FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: kurnal on March 28, 2012, 08:42:28 PM
-
Two of my existing customers have informed me that if I am to continue working for them as a fire risk assessment and fire training consultant I must register as an approved supplier through constructionline.
There appears to be no checks whatsoever in respect of my competence to carry out my core skills through the scheme, they appear to be more interested in my bank account details, annual accounts, payment of a fee and - I nearly forgot- my equal opportunities policy.
At a time when our industry is so focussed on competence standards it is frustrating that the Govt business department BIS is throwing its weight behind a scheme that encompasses our industry but pays no regard whatsoever to standards of competence.
Am I just being typically and unjustifiably cynical as usual?
-
Yes.Next question.
-
None of the contractor schemes I know of are any guarantee of competence as they simply do not check that - all they are bothered about is that you are insured and have all the right H&S policies, risk assessments, etc. and they seem to be to ensure the client is safe from any responsibility should a contractor have or cause an accident on site.
(By the way, nothing wrong with ensuring safety on site, it is laudable, but too many people read that if you are passed by one of these schemes you can do the job right)
-
Kurnal, I have also come across the same issue with clients that can only use you if you are registered with construction line. Go through the simple process, pay the small fee and then forget about it! ;)
-
Well I know William but small fee or not it appears to me to be yet another unnecessary Government based rip off quasi accreditation quango scheme founded on gold plated Bull****e.
-
Well I know William but small fee or not it appears to me to be yet another unnecessary Government based rip off quasi accreditation quango scheme founded on gold plated Bull****e.
Exactly that ........... exactly the same with "Safe Contractor" and the all the other pointless schemes dreamed up to make money for someone else and do very little to actually raise safety standards.
-
Prof. K, the idea with Constructionline was that it was meant to ensure that you didn't need to prove you had all the necessary basic documentation and insurances to each and every customer you dealt with every year. Comptetence to do the job was not one of the issues that they were concerned with. Those contractors who worked for many local authorities etc were peeved that they had to complete forms and send copies of insurance certificates to each of their local authority type customer every year. So, if Constructionline had checked everything once a year, then it was supposed to be a good enough for all your customers and you didn't have to repeat it with each of them individually.
I can't tell you how it works in practice since I got out of the game just as it was coming in. What with H&S, CDM etc etc - I just couldn't take any more! Actually it was the Millenium Bug issue that really proved to me that the Government and Local Authorities were a bunch of red tape-tying pen-pushing time-wasters and that I should find something new to do!
-
I was on Constructionline for a couple of years and to be frank found it a waste of time. Each year I had to go through the same rigmorole of renewing documentation which was very time consuming for no payback for my company. I would bear out all the commenst made by others on the forum.
-
I have to admit that we run one of those such schemes (not my department, I have nothing to do with it) as there is actually a demand for it from clients who, because of the nature of the sector we work in, contract out 99% of both day to day and major site work and from experience have fallen foul of contractors with poor H&S and wish to take all possible steps to show due diligence.
If the client's demand it, why shouldn't we provide it instead of a 3rd party.
This doesn't change my view of them, namely they should not be taken as a sign of competence, just safe working practice - so your new fire alarm might be in T&E but no-one got electrocuted, fell off a ladder or exposed to asbestos during installation.
I've some good small contractors that do install jobs for me, but are limited in who they can work for by the costs of the various schemes, yet are very competent, whilst some that are contractor approved are dubious to say the least.
-
OK so I went along with the constructionline requirement but now one of the clients has come back with yet another requirement and this time its for SSIP (Safety Schemes In Procurement) assessment and we have to undergo a stage 1 H&S assessment "this will demonstrate your compliance to the HSE CDM 2007 Regulations".
So I contacted the Procurement Oficer and suggested that as we only provide fire risk assessments on occupied buildings and training courses in their training centre the CDM Regulations do not apply to any aspect of the work that we do for them. It was clear that the Procurement officer had no knowledge of what the CDM Regs actually cover (other than in name) or the different approaches for competent contractors and competent consultants as described in the ACOP.
"Well its up to you but if you want to carry on working for us these are our new rules so take it or leave it" (in a nutshell)
I have made enquiries and its £300 for an assessment by a member of SSIP of our H&S set up - to keep this client we are being forced to buy into a service we dont require to cover work that we dont do in a way that we dont do it just because the scheme has been either mis sold to our client or mis understood by the client.
Ironically the General H&S firm that I contacted to do the SSIP assessment of us said "Oh thats interesting, we do fire risk assessments too". So I asked what third party accreditation scheme they were working towards in respect of fire safety? As you can guess they had never heard of TPC for fire risk assessors.
This is getting like an expensive and inconvenient game of badge collecting with huge duplication and little accountability.
-
Eh Big Al, you didnt have all this grief when you moonlighted in the fire service. Its a hard big ole world out there.
-
Eh Big Al, you didnt have all this grief when you moonlighted in the fire service. Its a hard big ole world out there.
Sorry Colin what's this "moonlighting" you refer to??? ???
-
Just my stereotyping of the traditional old fire-fighter who moonlighted for extra cash, Willie. They tended not to need to register with Constructionline, the NICEIC, the ECA or whatever appropriate to the trade they worked in.
-
Just my stereotyping of the traditional old fire-fighter who moonlighted for extra cash, Willie. They tended not to need to register with Constructionline, the NICEIC, the ECA or whatever appropriate to the trade they worked in.
Very, very stereotypical sweeping statement Colly? I'm suddenly thinking of Old Stinky of Toy Story. Us not you.
But I'm sure you speak with whiskeyed breath.
You'll feel much better tomorrow - afternoon.
-
Just my stereotyping of the traditional old fire-fighter who moonlighted for extra cash, Willie. They tended not to need to register with Constructionline, the NICEIC, the ECA or whatever appropriate to the trade they worked in.
Shame on you Mr Todd, I've never heard of such a thing in the fire service?
-
Well I have had a good outcome on the constructionline and SSIP with my major client. I took my case to the Director and he agreed with me.
The problem with these things is that the Board make a policy decision to adopt relevant schemes to enable them to show due diligence and to support their business. In this case it was schemes for building contractors. The admin is then delegated to an administrator who issues the contractor and supplier list to Constructionline and SSIP. The administrator does not understand the scope and extent of the scheme so just sends details of all suppliers and contractors, whether associated with construction or not.
For their part Constructionline and SSIP dont know who does what so send out their compulsory "Join or else" letter to all the unfortunate recipients on the list without regard to their trade or services provided, and of course they have a vested interest in putting as many as possible through without regard to whether its relevant or not.
Constructionline were very understanding about this and were up front with me but the companies I rang about the SSIP scheme were not interested in hearing my point of view. Very much a case of "Nothing to do with us, stop wingeing send us your fee and comply or you will not get any more business from the client".
The outcome is that this client are now filtering their lists and re-issuing to the schemes. And my services, quite rightly will not fall under the scheme.
So its worth standing your ground on this.