Transcript Its history and its future..

Safety Schemes in
Procurement Forum Launch
Wednesday 4 November 2009
With special thanks to the Health and Safety Executive and
Electrical and Heating and Ventilating Contractors’ Associations for sponsoring this event
Welcome and Introductions
Chair, Trevor Hursthouse
(Chair of Specialist Engineering
Contractors’ (SEC) Group)
Increasing the Focus on
Efficient Procurement
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Minister for Health and Safety at the
Department for Work and Pensions)
The SSIP Forum – its
Successes, its Future!
Philip White
(Construction Chief Inspector at the
Health and Safety Executive)
SSIP – Anchored in the CDM
Regulations
• CDM 2007 – The aspirations
– An early focus on H&S in any project
– The need for competence
– Avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy
• We needed to do more – Active involvement
with the industry in the Forum
• To achieve one goal – reduction of harm
Assessment – the heart of the matter
• The assessment
– a desktop scrutiny of documents,
– supplemented by further enquiries
– in order to make a reasonable judgement
that the requirements of the Core Criteria
at Appendix 4 of the CDM ACOP have been
met
• Typically suppliers take 2-3 cycles of enquiry
and resubmission of documentation to meet
the assessment
HSE ‘s view of the
assessment process
• The spirit of CDM – “ to make a reasonable
judgement clearly based on evidence”
• Recognise the limitations
• Realise the benefits
– Cost effective and proportionate
– Has assisted over 50,000 suppliers to meet
core criteria
– Particularly helpful to small and micro
businesses
Why does HSE have
confidence in SSIP ?
• The SSIP Terms of Reference are based on
HSE funded research
• Each member scheme undergoes an
independent annual audit
• HSE is investing in competence assurance for
assessors through IRCA
• HSE remains at arms length to the business,
but supports aims
Looking to the future – Key
messages from HSE
• To Clients – The DtoS agreements signed by
SSIP members give real strength to mutual
recognition
• To Smaller Contractors – An SSIP assessment
assures Appendix 4 compliance
• To major contractors with big supply chains –
the SSIP assessment is valid for you too.
• To procurement professionals - Investigate
the benefits of a standardised Stage 1
approach
A Client’s Perspective of
Mutual Recognition
Steve Acaster
(Chair of the Home Builders’ Federation
Health and Safety Forum)
HBF - Home Builders’
Federation
• What is the HBF?
• What does it do?
• How does it contribute to raising industry
standards in health, safety & welfare?
Clients’ Aspirations
• Aesthetically pleasing
• Quality build
• Production on time
• Health, safety & welfare?
Clients’ Duties - CDM 2007
• What does CDM require clients to do to
establish competency?
• What assistance does CDM allow in order for
clients to meet this REQUIREMENT?
Features of SSIP
• Principals of SSIP is supported by the HSE
• SSIP members must sign up to the forum’s
terms of reference and condition of
membership
Client Benefits From SSIP
• Confidence in the assessment process
• Reduces work load/paper work
• Provides support services
Issues for Clients
• Awareness levels of CDM duty holders
• Stage 2 ASSESSMENT
Going Forward
• Industry support for SSIP
• Supply chain awareness
• Verification that desk top competency is
transferred to site based operations
Break
See you in 20 minutes!
A Contractor’s Perspective
of Mutual Recognition
Gerry Mulholland
(HSE Leader at Laing O’Rourke Technologies)
PROVING COMPETENCE
Recognition up and down the
food chain for competence
• LOR to Clients/CDM-C’s
• CHt to external PC’s
• Supply Chain expectations
Previously “Everybody’s been
doing the same thing differently”
PC/Contractor’s view
• Different schemes/PC’s = different
questionnaires
• Time and effort wasted answering the same
thing differently
- Rita Donaghy DWP Report recommendation No. 8
• Standard responses from the ACOP schedule
produced
• Standard approach potentially means we lose
“the wow factor”
• Some CDM-C’s/PC’s still requesting we complete
THEIR questionnaire
- LOR Supply Chain Audit requirements
LOR Group requirements
for our Supply Chain
• Currently in excess of the SSIP approach
• LOR Procurement controls reviewed and
tightened (Nov 2008)
• High, Medium, Low categories used across
Supply Chain based on risk
• Procedure tied into our internal Procurement
Enabling Process
• Already “work in progress” by May 2009
Group Targets
What
Identify contractors that fall in
high, medium & low risk
categories
Who
Procurement
When
Done
300 High Risk companies to be Procurement &
audited
HS&E
By end of
March 2010
Allocate HS&E Resource to
carryout audit each s/c
HS&E
Done
Questionnaires to be sent to
all high risk contractors
Procurement
20 Oct
Set up Audit dates until March
2010
Procurement &
HS&E
24 Nov
Current time and resource
commitment
• Intensive!
– Categorisation of High, Medium, Low from
approved list
– Questionnaires sent out
– “Low & Medium” scored against answers
– “High” categories visited by HSE &
Procurement team
– Achievement score necessary before
payments are processed
Current time and resource
commitment
• Intensive!
– Categorisation of High, Medium, Low
• Numbers
336
154
50
– Questionnaires sent out
– “Low & Medium” scored against answers
– “High” categories visited by HSE &
Procurement team across the UK
LOR time - 2 days per audit
Summary
• Need to cut waste in the industry
• Legal requirement for competence remains in
current climate
– Important that the SSIP stance for
competence is upheld through the courts
• More recognition of SSIP needed up and
down the food chain – work in progress
• Time for us all to stop doing the same thing
differently
The SSIP Forum and
Implications of the Publicly
Accepted Standard (PAS)
David Turner
(Deputy Director, Construction Sector Unit at the
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills)
What are we trying to do?
• Cut unnecessary costs for clients and
suppliers
• Make it all simpler
• Help firms to do what they’re good at construction!
What’s the problem?
• Everyone’s asking nearly the same
things
• I’m a builder - I have to pay to join half
a dozen schemes to get work!
• As a client, I don’t know who I should
trust to prequalify my suppliers for the
work I want done
What’s the solution?
• How about if everyone in construction
tendering asked the same questions?
• Not the project-specific ones, of course!
• But why have a dozen ways of asking
for your company details?
• Take the questions out of the loop
What is a ‘PAS’?
• Why has BIS gone down this route?
• How will the clients, and the industry,
benefit?
High
Low
Int’l
Standards
(ISO)
European Standards (EN)
British Standards (BS)
Publicly Available Specifications (PAS)
Private Standards
Corporate Technical Specifications
Low
High
PAS – BS
Comparison Table
ASPECTS
PAS
BS
Flexibility
Flexible process and format;
designed to meet clients’ needs
Formal, constrained process;
subjects constrained by EU work
Participation
Direct participation by individual
companies
Nominated participation only
Resources
Contractually committed
resources to the client(s)
General resources from standards
team
Brand
Co-branding on front cover and
other forms of association
No co-branding available
Influence
Client(s) direct influence over the
content
No individual direct decisionmaking control over the content
Timescale
Typical development time:
6-9 months
Typical development time:
18-36 months
Publicly Available Specifications
Launch
Meeting
Steering Group:
5 – 8 key
stakeholders
in the subject area,
usually identified
by the client
PAS Scope
Domain Research
& Content
Generation
Drafting
Train Technical
Experts in BS0
Steering
Group
Review
Steering
Group
Review
Review Panel
Wider consultation independently
facilitated by BSI, typically
including 25+ representatives. The
review group may include:
• Formal standards
committees
• Government
departments
• Relevant trade
associations
• Other industry
stakeholders
• Consumer groups
6 – 9 Months
Finalise
Draft
Publish
PAS
How will this work?
• The PAS shows the what, not the how
• Clients procure on the basis of risk
• ‘Service Providers’ offer different levels
of assurance
• Up to individual procurers as to how
risk is assessed
Participants
• Vital that PAS 91 has the support of all
major stakeholders
• PAS process is inclusive
• Working with everyone who has an
interest
• OGC support also vital - alignment with
the Glover report
How can a single PAS
work for everyone?
Getting the questions right
Getting the message out to clients
Getting the message out to suppliers
Getting the message out to supply
chains - driving the standard down, to
address SMEs properly!
• Last point critical in helping the industry
•
•
•
•
High risk, Higher cost,
Fewer candidates
Level 3
Service
Provider
Highest
confidence in
supplier
Suppliers
choose
level for
sort of work
they do
Level 2
Service
Provider
Documents
verified
(ideally just
one)
Level 1
Service
Provider
Self certification
Low risk, lower cost,
more candidates
Clients
prequalify
at
appropriate
level and
above for
individual
tender risk
All levels use
PAS 91, right
down the
supply chain
Client
Suppliers
First and Intermediate supply chain Suppliers/Buyers
Buyers
Final Tier Suppliers
PAS 91 and SSIP?
• SSIP has done what we’re now doing
with the PAS, for H&S
• Why would the PAS 91 Steering group
do this again (DOH!)
• Fantastic opportunity to move on to
another level, and consolidate the work
already done
Panel Questions
Chaired by Trevor Hursthouse
(Chair of Specialist Engineering
Contractors’ (SEC) Group)
Lunch and Close
Thanks for attending today!
With special thanks to the Health and Safety Executive and
Electrical and Heating and Ventilating Contractors’ Associations for sponsoring this event