Posted By Ian Hancock
I have recently received two requests from companies we deal with in the UK. They are asking us to be part of the scheme to enable us to remain on their Approved list of contractors. What`s the view of members on this scheme, is it another money making scheme?

Posted By Derrick Robinson
We have been registered for 2 years, in fact I am currently in the process of re registering.
We did it as a pre condition for a tender for a job which we did not get in the end but in the last few months several existing clients have started to use the database so it is proving quite worthwhile.
They do actually make some effort to check the data you send them so it is more worthwhile than most of the pointless questionnaires I spend 1/2 my life filling in.
CHAS is in line with the requirements of the new CDM AcOP and the scheme was mentioned by name at a CDM presentation I attended with an HSE speaker so I would guess that it is going to grow in popularity.

Derrick

Posted By Ian Mitchell
Yes, it seems a good scheme. As mentioned, if the assessor requires more evidence they will not register you until satisfied. We are registered, and, whilst not difficult for any competent company, you must be able to supply objective evidence and cannot get accredited by lip service!

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Can I be a lone voice for a moment and pose the devils question. Why are there a number of schemes, each favoured by different clients, when we are assessing the same thing? - Competence

My general answer is that in fact clients are not sure of what they want and that the assessing companies have varying interpretations of what things mean. If I can turn this question round a little - why do clients or any of the schemes reject systems that have been found to be robust by independent 3rd party UKASS assessed and IRCA certificated auditors who spend 6 days a year auditing the systems and their effectiveness?

For me if someone has a suitable formal system that covers the elements set out in the acop and can produce previous audit reports then I am well on my way to stage 2 assessment without significant effort. Until we are able to take a proper view of formal systems then we will continue with the morass of bureaucratic competence assessment.

Bob

Posted By Jez Corfield
Sorry folks - but I think some of these schemes suck!

I havent got a problem with vetting of contractors, it is essential, but, when a very small business is required to pay £XXX pounds to be included, it isnt particularly fair.

I now vet contractors myself, and I dont charge them for the pleasure....

Jez

Posted By Peter Leese
CHAS is a scheme run by the HSE/LA/Government at no cost and will recognise most other schemes so it is easy to join if you have already been audited etc.

Are you sure it's free Dave?

Posted By RHEALAN
I have used the CHAS scheme before and can agree with others that it was a good service, although we only used because we were asked to by a client to ensure our competency.
we did have to pay a small fee, but outweighed by the likelihood of future work.
I myself found it a good way of looking at your systems and policies and found the people at the other end were very helpful and practical with any advice or recommendations they gave.

but i do also think that because a contractor has gained the CHAS accreditation or is audited by this scheme it doesn't always mean that they are competent, this may be a bit synical!

Posted By Dave Wilson
Tabs and others you make a good point.

The idea of these schemes was so that if you were "accredited" it meant that your H&S management systems had been independantly audited, thereby removing the need to ask the same questions again and so the endless reams of paperwork stops and just a valid cert given.

So " do you have valid CHAS/ Nat Brit / UDVB etc /"

"Yes! here our certificate"

"Ok thanks you are in!"

CHAS is run not for profit is what I meant! Its £40 if you already have Nat Brit.

I agree that you can download this info from tinternet but Tabs how do you know the people who send you stuff is theirs?

Posted By Karen
When considering CHAS, lets just remember that it does not mean that those who have passed through the CHAS assessment process are competent. The following text is copies directly from the CHAS FAQ's on their website:

"Does a CHAS assessment determine the competence of a contractor?

No it does not. CHAS compliance means the applicant has demonstrated adequate compliance with current legislation and sound management of H&S
It does not make any assessment that they have all relevant safety systems for the work they undertake - other assessments techniques must be used to determine competence including taking up references, site monitoring, interviews, assessing method statement, specific training and skills, etc. CHAS does provide specific guidance for users on this subject."

Posted By holyterror72
Bob,

I fully agree. On the flip side of this, my company received a request from a Client organisation to register for one of the above mentioned schemes. For this Client we only offer CDM C services to. When I read through the info I rang them as it wasn't clear what info they would need from a consultant as opposed to a contractor. They didn't understand what a CDM C was and outlined I would probably only need to provide a H&S Policy for the company. I explained that this would in no way, shape or form outline our competence in any given way, but they didn't understand. When questioned further they asked if I could provide risk assessments and method statements for works I undertook, to which i replied I have VDU assessments and had a COSHH assessment for Tippex, but they didn't get the sarcasm. They then proceeded to ask if I undertook works on my clients sites to which i answered before projects commence i visit site and attend site meetings. The conversation then died and said they would email me further information. A day later I was kindly emailed the information I had originally received through the post.

I now feel obliged to inform my Client that they can not rely on the info they are receiving from this system as it wouldn't even provide sufficient evidence of base competence in most consultancy roles.

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
When assessing competence, there are a number of organisations out there who appear to rely on a system rather than a skilled practitioner who understands the CDM role which they are assessing.

As an example I work for a design organisation, however the majority of design questionnaires are so remote from the guidance within appendix 4 of the 2007 CDM ACOP that just I wonder how well our organisation could perform under that type of handicap.

A contractor focused questionnaire or even a general questionnaire would be no good to us.

To assess competence, the person assessing the competence must have a high degree of competence in the area that they are assessing. A competence based assessment system simply does not assess competence.

This is simply why ISO 9001 and 14001 certification bodies are independently accredited

If any one wishes to assess your organisations competence, I feel it is a fair question to ask them to describe their competence to assess your competence.

Posted By Dave Wilson
All valid points people.

We are members of 4 of these schemes and as such every year its an update from the year before generally done by email form filling, pay your dosh and hey presto certificate for another year.

There are so many differing companies / organisations out there who demand this and unless you have it you cannot go on their 'approved' tender list.

Have we won job because of this? Probably not!

Have we been invited to tender because we have them? Most definitely as we would not be on the preferred contractors list if we didnt.

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
I am concerned that my last message could be interpreted as an attack on CHAS. This is not the case as I feel that this is currently the independent competence assessment scheme for CDM competence.

Posted By John Murphy
Colleagues

I have read with interest the comments and observations about the CHAS scheme and feel now it may be helpful to clarify a number of points.

Firstly, our scheme was developed to help reduce the amount of unnecessary H&S duplication that takes place in this country. More importantly, our clients and their assessors underpinning objective has, and remains, a strong professional desire to help micro, small and medium-sized companies to achieve a demonstration of adequate compliance with basic health and safety law.

I believe we have gone some way to achieving the first objective but would accept we still have work to do. The second of our objectives can be judged based on facts, the consistent failure rate on initial application with our scheme over the years has been 70 percent - fact. On reapplication, that failure rate dropped to 7 percent last year (2005/6), the year before was 13 percent and the year before that 17 percent. I think we make a difference!

CHAS is not an approved list of contractors or consultants but it is a useful tool within contractor selection and management process. We provide the first stage of a two-stage process (simply prequalification). The second stage is a (H&S) assessment for the project or job specific element and must be undertaken by the client. Many will know that our scheme has always and still does promote a third stage that is the monitoring of contractors when they undertake the work. We are clear too that the second and third stage should only be undertaken in proportion to the risks associated with that work. What our scheme does though is to free up safety professionals time from the first stage (the desktop, paperwork exercise), so they can devote more time to their preferred role – monitoring.

Anyone who has read the CDM 2007 ACoP will have spotted the significant similarities with what I have described here – what we have been doing for 10 years, not 10 weeks.

Someone made the valid point about the authenticity of some of the information provided on application to CHAS and other assessment applications. I remember clearly some years ago an IOSH member made a statement in this very forum of how he had helped two companies to achieve compliance through CHAS but was of the view he would never employ them because they were not competent. Let us be clear people can and will cheat and they may get through CHAS. What I find quite intriguing though is the suggestion they can cheat us as a scheme but not those who are ready criticise what we do in this forum.

Of course the acid test is performance on site, some of you will I am sure feel you have robust and adequate safety management systems in place and these breeze through any prequalification assessment. It does not mean you do not have accidents or incidents on site or at work. Any suggestion that prequalification through any assessment scheme or individual organisation stops all accidents is a nonsense.

Our scheme is not perfect; no prequalification assessment is nor can be. We identify what is good, not competent; importantly we identify those who are not good- the incompetent – 7% of them.

The people who undertake assessments on our behalf do not do it for the money alone – some of those reading this would not get out of bed for what we pay – Our assessors do it because they want to reach out to SME’s and make a difference, to improve contractor compliance and management of safety – making a difference. In many cases our assessors will spend hours of their unpaid time to help a non-compliant SME. Our assessors are safety professionals, your and my peers – to suggest they are not competent because they do this work for CHAS is frankly insulting and unprofessional unless you know whom they are and have audited what they do. They are assessors – not auditors.

Our scheme is transparent in everything we do and we welcome informed and constructive criticism. As a client organisation with CHAS you are welcome to audit any assessment yourself. We even provide the completed questionnaire, assessment findings and letters of initial failure, failure and compliance on the web site. In addition 3% of all approved applications and reviews are subjected to internal quality checks with the result of the QC posted on the contractors details and summarised three monthly to members.

I hope this helps to clarify things. If you would like to discuss or clarify any points I have made here then please contact me via e-mail and I will get back to you.

Regards

John

Posted By Ron Hunter
I think John Murphy has given an honest and robust response to the original question.
Just a small observation: The thread very quickly narrowed down to a discussion of construction contractors. CHAS is applicable to the assessment of ANY contractor, be they brickie, taxi driver, window cleaner, homecare provider, you name it. This is I think one of the main strengths of CHAS.

Posted By John Murphy
The CHAS questionnaire is available from our web site (www.chas.gov.uk) We developed a single questionnaire that can be used by both construction and non-construction companies. Our assessors can judge relevance not just on construction issues but other areas of the assessment that may not be applicable to a company.

Posted By Robert K Lewis
I said nothing about MCG members not needing to be competence assessed which is after all the purpose of regulation 4 - this regulation seeks to ensure that organisations and individuals are competent to fulfill the requirements with regard to health and safety under CDM07 and other relevant legislation. I am saying that when one has an organisation with a fully audited management system what benefit can compliance assessment schemes add to the information already there. Most larger contractors actually do have formalised management systems, particularly those who are likely to be appointed as PC. If they do not then one has significant problems in obtaining evidence of competence, which is after all what is required.

If I follow this through one might well argue that a compliance assessment scheme for the organisation without formalised systems could provide an initial benefit but this does not mean that the same assessment can be applied to those with formalised systems. Time, effort and hence money is potentially wasted by duplicating some of the efforts of far more structured audits and investigations.

Bob

Posted By Jim Walker
Strange something a lot near to home has not been mentioned.

To get on our prefered suppliers list there is a questionnaire.

One question: is your competent H&S advice CMIOSH.
If you answer Yes, we (or rather I) check - then you are in ;-).