Rank: Forum user 
|
Afternoon Yet again we have a contractor who has installed an item for us and now we want to dismantle said item. They have used the exact same documented SSOW we approved for installation however, with the old faithfull caveat - Please note that dismantling will be sequential reverse of erection process:
I understand that the process in essence revers order however, what are your suggestions for my pending response requesting that a little bit of thought has gone into the submission for dismantle ? Who else has been confronted with this what I call idle view and how did everyone respond to the reverse arguement ? Answers on a postcard ? P
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Is it an idle view or the fact that you have to much time on your hands? I forgot all subcontractors have loads of people hanging about doing nothing just waiting to jump as soon as the client snaps thier fingers.
Have the risks changed from assembly to dismantling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Have you considered if the dismantle really is a reversal or are there areas that it won’t work in that sequence. Not knowing what they are dismantling, I’m visualising my kitchen units - the handles and plinth were prob the last items, but I might dismantle the doors / drawers (including handles), the worktop, then carcass and plinth as one item. It’s not quite the reverse order, so I’d suugest it will depend on how complex your dismantle is - the more complex the less likely the reversal will work, with the caveat that exact reverse dismantle Does/doesn’t have any impact on the ssow or safe operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Is it? When something is installed it is new and shiny. It is clean and there is no mysterious residue in it. All of the bolts tighten nicely and it not pressurised or connected to a power supply etc. Before dismantling you first have to make it safe or at least make sure that it is safe. You may have to dispose of residues and other muck. Fastenings that tightened up easily might need some force to move them. Hammers might have to be applied. So in reality it’s not just a case of reversing the assembly process and there will be additional risks when you take something part so the process needs its own risk assessment.
|
 3 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Steve et al I personally do not believe that risks have changed however, my point I suppose was when this is becoming more and more widespread. I do personally look for something that suggests to me that recent assessment has been at least taken. I.E takes the generic element out of the equation with confirmation even that the local environment hasn’t changed since the work was completed a 8 months ago. Yes we have monitoring and the contractor has their own SMS to maintain. But how many times have we all come across a start date and for reasons unknown a blatant errors has occurred - access has changed - simops ect ? Is it asking too much for the RA to be validated to confirm at least that working area hasn’t changed or putting a start date on or do we always have to wait for tick box POWRA to raise its head and cause the delay? Nothing at all to do with overzealous clients or time on hands, it is problem we all face time and time again. And believe me I know all about Client EHS reps as I find myself coaching those most of the time but that’s another story - another thread lol So yes I stand by my "idle" reference because after the adverse event it is more often than not the simple - non perceived but easily corrected issues that play a part. If contractors did spend a little extra their valuable time and understand this then we would all be better off I would claim? a quick read through the HSE prosecution updates clearly confirm my undertsnading. But cheers anyway
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I am with AK - since the installation things will change Unless your original order was fully encompassing to temporarily install amd subsequently remove the supporting paperwork would be different for the individual activities i.e. contracts of installation and removal. When presented with similar paperwork I normally refer the potential contractor to significant differences they need to address e.g. the scaffold available at time of installation is no longer present so how are you going to access the ceiling ductwork? On the flip side if it is a decent MS then logically the activity of removal would be the reverse sequence to installation (not involving brainwashing the site induction from them as they leave) the RA's typically would support either route but for example if they constructed the wall and are now tearing it down I would expect the COSHH assessment for the mortar application replaced by a COSHH assessment for the brick & cement dust.
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I am with AK - since the installation things will change Unless your original order was fully encompassing to temporarily install amd subsequently remove the supporting paperwork would be different for the individual activities i.e. contracts of installation and removal. When presented with similar paperwork I normally refer the potential contractor to significant differences they need to address e.g. the scaffold available at time of installation is no longer present so how are you going to access the ceiling ductwork? On the flip side if it is a decent MS then logically the activity of removal would be the reverse sequence to installation (not involving brainwashing the site induction from them as they leave) the RA's typically would support either route but for example if they constructed the wall and are now tearing it down I would expect the COSHH assessment for the mortar application replaced by a COSHH assessment for the brick & cement dust.
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Its an easy cop out and you are right, there are quite often different hazards to dismantling something than when errecting something, mainly because people will cut corners....looking at you scaffolders who bomb stuff off the side.
Well done for challenging something that you belive isn't right.
|
3 users thanked MrBrightside for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Whatever this thing is it will have been manufactured, or so I assume. Installation by a contractor would suggest to me that the contractor did not manufacture it.
In that case the manufacturer would be responsible for installation instructions and dismantling instructions.
If I am right the manufacturer will be able to provide what you need.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.