Contractor Management

(1)

Contractor Management

Best Practice Journey

Stewart Feeney H&S Improvement Manager

(2)

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” .

(3)

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.

(4)

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)

(5)

• 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

(6)

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

(7)

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.

(8)

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

(9)

The Journey Challenge

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

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

﹣Keeping a Check / Reviewing W ork / 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 W orking Supervisory Arrangements

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

• Through W issington specific procedures

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

(10)

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.

(11)

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 toGuide 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 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

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 toGuide 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 Score /Remarks Commercial 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

B rit is h Sug ar C om m en ts :

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

C on tr ac to r C om m en ts : 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

(12)

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

W issington 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)

(13)

Benefits of change:

(14)

Contractor Performance Journey

6 HSE Reportable & 4 LTI’s

target of 2

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

hours against target of 3

3 HSE Reportable Injuries

target of 2 (47.4% Improvement)

2. HSE / Lost Time Injury Rate = 4.54per million man hours

against target of 3 (68.4% Improvement)

Incident Breakdown 2011 - 2012

Incident Breakdown 2012 - 2013

1 HSE Reportable & 2 LTI’s

target of 1.5

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

against target of 2

(15)

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 ha_{d to squeeze be}

tween the pipes to _{reach the handrail}

Injured Party

Age: 33 Injury Sustained : Eye injury

INCIDENT SUMMARY SHEET

Details 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 Factors Line Management Factors Workplace Factors Frontline Active Failures Triggering Event Incident Organizational End Adverse Event Organizational Factors Line 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.

(16)

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

(17)

Change Journey implemented during the last 12 months include:

Performance

Visibility

(18)

Best Practise Journey; Conclusions

• 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.