Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 05 July 2001 21:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuart Nagle The subject of the 'Control of Contractors' seems to be a bit of a problem. I have seen systems in place where an effort has been made, undertaking initial H&S audits of contractors to assess their suitability for employment, followed by the introduction of induction schemes and 'passports', which is laudable. However, the issue of 'Control' seems to be escaping a lot of people. Whilst I am sure those persons know what needs to be done, getting a system that actually controls contractors seems to be problem. This is particularly true in the field of Facilities Management which may encompass either large sites, or a number of sites remote to each other. This problems seems to exist in two main areas, much quoted by those I have spoken to, who should be doing the controlling. namely; 1) Staff resources: (Example: 'We would need another two staff simply to deal with the contractors entering the site every day and reporting !!) 2) Cost/overheads (Example: 'The costs involved in ensuring routine and regular supervision of all the contractors on the site(s) would be very high, we simply can't afford to do this !!) I argue that the term 'Control of Contractors' means the following, in addition to the H&S procedures for their appointment/employment and induction etc; A) Contractors entering sites should have reporting system, prior to commencing works, where they (for want of a better term) 'book-in' and advise where and what they will doing, with whom (names of staff/contractors etc). B) The contractors should be visited during the work, if not prior to commencing, (Supervision - as necessary) to ensure that they are observing the safety requirements (Employer to ENSURE the H&S of others within his undertaking etc) as often as is necessary and the employer should have the resources to do this. In many cases the employer may be a main contractor theselves and employing sub-contractors, so the cost implications are particularly a sore point here !!! C) That the contractor should report again prior to leaving the site(s), and be 'booked-out', reporting what has ben done perhaps !! D) Records of 'Booking-in''Booking-out' Site visits to contractors in the line of supervision and records of instructions given, breaches by the contractor of H&S requirements on the site(s) and other matters should be recorded by the supervisor and filed in the contractors records. This is, as far as I am concerned the possible way forward in the 'Control of Contractors' and in some (mainly enclosed building) sites has been achieved with very good results (perhaps at a cost !!) that has considerably improved H&S and as a knock on effect, conditions generally. I would be pleased to hear the thoughts, comments or alternatives of members and others on this subject, particularly perhaps, 'The Contractor'
Admin  
#2 Posted : 06 July 2001 20:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Nick Higginson Stuart, You make some really good points here. I have just done an assignment on control of contractors for NEBOSH Diploma Part One, and it has really opened my eyes. Too many people take the view that it is only their responsibility to select the contractor. "What the contractor gets up to is his own business" is a dangerous view indeed.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 06 July 2001 21:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor I agree with you on this one, Stuart - with an addition of a minuted pre-commencement meeting where applicable - particularly for works on buildings (whether CDM or not). We also require them to meet a code of conduct and rules when working on our premises and include this with pre-tender H&S plans or contracts.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 07 July 2001 10:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuart Nagle Ken. Thanks for your comments. Yes I am in agreement with you on pre-start meetings for the 'larger' works, which usually takes place and in the most part, with larger organisations, is also included within their QA systems (ISO9000/9001 etc). The application of a 'Code of Conduct' is something I have heard of before, and is an interesting point. Perhaps you could expand a little on what this requires and how it is enforced (if necessary). Stuart Nagle
Admin  
#5 Posted : 07 July 2001 10:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuart Nagle Nick. Than kyou for your response, I am glad you concur. How did your assignment on this subject bring these points to the fore? Stuart Nagle
Admin  
#6 Posted : 07 July 2001 10:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Nick Higginson Stuart, The assignment was in 2 parts: 1. Determine the key issues of contractor control through a review of legislation, guidance and case law. 2. Determine my company's current position by use of a survey, then recommend improvements. So as you can see, I learnt a lot about contractor control! The EEF (Engineering Employers Federation) publish a great booklet on client/contractor relationships which I managed to get hold of. Have you seen it? It mentions many of the points you made.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 07 July 2001 10:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuart Nagle Nick. Thanks for the response. I would like to get some more information on the The EEF (Engineering Employers Federation) booklet on client/contractor relationships. Perhaps you could provide the details here for myself and others interested. Regards... Stuart Nagle
Admin  
#8 Posted : 07 July 2001 11:08:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Nick Higginson Stuart, No problem. Book is called "Safety & Contractor/Client Relationships - The Good Practice Guide". EEF Details are: Telephone 020 7222 7777 Email enquiries@eef-fed.org.uk Website www.eef.org.uk As far as I am aware, the book is free, but I was given it on a seminar, so I'm not 100% sure. It includes: Establishing scope, Pre-tendering, Tendering (Risk Assessment, Permits, Competence), Awarding the contract, Managing the contract, Review, References, Appendices, Case Studies.
Admin  
#9 Posted : 08 July 2001 07:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert Dee This is a string I started in March but the responses then concentrated on CDM requirements and did not address small building works outside CDM. The documentation I have now seen says that guidelines apply "irrespecive for the need for CDM" .I submit this is overkill when dealing with all but the larger building maintenance companies. The most available skilled labour is in local small building firms, particularly for emergency work where national companies are either too slow or subcontract at excessive rates.To set up "assessments", "precontract meetings", and forward "minutes" to Mr X the local jobbing builder when a wc seat is loose is unrealistic.We issue a short list of controls including care to third parties and CAR and ask the contractor to sign he agrees to comply. Regular supervision on site during such minor work does not come into it.
Admin  
#10 Posted : 08 July 2001 09:40:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Nick Higginson Rob, Interesting you talk about overkill and excessive cost but employ contractors to repair a toilet seat?? I think the thread is generally discussing larger contracts, and my company is issuing a one page safety instruction/hint card for staff required to manage smaller contracts (5 staff or less on site at once) but these still need to be managed. Maintenance work you speak of would surely be under a maintenance contract, and this contract should be subject to all the things we have spoke of i.e. pre-contract meeting, supervision, monitor and review etc. TO say that "supervision doesn't come into it" is a dangerous view for any contract. A one man contractor can cause serious injury to himself or one of your staff if left to his own devices.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 08 July 2001 19:23:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert Dee Nick thanks for your input and I would be interested to see the "hint card" for staff. Can you e-mail me? I should point out that I made no reference to excessive costs but to "excessive rates" and I think you will agree that as project managers we have a duty to Clients to control those. "Supervision" of a small builder replacing a loo seat? The role of staff in the absence of a qualified surveyor or similar is to discharge the Company's duties as Clients as controller of the premises, having been briefed on the work involved. In any event the old maxim is that the client/employer is at risk to tell a skilled man/woman "how", rather than "what". For small building works the "Contractor" (ie one who is engaged verbally or preferably in writing) is unlikely to have his minor work checked til later. So long as the hazards and risks ahve been assessed and notified to all concerned in advance you have discharged your duty. Looking over the plumber's shoulder is taking things a bit too far and no reasonable environmental health officer is going to expect that.Where is the "danger" you refer to - do you mean legally ( in which case what) or physically?
Admin  
#12 Posted : 08 July 2001 21:18:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Nick Higginson Rob, I disagree with your view that you have discharged your duties as long as the risks have been assessed and the hazards notified. It is all well and good a contractor saying how he is going to control risks, but experience tells us this is not always the case. By "supervision" I don't mean checking on is work or looking over his shoulder. I mean checking that he is carrying out work as laid down in his method statements or risk assessments. It is not good enough to look at his risk assessment or his method statement at your desk and say, "Yep, that looks good enough for me, let him get on with it." I'm not talking about watching each individual contractor employee, but surely every contracting firm must have their health and safety performance monitored in some way? When i referred to danger, I was indeed referring to legal factors (criminal and civil), as well as the physical risk that contractors and your own staff can be placed at. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one? I'll endeavour to e-mail the hint card when it's completed. Regards Nick
Admin  
#13 Posted : 08 July 2001 22:18:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert Dee Nick you used the phrase "A one man contractor can cause serious injury to himself or one of your staff if left to his own devices" That is a different thing to you now saying we have to monitor his health and safety performance. We expect the Clients' staff to record any action of a builder etc. which may pose a risk to staff during trading hours -but that is different to the "supervision" you suggested. |If there is one thing I have learnt after 32 years as a surveyor is that teaching your grandmother( the skilled labourer) how to suck eggs( his trade) can end up with a heavy object dropped from a good height onto my safety helmet.
Admin  
#14 Posted : 08 July 2001 23:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ashley Williams Interesting reading. I work for a small charity providing training and advice to the voluntary sector and have the same discussion on one of my courses. Its nice to see that this goes on in the real world too. I'll remember to keep using the liability hand outs. Ashley
Admin  
#15 Posted : 09 July 2001 10:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Laurie Stuart Not sure if you've had a response yet, but I have produced a "Contractor's Code of Practice" which I can e-mail if you wish Laurie
Admin  
#16 Posted : 09 July 2001 13:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Andrew Powell I am pleased to see that it is not just relatively new safety practitioners who have problems dealing with contractors. I have been in the "job" for 6 months now and need to take tighten up our contractors COP. I am particularly interested in your code of practice Laurie would you mind Emailing a copy?
Admin  
#17 Posted : 09 July 2001 13:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Juliet Fennell I have read all of the above with great interest and agree for the most part with the opinions given. However it appears to me that the large 'dangerous' contractor is covered under such codes & good practices, but how do you all deal with the small contractor? For example window cleaners? The law says we the client must ensure the safety of persons on our site. Our building is old and does not meet modern building requirements. Our window cleaners seem to come as they please (they do sign in), they cant always achieve a 1:4 gradient on their ladders and never have a person to foot it. I have expressed my concerns to management who have said that if we say anything we are likely to loose them and I have pointed out that should there be an accident, then we will be responsible. On a similar vein, how do you address a situation where by the contractor appears unsafe? I recently had a plumber out who from the moment I met him I felt something was wrong- he appeared to be in another world or stoned. I felt I could not ring his employer as I had no proof and only a gut instinct and could not say something which could be slanderous. I refused to leave his side while he was on site and subsequently recommended that we not use that company again. Does anybody have any ideas on these? Juliet
Admin  
#18 Posted : 09 July 2001 14:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor We have a policy statement on H&S in construction works and a code of conduct for contractors working on our properties - both as appendices to our H&S policy statement and issued to contractors as relevant. The code of conduct being part of the contract can be enforced in terms of contract compliance and the usual threat of not getting another contract! We have to rely upon the local management at the premises and visits by myself, our surveyors, planning supervisors, property manager and the like to monitor compliance. The items covered include: introduction; notice of commencement; notification of risks, safe and legal plant and equipment; statements of health and safety policy and safety precautions to be taken; insurance cover; COSHH assessments; lists of personnel; training; use of our tools and equipment, gas, electricity, water, etc; signage; dust control; noise; hot work permits; fire provision and training; electrical and gas safety; safe access equipment; provision of records of inspections; security - including searching, not taking photos, reporting losses and fencing; informing us of accidents; reinstatent upon completion; removal of refuse; etc. Particular reference is made in the policy statement to the vulnerability of children and elderly residents. Much of this may have been covered at the tendering and selection stage or in other standard conditions - but it's useful to pull these things together and clearly commit them in writing. Suggestions for improvement are always welcome!
Admin  
#19 Posted : 10 July 2001 13:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jim Sweetman This particular concern is obviously quite close to most people's heart. As identified in many of the responses, contractors come in all sizes and professions - in deed, it appears that the world cannot manage without them. From my personal experience in this area, I notice that there is one aspect that has not been mentioned - the client. Too often the client is not fully aware of what they really want, consequently their instruction/requirement is not clear. This aspect obviously appears least in small contracts, such as the plumber mentioned earlier. However the larger the contract, the more info is required - both as a requirement and to attract a commitment to provide a service. Too often, generic/'off the shelf' input comes out, and the result, as one can work out, is that someone is doing something but are not sure exactly what and what the required standards are. If everyone is clear as to what is required, life gets somewhat easier: - CDM requires that competence is measured against the requirements of the Pre-Tender H&S Plan. - Procedures to follow depend on the complexity/size of the work - armed with this knowledge, a decision on the level of monitoring can be made. Just some views from my side, any comments would be very welcome. Jim Sweetman
Admin  
#20 Posted : 11 July 2001 08:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuart Nagle Laurie. I would welcome a copy of your Code of Conduct. Double click on my name in 'BLUE' above to e-mail direct to me, and you can attach the file. Thank you very much. Stuart Nagle
Admin  
#21 Posted : 11 July 2001 08:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuart Nagle Robert. The onus of this string was to discuss the actual control of contractors on site, irrespective of the pre-goings-on in respect of H&S/CDM etc. Most, if not all companies have these procedures, even for the smaller contractor (less than 5 employees) of self-employed person. The real crux of the matter is what happens after this - on the site, for example, How ia access controlled, do you know when they are coming onto site (how) or when. Supervision to 'Ensure' they are meeting the statutory/regulatory , contract/client requirements etc etc... Stuart Nagle
Admin  
#22 Posted : 11 July 2001 08:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuart Nagle Ken. I would welcome anything you could forward to me on this topic. To e-mail: double click on my name in 'BLUE' above and then attach files. If you require my postal address please let me know similarly. Thank you very much. Stuart Nagle
Admin  
#23 Posted : 11 July 2001 08:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuart Nagle Gentlemen (& Ladies) I have read you comments with great interest and obviously there is much thought and difference in ideas on what needs to be achieved and how. I have been considering a system for the supervision of works, which in my opinion is where the 'Control of Contractors' falls down, whereby all work (having been risk assessed) is categorised into supervision requirements acordingly. Rather simplistic at this stage, but I am open to ideas and suggestions. The system will catergorise all works orders issued, either as individual works (within a larger maintenance contract) or smaller 'jobbing' works, as either Low, Moderate or high risk works. The category will attract a superision rating which shall also be guaged by any supervisor against the skill and competence levels of the contractors employees (lower competence = more supervison, greater competence = less supervison etc). ratings, for example, could be: Highrisk = supervision throughout task Moderate risk = supervision at 'X' percentage Low risk = Spervision on spot check basis for 'X' percentage of works This oinformation of course, would be privvy to the 'client' within their control procedures, and subject to amendment based on competency, (perhaps also priority of task if necessary to ensure done as required) and perhaps some of you have other considerations to add to these thoughts. Please continue/contribute and let us know what you think !! Stuart Nagle
Admin  
#24 Posted : 12 July 2001 22:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert Dee Laurie, I would also be interested in the Code of Conduct you have. Please let me have your e-mail address for me to give you my details. Stuart. Your use of the phrase "..a supervision rating which shall also be guaged by any supervisor against the skill and competence levels of the contractors employees.." reminds me of the 4 hour meeting with a company Health and safety officer discussing contractor site safety.She ALSO got confused and thought site supervision was something new, created by the Health and Safety Executive. "Supervision" of contractors has been going on before 1974! Trained and qualifed surveyors have done this since Stonehenge was built ( that's why its still standing) The RICS has a library(0207 222 7000) of books on site supervision.Checking the competence of a contractor's work comes with building contruction experience, not health and safety training. What you must not do is suggest to the Health and Safety fraternity that they run construction projects.Their role is to ensure that all who are involved in a project are aware of the risks, both for themselves and those affected by the work. This means a broad statement of competence, site assessment, monitoring of risks ( NOT workmanship)and final review. No, not as you suggest another list of check boxes for budding Napoleons. If your system of grading skill on site had been adopted by Neolithic man we would still be waiting for the second arch to be erected at Stonehenge because you'd have scared off the skilled labour willing to turn up on site.
Admin  
#25 Posted : 13 July 2001 08:18:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Laurie Apologies to all those who requested copies of my Code of Practice - unfortunately I am operating away from my office at the moment, and don't have access, but I will get it away on my return Laurie
Admin  
#26 Posted : 13 July 2001 09:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuart Nagle Robert. Thank you for your interesting response on my phrasiology in respect of the term 'Supervision'. What I am concerned with is the supervision of safety on site, not specifically the craftsmanship skills employed. However, whilst it is obvious that the two go hand in glove in many areas, and as a Civil Engineer myself, I have undertaken the building of many (Henges)constructions in my time (and although not that old !!)., Site supervision in relation to building and construction skills is not what is at question here. Safety, in essence, demands that supervision is applied to 'ensure' the safety and health of all persons working within the employers undertaking. The supervision element in respect of H&S therefore is to see that what is required is employed on site. Whilst this extends to the works generally, the works issue is mostly addressed by the known competencies of skilled employees (Whether or not they are directly employed or sub-contractors)putting their skills to use (e.g electricians, plumbers, carpenters, bricklayers etc...) however, the need to ensure that safety generally is complied with is an 'additional' area that needs competent supervision to comply with the legal requirements. My argument, if that is what you would like to call it, is that this is failing and that adequate levels of supervision to ensure safety are not being met - but asking how to achieve that they are. You may well say that if supervision in respect of H&S is not being met, then supervision of the construction/works are not being met either, and would tend to agree with this finding to a greater degree. The argument you put foward, of course, could be countered by stating that; 1) just because a skilled craftsman is employed, it does not necessarilly follow that he/she will employ safe methods of work. 2) just because a skilled craftsman is employed, it does not necessarilly follow that he/she knows what is required to ensure the H&S requirements are met/fullfilled. 3) just because a skilled craftsman is employed, it does not necessarilly follow that he/she will not cut corners in H&S to achieve a personal target/do the job quickly/easily. call me sceptical if you wish, but in 30 years of both practical and managerial work on sites, I can state catagorically that these are common faults/floors in the method/manner of works undertaken, even by 'skilled' craftsmen/operatives. Unfortunately, possession of skill and experience is not a licence stating that the task/job will be done in a safe manner unless adequate levels of competent supervision are applied. After all, why else would chaps like yourself be employed if supervision was not deemed necessary for the competent completion of the construction itself, and of course, H&S professionals to ensure that safety is achieved !! best regards... Stuart Nagle
Admin  
#27 Posted : 16 July 2001 14:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Laurie Stuart and all those who have requested a copy of my Code of Practice - the links don't seem to be working. If you haven't received a copy by tomorrow, 17th, please e-mail me at Laurie53@yahoo.com, or call me on 01382 834845 and leave an e-mail/snail mail address Laurie
Admin  
#28 Posted : 22 August 2001 16:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken A wise man once told me that when dealing with contractors you get what you inspect......not what you expect.
Admin  
#29 Posted : 23 August 2001 20:18:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuart Nagle Ken. Your wise friend was wrong !! You get what you expect after you inspect!! Stuart Nagle
Users browsing this topic
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.