Posted By Sean Nuttall
Advice please gents...
Scenario. A Company has been appointed as Principal Contractor for a factory upgrade, some minor civils, new lighting and general refurbishment. The PC appoints competent subbies who have been vetted and assessed to undertake some of the work. All good so far...
Then the Client appoints a contractor direct to undertake some engineering work within the factory. That company resembles the Beverly Hill Billies !!
The Client is eventually persuaded that the Hill Billies need to communicate with the PC and to share their non existent method statements with the PC so that he is aware of the impact of their operations on his undertaking and of course visa versa. The Hill Billies now go off to draft said documents.

Now the questions are as follows.
By sharing information with them and imposing some form of control I think the PC has done his bit with regards to the MGMT regs, HASAWA etc. I don't believe we have any additional duties under CDM. Is this correct ?

If these clowns actually have an accident due to their own activities within the premises to either to one of their own or God forbid one of the PCs, then what responsibilities, if any, would the PC be liable for in this instance ?

Above those of the Client who intially appointed a "competent" contractor, does anyone else such as a non-related PC have any jurisdiction over ensuring that the hill billies are competent to operate plant within the building ? Checking for evidence of training etc ?

Sadly it is not possible to give them a segregated work area with their own access/egress. The PC and hill billies will need to work in close proximity at times

Apols for long windedness but the HSE has ground to a halt in their ability to answer the above

Ta
S

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Sean

Unfortunately this is a more common scenario than many will admit to. It also leads to a great deal of confusion of control as you clearly realise.

I am often at a loss to understand why the client wishes to bring in contractors on this basis when there are perfectly good arrangements in place for the control and co-ordination of work via the PC. It is sometimes a split in the competency ability which seems to create the situation, as seems likely in your case. You need to make some clear guidelines for work that must include the withdrawal of your own employees from areas occupied by the other contractor and define clearly your own work areas and CONTROL access to them. If this results in project delay let your QSs deal with the costs. The potential extra claims usually encourage clients to review the management of the works.

I would not be too keen on assessing any methods and risk assessments UNLESS the client appointed contractor is placed under your direct control. What you need is their programme of work and plan your activities around this programme. If your and their works are integral to each other then this is a single project and I think the HSE may be more interested on that basis.

Bob

Posted By Ciaran McAleenan
Sean

The following protocol was developed for use in the road construction industry in NI. The scenario it addresses is similar to that which you have described, (although I would not address any of the participants in NI situation in the manner you have referred to participants in your case).

Feel free to use any aspect of the protocol if it helps;

Best wishes

Ciaran

RELATIONSHIPS PROTOCOL

The Construction Design and Management Regulations require co-operation and co-ordination between all parties involved in the design and delivery of construction work. Compliance with this best practice Guidance Note will promote effective co-ordination and co-operation between Clients, Principal Contractors, Contractors, Utility Companies and their Sub-Contractors.

The objective of all the interested parties is to ensure the health, safety and welfare of road workers and road users. The following actions are necessary to further this aim and to establish and maintain a good working relationship between all parties.

Action 1

Advance notification of proposed utility works, that are to be done by any utility and/or their contractor during the Project, is to be provided to the Principal Contractor before work commences. Liaison arrangements for these works are to be agreed at this stage.

Responsibility Client and Utility Company


Action 2

The Principal Contractor is to be provided with a list detailing any nominated utility sub-contractors, seeking access to the site. The listing is to include; nature and scope of work, contact names, telephone numbers and level(s) of responsibility.

Responsibility Client and Utility Company


Action 3

The utility company is to provide relevant risk assessments, method statements and the name of their safety advisor to the Principal Contractor before work can commence.

Responsibility Utility Company and Principal Contractor


Action 4

The utility company and/or their sub-contractors are to discuss and agree with the Principal Contractor any necessary accommodation works to facilitate storage of their plant and materials on site.

Responsibility Utility Company and Principal Contractor


Action 5

The Principal Contractor is to facilitate briefing meeting(s) with all interested parties, if necessary, in order that relevant information and program of works can be communicated and agreed prior to work starting on site.

Responsibility Principal Contractor


Action 6

Any changes to works, details of delays or extensions to the utility works, which may affect the overall program, is to be notified to the Principal Contractor at the earliest opportunity.

Responsibility Utility Company and Client

The sharing of information, clarity and co-operation will ensure that all parties involved are aware of their responsibilities. Adherence to the above procedures will enhance relationships and facilitate the safe and efficient carrying out of work.

Posted By Steve Sanders
I may be miss understanding the situation. However, from the orignal scenario, the client has appionted a PC to carry out construction work and another contractor to carry out other work. The two contractor have to cooperate, as does the client, over safety matter as the are working on the same site or in close proximety, but that is it, the PC has no control over the other contractor as its a different contract. I don't see a problem, the PC's undertaking is within the clients undertaking, but it doesn't cover all of the clients undertaking. The other contractor is nothing to do with the PC.

Steve

Posted By Sean Nuttall
First of all many thanks for all the replies.

Steve you are correct in your understanding of the position. The other contractor has been appointed on a separate contract.
I have insisted that all staff from whatever company and on whatever contract do undergo our site induction where we share emergency procedure information etc.
From what I have gathered from a number of sources inc the HSE the following appears to be appropriate.
As the building was not given to us under a transfer of responsibility and as we have not signed a primacy agreement we are not liable for the actions of the dodgy company as long as:
we have done the above re sharing info, procedures etc
and
we have made the client aware of the shortcomings of one of his directly employed contractors.

In fact fair credit to the HSE in Manchester who were more than understanding of this predicament.

Thanks again for all your help

Posted By Steve Sanders
Bob
I think this is a case of reading/interpreting the question.
“Above those of the Client who intially appointed a "competent" contractor, does anyone else such as a non-related PC have any jurisdiction over ensuring that the hill billies are competent to operate plant within the building ? Checking for evidence of training etc ? “
answer NO
Yes, contractors have to co operate and coordinate their operations under CDM or if that doesn’t apply the management regs. But the appointed PC is not responcable fo all work on the clients site only the part that his contract with the client sets out. In effect the site boundry is contractuarl and not geographical.

Posted By Sean Nuttall
Bob,
the work of the PC and client appointed contractor not under our jurisdiction takes place within the same building.
There will be overlap in so much as we will be completing works on the building whilst our friend installs his plant however they are notdirectly interdependant upon each other.
We do have to share the same site entrance, loading areas etc
This would have been so much easier if the PS had been instructed to cover all activities and our friend was brought under our direct (i.e CDM PC to sub C) relationship where we would have vetted them for competence etc.