Please could anyone answer the question, that if a contractor who provides services to the public sector obtains CHAS Elite (or similar CAS) as they must from end next month, can they use sub-contractors who only hold standard CHAS (or other standard SSIP)? or do those sub-contractors also have to obtain the CAS?. Or would it depend on if those subbies are working within the public or provate sector? 

We seem to be getting battered with Building Regs changes, Planning changes and now this, all in a very short space of time.

Many thanks.

Must admit it is a brain scratcher.

Three times I tried to craft a response and on each occassion decided it was not right.

Ultimately UK construction at its basic level is the self-employed jobbing worker with absolutely no free cash to pay for the multiple accreditations demanded by main contractors.

If you cascade this demand along the supply chain then the prices being created for the principal would be unjustifiable.

It is a bit like asking a sole trader to have ISO 9001 / 14001 / 45001 - as there are no other employees involved what practical purpose do documented procedures serve other than a certificate for someone elses tick box?

I recall BSI selling that companies without BS 5750 would go out of business - here we are decades later and there are still a lot of organisations succesfully trading without its ISO 9001 successor.

Thank you both, and apologies for the head scratcher.  It does look like CHAS are pushing hard on this from their end as I had suspicions about..   

Public sector now specifies Common Assessment Standard | CHAS

And I certainly agree, it would be wholly disproportionate to cascade such a requirement along the supply chain.  It would effectively exclude smaller companies thus forcing a PC to use more expensive larger companies that hold such assessemt levels.

The trouble arises if public bodies start insisting on the likes of CHAS Elite to get past the first hurdle.

Thank you again for taking the time to reply.  Most helpful.

Edited by user 07 May 2024 14:57:27(UTC)  | Reason: spelling correction

Rather a naughtily presented article at the end of that hyperlink.

This is to do with the primary bidding company seeking a public contract, whilst CHAS would love everyone to be paying for assessment reality (and the public purse strings) would not see widescale adoption.

https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2024/05/10/contractors-face-mental-health-quiz-to-win-work/

Let's have a few more boxes to tick / assessment charges to apply.

Following Halton Borough Council introducing mental helath scoring to its procurement process back in March.

THIS will really struggle to drift along the supply chain given issues with basics - PPE / RAMS

Life was a bit easier under CDM 2007 than under CDM 2015, or some implicit variant for procurement other than for construction work.

The Approved Code of Practice and Guidance, L144 which supported CDM 2007 sought hard to reduce the amount of bureaucracy in "competency" assessments by setting out some ground rules that would usually help those doing the assessments to make decisions with less of a paper chase.

Unfortunately when HSE decided that "competency" had become a word to be thrown away it replaced it with "SKE" - skills, knowledge and experience - but provided less guidance in L153 which supports CDM 2015 on how to avoid increased bureaucracy when judging SKE instead of "competency".

AND the result was that those doing competency, sorry, SKE assessments or those they pay to do these for them returned to bad habits or managed to make the bad habits even worse.

There was a time when I had provided our Sales and Marketing team all the model answers they needed to answer almost all of the H&S questions that were thrown up during prequals and bids.

But one Client was routinely an exception as each time a project came up the Client's Project Manager would introduce their PERSONAL additional question or questions into the equation and I would fume and think "Why on earth are they asking us to answer that? Do they not review our performance on each project we do for them? They SHOULD know whether we are "competent" or not from live project experience."

However......if the Client says "Jump", whether directly or via some assessing organisation, if you want the work, you have to jump through all the hurdles OR say "We won't answer that question".

On the occasions when we said "NO", very rarely did the Client NOT back down.

BUT....we were bigger than most of our Clients and most suppliers don't have the same SELLER power. Usually the BUYER gets their way, however disproportionate their demands may be.

Problem is that once something gets out of a box, it is very difficult to effectively put it back in the box.

A bit like some of the things that happen in politics and on the front pages of newspapers.

So, some scary story on page 1, followed by a retraction (and half hearted apology) a few weeks later on page 30. If nobody finds the retraction then the myth perpetuates. "I am sure I remember reading about that...."

Wonder if any of the other SSIP providers will be bringing this up at their members meeting?

https://ssip.org.uk/about-ssip/mission-statement-corporate-values/

From SSIP corporate values: Help buyers and suppliers to achieve value for money through avoiding unnecessary duplication or differing Health & Safety assessment requirements, wherever possible.

Don't you just love those last two words - licence to print money.

Then when you consider the preceeding line: Help and encourage buyers to recognise SSIP and its aims and objectives, and to specify and recognise SSIP member schemes in general, rather than a specific scheme provider.​​​​​​​