran the site.
The HSE should not have been working through you unless of course they are gathering evidence against your client or yourself for letting the situation occur in the first place.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave.T
Mak, This is my first time replying to a thread on this site, It dissapoints me to see so called 'profesionals' giving out bad advice, firstly there is no requirement for method statements in a CPP, (maybe outline ones for high risks in pre construction plan) and the works have been allowed to continue without an approved plan! next time appoint a different contractor or do your homework. Remember, no advice is better than bad advice, everyone who replied to you seem to have lost the plot!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martyn Hendrie
Dave,
I do not want to appear too precious, but to make comment that other people who have responded are "professionals giving out bad advice" and everyone else has "lost the plot" does not contribute to a constructive discussion.
If you have a specific point (or points) you disagree with then please raise them but don't insult others in the process.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Charley Farley-Trelawney
Dave
Whilst I am certain you meant no insult, I think you have opened up a 'can of worms' here, (this thread will almost certainly become a long one) please do contribute with constructive comments, destructive ones rarely help anyone.
I have read this thread very carefully and whilst perhaps MAK came in late to the project he has been frank in his approach and in the way he has asked for help, honest answers therefore in reply are all that one can ask for. As to 'do we all agree with all the answers that are provided' I suspect the answer is no, but I am certain you know the old saying; 'give one set of accounts to two accountants and you will get two sets of results' Does it therefore follow that they are both wrong, or both correct??
I will continue to enjoy this forum with my fellow professionals and fellow learners, although I suspect we would all agree to falling into the latter at times, I know each and every day I learn something new, none of us are perfect, all we attempt to do is offer support when asked, it is up to us if we accept the advice, MAK is obviously not a beginner to be in his current position but recognised what was wrong, I feel MAK wanted to have some 'bare bones' to take to the company, in many of the answers provided I feel that has been achieved effectively.
I hope the moderators see fit to let this thread continue as I personally look forward to further responses, both to MAK and your own very individual & nigh on unique comments.
No personal disrespect is intended to anyone within this thread.
CFT
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Dave
Since when is it bad advice to suggest that one should not do the job for which others are responsible. The whole set of problems that have arisen with CDM stem directly from their use to create a whole bureaucratic structure in which everybody is trying to do the job of the PC and criticise for the lack of information which is not legally requred in the form that is asked.
If as much effort had been put into forming a proper pre-tender plan as has been used in trying to vet what the PC is doing and asking for over the top information the regs would potentially have not required revision.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MAK
Guys,
The question was asked because I needed advice as to what steps to take next. I for one did not intend it to become a debate about the key regulations by which I am a function and thus employed. The query has had far-reaching and positive repercussions as my company and the clients’ are currently reviewing procedures to explore professional liabilities no doubt but also to resolve this and prevent a reoccurrence as a team issue.
Robert, I completely agree that you feel the contractor may be jumped on from a height or criticised and in some contracts I have experienced this, however my query was not how do I improve on our Pretender plan (incidentally I have not mentioned the tender process at all). As a PS we are obliged to make reasonable enquires where risk is reasonably foreseeable and in this case for example a traffic management plan may be required such as where construction plant is required to go into a retail/residential area –how this will be controlled i.e. access/egress, turning areas, pedestrian routes, control measures such as will the PC employ a banksman or apply speed limits, may be reasonable enquiries no? Or if you know for example the site set up will involve connection to existing services or where there are overhead cables etc.
Unfortunately in construction some parties have grown a large chip on their shoulders, which is not conducive to working as a close-knit team and leads to lessen the key points by which any potential risks may be managed.
The point is any safety practitioner may ask reasonable questions particularly as current practice dictates no requirement to visit all potential sites, however any party who chooses to ignore such concerns and queries and lacks even the professional courtesy to respond to them essentially leaves the field open to malpractice which has the potential to result in accidents and negates the entire PS process in my humble opinion.
A useful nut of information by the way that has emerged is that a PS does not have any authority to stop work that has commenced without the Construction plan being approved and is not obliged to report it to the HSE unless the specific client contract by which they are employed states so…...This is unless they visit the site and see evidence of malpractice.. so we ask the questions then let the horse bolt regardless, my friends.
As to the forum here I believe it to be a very effective training tool for some and a soapbox for others who attempt to teach the rest of us and I thank you all for taking the time to respond.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
MAK
If there had been a requirement in the pre-tender plan for outline control methods for say traffic management then these should be evaluated in the tender process, but once on site they are down to the PC to manage - you cannot just ask for something just because you feel it should be there and it does not appear to be after project commencement. The PC is responsible and will be held accountable. By all means you can note it to the PC but if you vet the control methods you may well be the approver and take responsibility for it.
The issue of whether you are a competent safety practitioner is not questioned but unless the client has specified you as this role on his behalf in the PCs contract the question of needing to act as a safety practitioner has no meaning.
It is all very well identifying such as sewer connections and work at height as construction issues that require control methods but the CDM guidance for me is clear that one would NOT be seeking information on risks which a competent contractor would normally face. One should rather be addressing those risks which are unusual or unique to this site because of some unusual feature. Buried services are not unusual but a buried 11,000 volt cable through the middle of the site is most definitely different
Your thread brings to light many of the difficulties and preconceptions that have arisen under CDM. Too many clients seem to identify the PS as a super safety supervisor for the project and at the same time try to reduce the information that they provide to the minimum. Designers spend an inordinate amount of time and space listing every possible construction risk attached to the structure, I have received one 88 pages long with only one unusual risk buried on page 44.
Let us get real with CDM and do our own duties to the best of our abilities - this after all is the message that the HSE are now trying to put across. Yes we are all professionals working in a difficult environment and teamwork across all parties is the key to successful projects, but teamwork means not just openess it also means an ability to give each other the freedom to act in accordance with our duties as we see fit to do within the context of our own organisations. The more authority one party has is mirrored by a loss of control by another.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By DaveTripp
I am back on now, the moderator temporarily locked me out for having an incomplete user name! I was formaly known as Dave T. I have replied personaly to some of the people in this thread with an explanation as to my comments, MAK, thanks for your response, no offence was intended to the other proffesionals.
P.S. This is a voluntary appology....
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
Whilst generally agreeing with Bob, we would also expect method statements and risk assessments where the CDM work could affect the safe operation of our undertaking (eg present risks to the safety of occupants of the building upon or above which the CDM work is to take place). For example, we are currently having steels hoisted and erected above and adjacent to one of our schools as part of the construction of a major extension.
Presumably all this uncertainty about the role of planning supervisors and duties of principal contractors will disappear when the Regs are amended.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Ken
No problem providing you ask for them to be outlined pre tender or specify the need in the contract.
As for the problems I will not hold my breath.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
Of couse, Bob. That's why I insist on being consulted by the PS on the PTH&S Plan before it goes out.
|
|
|
|
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.