Over the last 10 years in the industry I have seen many changes and many of these for the better. However; one of the things that seems stagnated, especially in construction, is pricing health and safety good practice out of our projects.
A common ‘best of three’ quotes approach is not one resigned to the history books and I constantly meet with companies who express their frustration at being beaten on price by those that don’t’ take safety seriously or understand their duties and the requirements of regulations. They often feel suffocated by wanting to do a good, safe job, versus competing with unsafe, cheaper contractors.
If you are in a commercial role, ask yourself what you currently base your tender award criteria on. Is it the overall price? Or price and reputation? Or price, reputation and known experience and skill? It is very rarely hinged on safety. Even if safety features, it is rarely given enough of a spotlight and it comes down to profit. Quality of project, timescales, safety and cost should all be considered.
One particular sector that is guilty of this is government and public sector. This means that some of those spaces most needed by communities such as schools, offices, flats, community centres and the like are subject to unsafe practices – right at the heart of the community in which they are based.
“We don’t have the budget to appoint XYZ”, many often disregarding vital safety concerns or advice given because they don’t want to spend the money. And council contracts always go out to ‘competitive tender’
Be careful of those words ‘competitive tender’ and what they say about your company.
I believe that some of this is due to the Client that is requesting the works to be completed having a lack of understanding of its duties under the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2015 to ensure they appoint competent contractors, and ‘competency’ has no room for cost only appointments.
What does this mean for the industry?
It would be all too easy to believe that this is no longer the case these days and instances such as those described are few and far between – I genuinely believe those that I work with in the ‘good’ companies believe this. I have a lot of respect for companies such as KIER, Balfour Beatty, Galliford Try. Their sites are often so well appointed and well run, it is hard to believe that it isn’t like that everywhere, but it isn’t’.
For every site I see that is perfectly planned and extremely well appointed, planned and organised, there is another I visit without running water, no where to change, poor PPE rules, lack of walkways, working off ladders, no decent risk assessments, no trained site manager and a PC that has barely heard of CDM.
And there always will be whilst they are awarded work.
It is still rife where the cheapest wins, with little regarding for competency or suitably for the job. You have someone like me (and the law) advising company’s that they must comply with regulations and ensure they operate in accordance with the Health & Safety At Work Act 1974, but when there is little repercussion for those tendering alongside them to do the same, the ones rewarded are the unsafe contractors.
One example of this safer approach being priced out is below.
Contractor A has a competent person whom they have to pay for their time but are required to assist in ensuring risk is properly identified and managed. The contractor pays a fee for this service.
The contractor is pricing a job and will be working at height. The hierarchy of selecting access equipment must be followed and the safest, most suitable method of access equipment selected. They’re a competent contractor and want to ensure they are operating legally, so they assess during tender that they have space for a scissor lift and will be requiring access regularly for working and not just looking. They’ve determined that they should not use a ladder, and that other methods would not be as sturdy or suitable. They have trained operatives that can use the scissor lift and therefore include the hire cost of this as part of the costs. They also take into account that they need a 2 person minimum attendance to facilitate the rescue plan, and the training costs that go with using a scissor lift. They quote with adequate time afforded to properly plan the job, generate risk assessments and have safe tools, plant and equipment.
Contractor B who does not know their duties puts in costs considerably less, going with just working off a ladder. Theres no training given to employees for working at height, they don’t have a competent person to pay or any equipment to hire. They haven’t really been challenged on providing good risk assessments so don’t bother with them either. Any job asking for all of this is ‘too much hassle and not worth it’. They don’t send 2 people as they’re sure they can complete it cheaper using one and aren’t aware of their health and safety responsibilities. They stick a few general pledges in that work will be carried out in accordance with XYZ without having any idea what it means.
Contractor B wins the contract. In the event they win the tender they are either left to their own devices to do as they please, or then challenged on not using the correct equipment, not having the correct risk assessments and other controls in place. The contractor will then either lose a lot of money, feeling rather aggrieved that they now have outlay that wasn’t’ accounted for because they didn’t’ include it at tender and are needing to retrospectively put things right, try to tell the client they can’t do it the way they ask because a lot of what is needed was not quoted for (even if required by regulation) and will just move on to working for someone who asks a lot less questions (and there’s plenty out there).
The issue with this is that there are still too many companies selecting cheap contractors, not competent ones, and the strain this puts on the businesses is humungous as they feel unable to compete with those being rewarded for unsafe practice. Not only does this promote a really poor standard across the industry, it leaves those that appoint incompetent contractors at risk for not fulfilling their duties.
Until we have a collective approach and a far higher standard of contractor selection in the UK, we will not change the culture of cheapest person wins.
What can we do about it?
Generally:
Put simply, don’t be one of them. If you are a company owner, or you work in a department that has a say in who to appoint for works, do your homework. Check that the process you use to award works benefits those that are safer, and that will not bring risk to your projects. If you don’t’ feel this is in place within your organisation challenge it and explain the risks it brings with it if not selecting competent contractors.
Training
Train your QS and anyone else involved in the tender or contractor selection process. If those awarding tenders don’t understand the requirements of health and safety law, they will not know the importance of the whole package. As part of identifying risk in your business, you should determine who needs certain training for their role, and someone who is appointing contractors to work needs to be trained sufficiently to know that this cannot come down only to cost.
Legally:
You have a duty as a company to demonstrate you appoint competent contractors and choosing to award tenders to those that do not have the correct procedures in place does not fulfil this – it also leaves you at risk. You maintain responsibility over your contractors so it isn’t a case of ‘their problem not ours’ – you can be found partially liable.
Ethically:
Choose the good guys, it’s the right thing to do. Make it so that you are a responsible organisation that works with contractors with the standards you wish to be known for. Support the businesses trying to do right in law, right by their employees and are embedding good safety culture throughout their company despite knowing they are likely losing out to those that don’t.
By having a robust procedure in place for contractors, ensuring they are competent and operate to the required standards, you will reduce the risk that comes with sub contracting your works. Those contractors that have similar business standards and ethics to your own will naturally understand the requirements and issues on you projects better, be less likely to try to cut corners and will be able to thrive in an environment that supports them being safer contractors, thus delivering a higher standard of project.
Written by Hayley Tollervey.
Comments