Download - 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.
The start of the Journey:
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
The start of the Journey:
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
Month Analysis Base Period 12
Period 13
Month Analysis Base Period 12
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
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
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
Incident Breakdown 2012 - 2013
1 HSE Reportable & 2 LTI’s 1. HSE Reportable Rate = 1.31 per million man hour versus
target of 1.5
2. HSE / Lost Time Injury Rate = 3.95 per million man hours
against target of 2
Incident Breakdown 2010 - 2011
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
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.