best practice journey - iosh

Contractor Management Best Practice Journey

Stewart Feeney H&S Improvement Manager

June 2014

Contractor Management Best Practise Journey:

Initial Evaluation

• How do we rate our Contractors

• Are all our contractors at the same level with regards to Supervision,

health & safety, cost and Planning & Delivery Effectiveness.

• Do our Resident Contractors really know what is expected of them.

• Do Site Contacts really understand what is expected of them

• Performance measuring, “what does good look like” .

The start of the Journey:

First Aid Injury:

12.07.10 (Contractor) Driers No1 ID fan; IP tripped over scaffold pole, banged

head on floor. Cut to right hand side of head above ear.


6 HSE Reportable & 4 LTI’s 1. HSE Reportable Rate = 8.62 per million man hour versus

target of 2 2. HSE / Lost Time Injury Rate = 14.36 per million man

hours against target of 3

Incident Breakdown 2010 – 2011

” Clear Evidence for Change”

RIDDOR Major Injury:

Bolts being cut off securing trailer to chassis

25.01.11 (Contractor) Recovery vehicle

Supervisor climbed onto the side of the

vehicle to establish why the chassis

wouldn’t separate, several seconds later

the chassis separated with a violent bang

and catapulted the IP 10 – 15ft through

the air (fractured C2/C3 vertebra)

• A number of “Resident” Contractors had been subject to improvement

notices (resulting in the development and delivery of Safety Improvement

Plans).

• Extended the Contractor Management meeting to 3 hour with a 15

minute refreshment break (4 weekly), (Original meeting, Carrot & Stick)

• Do Site Contacts really understand what is expected of them


Typical Contractor Management Structure: Historic

Foreman / Supervisor

Workforce Workforce Workforce

Director /

Company

Site Manager (Visiting)

Supervision Generally

being provided by

British Sugar

Site Contact

Cell Owner

Shift Manager MRP

Contractor generally waiting for

Direction, instruction and Risk Assessments being produced by BS

to start work

“British Sugar Risk”

“Accident Investigated

by British Sugar”

Due to size of the

company, supervision

arrangements have been

provided by both

positions acting as

Working & Non-Working

Supervisor

Best Practise Journey 1 Year On

December 2012

• Data collected 2010/11 identified changes were required to

address on-going issues around Contractor Performance

Which included :

• Poor Safety Leadership / Safety performance

• Poor Communications

• Poor Performance Measurement and Management

• Work & Safety Culture - resulting in Contractor Performance in “High Risk”

functions, i.e. Scaffolding, welding/fabrication, transportation etc, had

resulted in procedural / process failures and in some cases serious

injuries.

Obstacles to Best Practise Journey Approach:

Lack of perceived value of

completing contractor

performance reviews

Having to complete the

paperwork, 7 pages now,

instead of 2, although 4

pages are supportive

guidance

Actual Time

Competence

None Belief, that

the process will

add value, not

seeing the benefit

Not wanting

ownership

Contractors

Not a priority to the

Corporate Business

Obstacles to overcome

to achieve change

The Journey Challenge

Reinforce current Procedures (PR-HSM-503), in the areas of :

﹣Contractors Working on-site (define minimum standard for contractor to deliver)

﹣Keeping a Check / Reviewing Work / Retention – Performance

monitoring and measurement

Setting Clearly define contractor responsibilities :

• Safety Leadership and KPI reporting

• Contractor ownership and accountability

• Emphasis change on Contractors providing Non Working Supervisory

Arrangements

Bolster local arrangements to support PR-HSM-503 scope:

• Through Wissington specific procedures

• PR-HSM-503-WLP-1 - Management of Contractors Procedure

• PR-HSM-503-WLA-2 - BSUK - Management of KPIs

Original (2010)

Contract Management Key Objectives

“ • Establish a set of KPIs to measure contract/contractor

performance.

• Review working conditions and standards for contractors on sites.

• Establish performance and competency standards for contractors.

• Contract Scope and specifications to be reviewed to meet

business needs.

• Relevant (British Sugar) staff to be coached and trained in

managing contractors on site.

”

Monthly Contractor / Supplier Performance Form Measurement of KPI. Form to be submitted @ Monthly Manager Meetings, copied to Procurement.

Contractor / Area: ARC Fabrication

Scope of Work: Welding Fabrication

Date : 21/09/2012

Month Review Refers To: Base Measure - Period 12-11

Ratings Points: Refer to Guide Notes:- Each sub-criteria must be scored in the range between 0 to 10 ....... 0 = failure to meet requirements, 10 = meets all requirements

Sub-Contractor / Supplier: Trade / Package: Approx Value of Service/Contract:

Site Management Score/Remarks by Contractor Owner

Commercial Score /Remarks by Contractor Owner

H&S & Environmental Score/Remarks by H&S Manager

Planning & Delivery Effectiveness Score/Remarks by MRP

Month Analysis

Base Period 12

Period 13

Month Analysis Base Period 12

Period 13


Period 13


Period 13

Organisation / Co-ordination

4 4 4 Commercial Attitude

5 5 5 Safety Performance 5 5 5 Quality of Planning 3 3 3 Quality of

Supervision 4 4 4 Accuracy of Quotations 4 4 4 Documentation /

Procedures 4 4 4 Work Execution 3 3 3

Programme Progress 6 6 6 Day-work / Variation to

Order Response 4 4 4 Risk / Method Statement 3 3 3 Work Progress and

Reporting 3 3 3 Quality of

Workmanship 6 6 6 Contractual Approach 5 5 5 Environmental/Food Safety Awareness 2 2 2 Work Completion and

Handover 3 3 3 Communications with British Sugar 4 4 4 Issue of Prompt

Commercial Data 4 4 4 Housekeeping 3 3 3 Staff Skills and Competency 2 2 2

Total Score 24 24 24 Total Score 22 22 22 Total Score 17 17 17 Total Score 14 14 14

Comments :

Month Baseline Period 12 Period 13 Ops Eng Manager Review / Comments:

Site Management, H&S & Environmental, and Planning Effectiveness [Contractor Owner]

Contractor generally will apply standards based on instructions given by British

ARC have taken on a little too much than are capable of dealing with. This is evident where BS Area Managers and Production engineers are now chasing work to completion.

ARC are appearing to struggle to to get the plant backl together and are having to work additional hours tio finish everything off.. This is evident where BS Area Managers and Production engineers are now chasing work to completion still.

To much work allocated and taken on without looking at factory commissioning dates/times Risk to Wissington start date due to still working on key equipment.

Sugar, rather than taking ownership to deliver

This is a waste of everyones time and energy and bearing in mind it is towards year end the focus needs to be getting all equipment buttoned up and ready to run

This is a waste of everyones time and energy and bearing in mind it is towards year end the focus needs to be getting all equipment buttoned up and ready to run

Although Safety Changes are starting to filter through, evidence would generally

The area of concern is the time it is taking to complete and box up the presses after major maintenance. This cannot happen again in the next GAP period.

Supervision and site management are a worry in terms of being able to get the work done and handed back in a safe way. Escalated to VW about amount of work outstanding.

suggest that more effort is required

Signed:

Commercial [Contractor Owner / Finance / Procurement]

Print Name:

Date:

Best Practise Journey: How this was achieved

Initial Implementation

• Trial selection contractor review covering Site Management, Commercial,

Health & Safety and Planning & Delivery Effectiveness. (DSL, Buckingham

Plant Hire, Playfords, and a number of GAP contractor works packages)

• Proved to be very effective.

• Extended to all incumbent contractors.

• Deployment of a “balanced”

scorecard and regular review

process (end each period),

• To be extended to cover a

performance of BS

Performance by the

contractor

CONTRACTOR WORK MANAGEMENT RECORD (CWMR)

Contractor Company / Area of Works: Scope of Work: Date : BS Financial Period: i.e. P2

SCL (working under M.C. Nurse banner) Fire rating improvements 08/08/13 P12

Ratings Points: Refer to Guide Notes:- Each sub-criteria must be scored in the range between 0 to 10 ....... 0 = failure to meet requirements, 10 = meets all requirements

Site Management Score/Remarks

Commercial Score /Remarks

H&S & Environmental Score/Remarks

Planning & Delivery Effectiveness Score/Remarks

Organisation /

Co-ordination 5 Commercial

Attitude 5 Safety Performance 5 Quality of Planning 4

Quality of

Supervision 4 Accuracy of

Quotations 3 Documentation /

Procedures 5 Work Execution 4

Programme Progress

3 Day-work / Variation to Order Response

5 Risk / Method Statement

5 Work Progress and Reporting

4

Quality of Workmanship

4 Contractual Approach 3 Environmental/Food Safety Awareness

5 Work Completion and Handover

4

Communications with British Sugar

4 Issue of Prompt Commercial Data

6 Housekeeping 5 Staff Skills and Competency

4

Total Score 20 Total Score 22 Total Score 25 Total Score 20

Yes No N/A

Has All Records and Drawings been Supplied and Updated?

Has any Necessary Testing been done, checked and recorded

Refer to Guidance to support Performance Scores: Site Management, H&S & Environmental, Planning Effectiveness and Commercial

Bri

tish

Su

gar

Co

mm

ents

:

Main Lab – contractor engaged to start work prior to CWMR briefing, personnel not aware of requirements to wait for briefing prior to starting works.

Working at height planning resulted in improvisation arrangements being put in place to manage works. This resulted in works being stopped for a period of time to resolve. Sub-contract Supervisor stormed off in protest.

Evident that the works had to be managed by both Mark Nurse and British Sugar, communications with MRP poor, resulting in barriers being put in place, no communications to support contingency arrangements.

Minimal feedback from M. C. Nurse builders to support progress against scope of works

Suggest inviting sub-contractor to review meeting to apply performance process

Co

ntr

ac

tor

Co

mm

ents

:

Contractor Supervisor

Signed: British Sugar Site Contact

Signed:

Print Name: Print Name:

Date: Date:

Part 2: Works Package Review :

To be completed with the contractor at the end of the works package / or 4 weekly.

End or Job X

Or 4 Weekly

Best Practise Journey : Critical Phase

• Handover of the Contractor Management process to nominated Site

Contacts responsible for managing individual contractors.

• Handover process included refresher training on Contractor Management

standard, including capturing wider changes being implemented at

Wissington over the past 12 months.

• Significance of change; Contractors are actively involved in 1 team

discussions / review meetings with BS Site Contacts around site

performance and progress of works.

• Evidence of BS ownership and

accountability to manage

contractors more effectively.

• Improved Health & Safety KPI

performance reporting (12 months

data 95% Successful)

Benefits of change:

Performance Measurement

Contractor Performance Journey


target of 2 2. HSE / Lost Time Injury Rate = 14.36 per million man

hours against target of 3

3 HSE Reportable Injuries 1. HSE Reportable Rate = 4.54 per million man hour versus

target of 2 (47.4% Improvement) 2. HSE / Lost Time Injury Rate = 4.54 per million man hours

against target of 3 (68.4% Improvement)

Incident Breakdown 2011 - 2012



target of 1.5

2. HSE / Lost Time Injury Rate = 3.95 per million man hours

against target of 2


Significance of change;

Contractors are willingly involved in 1 team discussions and now present evidence of ownership and accountability from Vendor Assurance review Journey. Other notable changes include actively reviewing own performance data monthly, sharing incident lessons learnt information and their safety performance journey 3 monthly.

Contractors providing lessons learnt presentations

Operative was seated on top of the handrail during

the task of removing the flange bolts. If the

operative had fallen he would have landed on

either roof some 4 & 6mtrs below and could have

then rolled and fallen to the concrete some 11mtrs

below.

The operative had to squeeze between the pipes to reach the handrail

Injured Party

Age: 33

Injury Sustained : Eye injury

INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEETDetails Of Injured Person

Business Unit / Contract Information

Date of Incident: 24/2/11

Time: 1745 hrs

Date Reported to Site: 24/2/11

Accident Book Entry Date: 24/2/11

Date Reported to Compliance:24/2/11

Date Director Informed: NA

Date Reported to HSE: NA

Reason for Delay: NA

BU: M&I

Contract: British Sugar Wissington

Manager: Kellie Montana

Incident Reporting Log

Incident Location & Summary

Sick Note Received: NA

Self Certificate: NA

Date Due Back to Work: NA

Actual Return date: No lost time

Person(s) Responsible For Close-out

Absence Information

Remedial Actions Taken

•Add Picture Of Worksite Involved Here

Causation Chain

Incident

Organizational

End

Adverse

Event

Organizational

FactorsLine

Management

Factors Workplace

Factors

Frontline

Active

Failures

Triggering

Event

Incident

Organizational

End

Adverse

Event

Organizational

FactorsLine

Management

Factors Workplace

Factors

Frontline

Active

Failures

Triggering

Event

Poor workplace layout & unclear lines of communication & responsibilities. Risk assessments

& SSW not specific to task. This should have been identifed prior to start of task and reported

in cottect process

Confrim rrisk assessments process being used British Sugar & EMCOR.

Classifier water jet nozzles not set to the correct angle.

Working platform not at the correct height for jetting.

Investigating EHS Advisor:Learning / Communication Exercises Conducted:

Who: British sugar & Kellie Montana

Date When: Apr 2011

•Assess classifier water jet nozzles to be assessed by

British Sugar to ensure angle is correct.

•Scaffold work platform to be built to allow jetting to be

carried out correctly if required.

•Lighting to be repaired & upgraded where necessary

by British Sugar.

•Decision to be made at to whether the British Sugar

or EMCOR risk assessment is to be used.

•British Sugar Chemical Permit needs to cross

reference risk & COSHH assessments.

•Risk assessment & SSW including PPE review to be

made specific to this task & then communicated &

recorded to the jetting team.

•TBT to be delivered on incident & responsibilities

regarding PPE.

• Provide additional training on pre – job brief check –

EMCOR external to complete

•Review of Standards of Jetting activities, and

introduce on the job work place pack ( that will include

all documentation relating to task.

•External company to conduct PPE assessment of

activities of this nature , and provide recommendations

•Increase monitoring and BA Audits to ensure

compliance

Who: J Ronaldson

Date 8/3/11

• TBT to be delivered on incident & responsibilities regarding PPE.

•Toolbox and safety brief on work place assessment

•First aid reporting

•Safety moment to be prepared and communicated to jetting team & all other British Sugar Sites.

•The accident took place on the 24/2/11 on a British Sugar Site at Wissington. The

IP (leading charge hand) was jetting a classifier in the limekiln when a splash back

occurred causing lime dross debris to come up under the visor & contact with his left

eye. The jetting operation was stopped by the leading charge hand who then went

immediately to the first aid point located in the changing room on the lower level of

the limekiln. The IP then flushed his eye with bottled water from the eye station for

about 10 to 15 minutes. After flushing his eye the IP felt ok and returned to work. The

charge hand did not attend the site medical centre as he felt there was no need. On

Friday morning on arrival at work the IP informed his supervisor that his left eye felt

irritable. The FM was informed by the supervisor, the FM then instructed the IP to go

to hospital to get his eye checked. The hospital confirmed that there was no chemical

reaction & that the eye had received a small scratch.

Poor lighting , activity should have been

carried out in daylight as per BS

RA.Report CMMS

Correct PPE to be

assessed and ensure

staff are aware to wear.

Animal Feed

Animal Feed Area

Worn concrete floor area where incident occured

Reconstruction of IP’s method

from his verbal statement

Report into LTI at British Sugar

Wissington 12/09/11.

working Safely with

The ongoing Best Practise Journey:

1. Assist Contractor Owners in delivery of Contractor Performance

2. Contract Ownership now includes an appropriate level Manager Grade

assigned to ensure that the regular performance reviews are undertaken,

gaining feedback from the associated end-user,

3. Performance Scorecard Measure: (what is deemed as a fair measurement, still subjective)

4. Communicate Visibility of Contractor Management Process to wider

audience.

5. Populating contractor data into spread sheet to support performance

verification, and focus on closing the loop between Operations,

HS&E and Procurement

Change Journey implemented during the last 12 months include:

Performance

Visibility

//Wintdc02/public/SAFETY/Contractor Management Forms (Portal)/Contractor Management KPI Data/Contractor KPI Performance Measure Tracker......xlsx#play

Best Practise Journey; Conclusions

P a g e 1 8 © 2 0 1 1 B r i t i s h S u g a r

• Recognition that improved Contractor Management process is required and

is a key enabler for significant improvements and benefits to the business

and the Contractor.

• Review team to be expanded to Corporate (British Sugar) level and include wider Contracts Management aspects using the Wissington Best Practise

Model.

best practice journey - iosh

Documents