Health and safety in public sector construction procurement · 2019-12-05 · construction...

Health and Safety Executive

Health and safety in public sector construction procurement A follow-up study

Prepared by Davis Langdon LLP for the Health and Safety Executive 2011

RR848 Research Report



Davis Langdon LLP MidCity Place 71 High Holborn London WC1V 6QS

This study was concerned with examining health and safety issues in public sector construction procurement. The broad aim of this research is to build on earlier research undertaken by Davis Langdon (2007), to provide a sound evidence base on which HSE can design targeted interventions to improve construction health and safety through improved public sector procurement practices.

The main data collection instrument was an interview questionnaire to allow issues to be explored qualitatively. Interviews were undertaken during the winter of 2009 with public sector construction clients both face-to-face and by telephone using a structured interview outline. Out of 411 potential respondents that were contacted 101 interviews were completed.

The results indicate that, in the intervening years between the initial survey and the current research there appears to be have been little significant improvement in terms of how public sector client’s discharge their health and safety obligations during the procurement of construction projects.

The conclusions, drawn from the evidence of the research, suggest that while some public sector clients perform reasonably well in terms of meeting their health and safety obligations during the procurement of construction, there remains more that could be done.

This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.

HSE Books

© Crown copyright 2011

First published 2011

You may reuse this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view the licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/, write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email [email protected].

Some images and illustrations may not be owned by the Crown so cannot be reproduced without permission of the copyright owner. Enquiries should be sent to [email protected].

ii

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... v 1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Aims and objectives ................................................................... 1 1.2 Focus of the research................................................................. 2 1.3 Overall approach ........................................................................ 2 1.4 Sampling frame .......................................................................... 2 1.5 Methodology............................................................................... 3 1.6 Main research areas................................................................... 3 1.7 Questionnaire development........................................................ 3 1.8 Survey distribution...................................................................... 4 1.9 Contents..................................................................................... 5

2 SUMMARY AND MAIN FINDINGS FROM PREVIOUS RESEARCH....................... 7 2.1 Overview .................................................................................... 7 2.2 Summary of main findings .......................................................... 7 2.3 Recommendations from previous research ................................ 9

3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS: CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS ............... 11 3.1 Characteristics of the respondents ........................................... 11 3.2 Project details........................................................................... 12

4 SUMMARY OF RESULTS: PROCUREMENT OF CONSTRUCTION .................... 15 4.1 Procurement of construction..................................................... 15 4.2 Reasons for the selection of traditional procurement routes ..... 16 4.3 Discussion of alternative options .............................................. 19

5 SUMMARY OF RESULTS: APPOINTMENTS....................................................... 21 5.1 Appointments ........................................................................... 21 5.2 Selection of principal contractor................................................ 25 5.3 Assessing competence of appointees ...................................... 26

6 SUMMARY OF RESULTS: PROVIDING INFORMATION ..................................... 31 6.1 Providing information................................................................ 31

7 SUMMARY OF RESULTS: MONITORING OF HEALTH AND SAFETY PERFORMANCE................................................................................................... 34

7.1 Monitoring of health and safety performance............................ 34 8 SUMMARY OF RESULTS: HEALTH AND SAFETY GUIDANCE ......................... 35

8.1 Health and safety guidance ...................................................... 35 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 38

9.1 Summary and main findings ..................................................... 38 9.2 Conclusions.............................................................................. 40 9.3 Recommendations ................................................................... 40 9.4 Potential interventions .............................................................. 42 9.5 Limitations of the research ....................................................... 43

10 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 44

ANNEX A SUB-SAMPLE DIFFERENCES

ANNEX B INTERVIEW OUTLINE

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is the final report of a study concerned with examining health and safety issues in public sector construction procurement commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The broad aim of this research is to build on earlier work undertaken by Davis Langdon (2007), to provide a sound evidence base on which HSE can design targeted interventions to improve construction health and safety through improved public sector procurement practices.

The study has a number of distinct objectives, to: • identify a representative sample of public sector clients from across Great Britain who have

worked on publicly funded projects; • identify the current status of awareness, understanding and practices in key H&S aspects

reflecting any changes since the initial research was conducted; • explore the reasons why guidance is not being followed in whole or part to help inform the

design of HSE interventions; • deliver a robust evidence base together with suggestions for effective steps HSE and others

could take to secure improved procurement practices and H&S benefits; • explore in more depth certain findings of the earlier research – in particular why public

sector clients are using traditional methods of procurement despite guidance to the contrary.

The research methodology adopted on this commission involved primary data collection. After discussions with HSE it was agreed that the main survey instrument would be an interview questionnaire to allow issues to be explored qualitatively. The primary focus of the research were those public clients that had procured construction projects via traditional procurement routes (i.e. designers and contractors appointed separately for design and construction respectively, usually through competitive tender).

Interviews were undertaken during the winter of 2009 with public sector construction clients both face-to-face and by telephone using a structured interview outline. Out of 411 potential respondents that were contacted 101 interviews were completed.

The main findings of the research indicate that there are areas where the public client performed reasonably well in terms of discharging their health and safety obligations on the projects in question.

More specifically, in terms of appointments made by the client the results indicate that: • All projects had a CDM Coordinator (CDMc) appointed; • Management arrangements were generally reviewed monthly; • On the majority (59%) of projects reviewed a recognised pre-qualification scheme was used

to help to identify potential contractors; • On the majority (62%) of projects reviewed a recognised approved list of suppliers was

used to help to identify potential suppliers; • The majority of clients required the CDMc (65%), lead designer (51%) and principal

contractor (85%) to provide health and safety related information prior to their appointment; and

• The majority (95%) of clients provided the CDMc with all the health and safety information that they held.

In terms of providing information the results indicate that:

v

• The majority (95%) of clients provided pre-construction information to the designers and contractors; and

• The majority (97%) of clients received a construction phase plan prior to work commencing on-site.

Regarding the monitoring of health and safety performance the results suggest that: • The majority (76%) of clients collected data on health and safety performance during the

build phase of the projects in question, although it should be noted that a proportion (21%) did not.

In terms of health and safety guidance the research results indicate that: • The majority (63%) of clients used specific health and safety guidance when procuring the

projects in question, although it should be noted that a proportion (31%) did not; and • Respondents were aware of CDM 2007 and HSE guidance

However, the research also highlighted some particular shortcomings of the public client during the various stages of project development.

More specifically, in terms of procurement methods the results indicate: • The continued use of traditional approaches to construction procurement despite guidance

to the contrary and their undoubted adversarial nature; • The method of procurement was generally pre-determined by the client’s parent body; and • The requirement to manage health and safety risks scored relatively low when selecting the

procurement method.

In terms of appointments the results indicate that: • Generally, clients appointed contractors too late in the procurement process to have much

influence on design decisions that may have impacted on health and safety; • Generally, the principal contractor was not allowed sufficient time for planning and

preparation prior to construction work starting; • On the majority (65%) of projects reviewed it was not a contractual requirement that the

principal contractor was registered with the Considerate Constructors Scheme; • On the majority (59%) of projects reviewed it was not a contractual requirement that the

principal contractors workforce was registered with the Construction Skills Certification Scheme;

• While the majority (85%) of clients required the Principal Contractor to provide information to demonstrate their health and safety record a lower proportion required information from the Lead Designer (51%) and CDMc (65%).

Regarding providing information the results indicate that: • Pre-construction and health and safety information was generally provided too late in the

procurement process to make a significant impact on designing out health and safety hazards.

In terms of monitoring of health and safety performance the results suggest that: • Data collected on health and safety performance was not reported to the OGC.

Finally, regarding health and safety guidance the results indicate that: • The majority of respondents were unaware of OGC guidance [specifically AE-10 (84%)

and Common Minimum Standards (91%)].

Generally, in terms of sub-sample differences the results suggest that there is a relationship between project size and the seriousness to which respondents take their duties in terms of construction procurement and health and safety in particular. It appears that smaller projects

vi

(with a value below £1 million) are not treated in the same way, in terms of addressing health and safety issues, as larger projects. This is perhaps not a surprising finding although the results highlight potential areas for intervention by HSE.

Furthermore, the findings of the research suggest that occasional clients may be more conscientious when it comes to addressing health and safety issues than repeat clients. Repeat clients, because of their greater levels of experience and tendency to proceed based on that experience, may not follow the guidance as fully as perhaps they should.

There are no substantive differences between the results for the different countries, although some of the results from respondents in Wales suggest a slightly different approach to those in England and Scotland, however it should be noted that because of the relatively small number of Welsh projects covered the results for Wales may be misleading.

In terms of broad differences between client organisations the results of the research suggest Housing Association respondents behave slightly more conscientiously compared to other public clients when considering health and safety issues/guidance during procurement. In contrast, the results from Local Authority (LA) respondents regarding procurement in particular, i.e. the pre-determined approach and the assertion that “always done this way” is the most important criteria when selecting a procurement method highlight potential areas for intervention by HSE. In addition, the use of preferred or in-house design teams (in LAs) as a primary driver for the use of traditional procurement approaches is an issue that needs to be addressed as soon as is practicable.

In the intervening years between the initial survey and the current research there appears to be have been little significant improvement in terms of public sector client’s discharging their health and safety obligations during the procurement of construction projects.


In terms of procurement methods, clients should consider procurement routes other than the more traditional approaches. However, the use of in-house or other preferred design teams is a primary driver for respondents using traditional procurement routes.

One way to address the requirement to use a preferred or in-house design team and to maintain “control” of the design phase may be to use the “develop and construct” procurement approach. This is a form of design and build where a client engages a design team to prepare early design work and then subsequently novates (i.e. contractually hands over) their team to a design and build contractor. The design and build contractor then assumes responsibility for the full development of the design as well as construction. However, while this approach allows the client greater control of the important elements of the design and specification, it should be noted that there are complex legal issues surrounding the novation of the design team that may not be appropriate for small value projects. This would need to be reviewed on a project by project basis.

Regarding appointments, it is our view that clients should appoint contractors much earlier in the procurement process to allow them greater influence on design decisions that may impact health and safety. Indeed, this is one of the benefits of using more integrated procurement approaches as outlined in the OGC guidance. However, this is likely to be a function of the continued use of traditional procurement routes and until this area is addressed it’s likely that

vii

contractors will continue to be appointed too late in the project life-cycle to make valuable contributions to issues such as buildability. In our opinion this makes addressing the issues surrounding the awareness of the OGC guidance all the more important.

In terms of appointing contractors much earlier in the procurement process the use of Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) would facilitate this. ECI is a form of partnering with the contractor appointed earlier than usual to help in planning, advise on buildability and jointly develop a target price as the basis for a pain/gain share formula for the contract.

Under ECI, the contractor is engaged at an early stage in the procurement process, to use their skills and experience in the design of the scheme, leading to improved health and safety, buildability, sustainability, risk management and project management. The contractor's engagement is a two-stage process, in the first stage engagement is on a cost reimbursement basis to design, or to assist in the design of, the scheme and in the second stage, on completion of the design, a target cost is negotiated for the construction works themselves. Although the contractor’s involvement may start at any time in the design of the scheme, from feasibility to late in the design process, the earlier they are involved, the more benefit is gained. The benefits include the achievement of the most economic design, the potential to feed into the planning process and suggested amendments to the scheme that may save money and contribute to improvements in health and safety.

A further option is to enter a professional services contract with a contractor. A professional services contract can be used to procure a contractor specifically to use the contractor’s skills and experience in the design of the scheme. This should lead to improved health and safety, buildability, sustainability, risk management and programming, etc. The main construction works contract would then be procured as a separate exercise, based on quality and price, using the standard EU procedure.

In terms of recommendations going forward, many of the deficiencies highlighted in the research stem from a lack of knowledge of OGC guidance. The evidence of the research suggests that more be done to embed current health and safety guidance across the public client. Following the results of this research and previous work it appears that there is a distinct lack of awareness regarding the OGC publications (AE-10 and Common Minimum Standards) amongst the public clients that were the focus of this research.

The findings suggest that a campaign is needed to raise awareness of the OGC guidance with a view to embedding this throughout the public client. While we don’t believe that there are any particular barriers to compliance, it is our view that is more the result of a systemic lack of knowledge regarding the OGC guidance that would need to be overcome.

This could be addressed in a number of ways, for instance via improved marketing of the OGC guidance. Indeed, given the recent announcement that the OGC is to be subsumed within the Cabinet Office perhaps this presents an opportunity for the re-launching of the guidance if this is deemed to be an appropriate response.

An alternative approach could be to provide guidance within publications that according to the results of our research are already widely used, for instance ACoP. It might be that public clients would be better served if all guidance related to the procurement of construction were published within a single definitive document or manual.

viii

If an awareness raising campaign is deemed to be the most appropriate response it is our view, given the results of this research, that this should focus specifically on construction clients within Local Authorities and Non-departmental public bodies.

ix

INTRODUCTION

1 INTRODUCTION

Construction remains a disproportionately dangerous industry where the need to make improvements to health and safety is still pressing despite the substantial progress made in recent years.

The public sector as a whole procures around 30-40% of total construction output in the UK each year. Government policy is that public sector bodies should act as exemplars in the way in which they procure construction projects for which they act as client.

To this end the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) published a series of 10 guides entitled “Achieving Excellence in Construction Procurement” (AE Guides), providing detailed guidance on the procurement process that should be followed. Based on this guidance, Ministers approved mandatory key minimum procurement standards, ‘Common Minimum Standards; for the procurement of built environments in the public sector’ (CMS). These standards include the need to develop long-term collaborative relationships between government client and its suppliers, use integrated supply teams, reduce financial and decision-making approval chains, adopt performance measurement indicators and use tools such as value and risk management and whole-life costing.

The CMS also includes standards on health and safety – for clients to: • have systems in place to collect performance data; • assess the performance and processes of supply teams as part of the pre-qualification

process; • require their constructors to be registered with a scheme such as the Considerate

Constructors Scheme and comply with the scheme’s Code of Considerate Practice; • require all members of their supply teams to be registered with the Construction Skills

Certification Scheme or can prove competence in some other appropriate way.

It is mandatory for central government departments (including their executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies) to comply with CMS. However, anecdotal evidence from contractors and others in supply teams suggests compliance is patchy in practice and previous research by Davis Langdon1 revealed opportunities for improvement.

1.1 Aims and objectives

The broad aim of this research is to build on the earlier research undertaken by Davis Langdon (a summary of the main findings and recommendations from the earlier research is provided in Section 2 of this report), to provide a sound evidence base on which HSE can design targeted interventions to improve construction health and safety through improved public sector procurement practices.

More specifically, the research objectives to address the research aim were to: • identify a representative sample of public sector clients from across Great Britain who have

worked on publicly funded projects; • identify the current status of awareness, understanding and practices in key H&S aspects

reflecting any changes since the initial research was conducted;

1 Davis Langdon (2007) Health and Safety in Public Sector Construction Procurement; Health and SafetyExecutive; RR556

1

• explore the reasons why guidance is not being followed in whole or part to help inform the design of HSE interventions;

• deliver a robust evidence base together with suggestions for effective steps HSE and others could take to secure improved procurement practices and H&S benefits;

• explore in more depth certain findings of the earlier research – in particular why public sector clients are using traditional methods of procurement despite guidance to the contrary.

1.2 Focus of the research

Discussions with HSE at an early stage confirmed that the primary focus of the research are those public clients that have procured construction projects via traditional procurement routes (i.e. designers and contractors appointed separately for design and construction respectively, usually through competitive tender).

The research was primarily concerned with gathering information related to: • What informed the procurement route for the project in question; • Any appointments that were made by the client; • The selection of the principal contractor; • How the client assessed the competence of any appointees; • What information the client provided to appointees; • How the client monitored health and safety performance; • What health and safety guidance the client used.

1.3 Overall approach

Our approach involved primary data collection. After discussions with HSE it was agreed that the main survey instrument would be an interview questionnaire to allow issues to be explored qualitatively. Interviews were conducted both face-to-face and by telephone.

1.4 Sampling frame

Following initial discussions with HSE it was agreed that approximately 120 valid interviews would be required to ensure a good mix of respondents. In order to achieve the target number of interviews, Davis Langdon required a sampling frame of at least 300 based on the assumption that 50% of all public projects would be procured using traditional procurement routes (finding from the earlier research conducted by Davis Langdon).

As part of the CDM Regulations (2007) every construction project that is likely to last more than 30 working days or involve more than 500 person days is required to submit project specific information to HSE. The information includes, amongst other things, location of the site, contact details for the main project participants (client, CDMc, and principal contractor), and various project details (i.e. start-on-site date, duration of construction phase, expected numbers of site workers, etc). The required information is provided to HSE via the submission of an F10- Notification of a Construction Project form.

It was decided that F10 project records would be used to identify public sector clients and the projects they were working on. The sampling frame was an extraction from the F10 project record database which contains information concerning most construction projects in Great Britain (HSE provided a sample of approximately 1,800 project records).

The sample was based on a selection of F10 project records that had been prepared by HSE to highlight public sector construction projects. The sampling process sought to minimise the

2

burden on industry by ensuring that those selected had not been approached by other health and safety research.

1.5 Methodology

We conducted a series of one hundred and one valid interviews, a further number of interviews were conducted but were deemed to be invalid (due to the use of non-traditional procurement routes). The interviews were conducted by senior members of our research team and in addition to addressing any procurement issues provided a useful opportunity to examine any wider issues identified during the previous research.

A copy of the interview outline is provided in Annex B, broadly speaking the interviews sought information from public clients on: • the extent to which they adopt the principles of best practice guidance in the procurement of

construction work generally; • the reasons for procurement practices deviating from guidance; • any changes in performance in key health and safety aspects; • regional practices

Furthermore, to assess the potential influence of CDM 2007, we introduced similar questioning to that adopted by others2 to establish the effects of the current version of the CDM regulations.

The interview outline consisted of thirty six questions in ten sections, covering issues such as project details, procurement of construction, appointments, selection of the principal contractor, assessing the competence of appointees, providing information, monitoring of health and safety performance and the use of health and safety guidance.

1.6 Main research areas

The ability to compare the performance of different public client types was a crucial output of the research.

Broadly speaking the results of the survey allowed comparisons to be made between: Client organisations (Government departments, Local Authorities and Non-Departmental

Public Bodies) Client experience (Occasional or repeat) Project size (Large to small) Countries (England, Scotland and Wales)

The results are reported in Sections 3 to 8 of this report, a full analysis of the sample and sub-sample breakdowns is provided in Section 3.1. However, it should be noted that because of the small number of respondents in the sub-sample categories the results should be treated with some caution.

1.7 Questionnaire development

The interview outline was developed from previous research and in-depth discussions with HSE and modified during pre-testing and piloting of the survey. Following questionnaire development the survey was initially pre-tested with colleagues. To ensure correct interpretation of the questions a pilot survey was conducted in summer 2009 with respondents (public clients

2 BOMEL (2007) Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2007: Baseline study; Health & Safety Executive; RR555.

3

identified through the Davis Langdon contacts database) that were later omitted from the final survey.

The interview outline covered general health and safety issues that may be considered during public sector construction procurement, followed by more targeted questions concerning project specific health and safety issues. These more targeted questions refer to the procurement of a single named construction project, in which the respondent had been identified as acting as the public sector construction client for the project.

The survey questions were a combination of both open and closed questions. For the closed questions the response choices were determined by Davis Langdon after consultation with HSE. The closed method allowed more questions to be posed within the constraints of the questionnaire, as the method is quicker for the respondent. However, opportunity was given for an unanticipated response if the respondent deemed this necessary.

Because of the nature of the questions we were careful about managing issues of security and confidentiality. In order to elicit a reasonable response we were conscious that, for respondents to take part willingly, they may need some assurance that data they provided would be confidential. We were therefore careful to stress, in both the questionnaire and the accompanying survey letter, that the identity of individual respondents would not be divulged. The questionnaires were designed to help minimise potential problems with data collection, validation and cleaning processes and also to minimise the burden on respondents.

1.8 Survey distribution

The interviews were conducted between October 2009 and January 2010. Our initial approach involved identifying public sector clients that had procured construction projects and then contacting them by telephone to ascertain which method of procurement they had used on the projects in question, either: • Design and build (a contract where a single supplier is responsible for both design and

construction) • Prime contracting (a contract generally involving a main supplier, the prime contractor,

with a well established supply chain) • Traditional (designers and contractors are appointed separately for design and construction

respectively, usually through competitive tender) • PFI/PPP (contractor appointed to design, build, finance, and maintain a facility. In some

cases, the contractor will also assume responsibility for operating the facility and providing services)

For this project we were only interested in interviewing respondents that had procured construction projects using traditional methods. Once the use of a traditional procurement route had been established we then arranged to interview the respondent, either face-to-face or by telephone, using the outline in Annex B.

We contacted a total of 411 potential respondents identified from the F10 project database, of those 104 agreed to be interviewed by us. It later transpired that three of the 104 projects were not procured using traditional procurement routes and these were not taken any further. Of the remaining 307 contacts (411-104=307) they were either ineligible (used an alternative procurement route) or refused to participate.

Therefore, in total we undertook 101 valid interviews, slightly below our target of 120, largely the result of various issues with the sampling frame. More specifically, we encountered some

4

issues with the F10 data at the outset, as not all project records included a named contact for the client, and this made the task of identifying the client significantly more difficult than originally anticipated. Furthermore, the project records that we received were not restricted to public sector projects, which meant we had to make significantly more contacts to arrive at our final number of completed interviews.

1.9 Contents

The research consists of nine chapters. The first chapter provides the introduction, including the research methodology, and sets the scene for the research that follows. Chapter two presents a summary of previous relevant research. Chapter three provides details concerning the characteristics of the survey samples and details of the projects reviewed. Next, Chapters four to eight provide the survey results considering health and safety in public sector construction procurement. Finally, Chapter nine provides a summary of the research and draws conclusions from the findings presented in the earlier chapters.

5

SUMMARY AND MAIN FINDINGS FROM PREVIOUS RESEARCH

2 SUMMARY AND MAIN FINDINGS FROM PREVIOUS RESEARCH

The following section provides a summary of the previous research undertaken by Davis Langdon in 2006, the main findings of which were used to inform the current research approach. A full copy of the research is available on the HSE website at http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr556.htm

2.1 Overview

The study was concerned with examining health and safety issues in public sector construction procurement. The broad aim of the research was to provide an evidence-based assessment of how well the public sector in England, Scotland and Wales meets its health and safety obligations in the procurement of construction.

The research was largely quantitative in nature and the research methodology involved primary data collection. The main data collection instrument was a self-completion postal questionnaire. The overall approach followed two distinct stages: A survey of public sector clients; and A survey of private sector suppliers.

The surveys were distributed in late July 2006 to named respondents identified via a sampling frame of 2,620 projects. Of the 2,620 clients contacted some 365 responded representing a response rate of 12.6%. Of the 2,620 contractors contacted some 369 responded representing a response rate of 13.4%.

2.2 Summary of main findings

2.2.1 On the positive side, the research found that:

a) The majority of clients required some sort of health and safety information to be provided by contractors during the procurement process;

b) The majority of contractors used were pre-qualified;

c) Nearly all projects had a planning supervisor appointed (Note: Planning supervisors were superseded by CDMc’s with the advent of the CDM 2007 Regulations);

d) Public clients’ health and safety awareness was generally rated good by contractors;

e) Health and safety considerations scored quite highly when choosing design options; and

f) Clients considered health and safety risks during the construction phase

2.2.2 However, on the less positive front, the research found that, at the procurement stage, public clients generally:

a) Used traditional methods of procurement despite guidance to the contrary. More detailed findings included: • LAs and NDPBs seem to use traditional methods more than other types of public bodies; • A considerably higher proportion of smaller projects were procured using traditional

methods;

7

http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr556.htm

• Projects in Scotland seemed to use traditional methods more than in England and Wales [Note: the survey omitted projects procured by Scottish Executive so this finding may be misleading];

• Clients surveyed had little awareness of client duties in CDM (CDM 1994) or HSE guidance (eg ACoP) and very few knew of the OGC Guides with their stress on Value-for-Money approaches;

• Health and safety scores relatively low when selecting the procurement route despite scoring highly when selecting the design options.

b) Used a method of procurement pre-determined by the client’s parent body (a more detailed finding was that a higher proportion of repeat clients reported that the method of procurement was determined by their parent body);

c) Appointed contractors too late in the procurement process to have much influence on design decisions that may have impacted on H&S;

d) Did not consider the requirement to manage H&S risks when selecting the method of procurement to be particularly important;

e) The information that clients required from contractors in the selection process was most commonly provided at the pre-qualification or invitation to tender stage rather than the earlier expression of interest stage;

f) Did not provide feedback to contractors on the relative strengths of their tenders.

2.2.3 In terms of monitoring H&S performance, the research found that public clients in general:

a) Set H&S performance criteria more frequently during selection of a contractor and construction on-site stages than at other stages of project development;

b) Did not collect data on H&S performance during the build construction phase. More detailed findings on this were: • Although two-thirds of clients said they used KPIs to monitor H&S performance, one-third

didn’t; • LAs, more than other public body clients, did not collect H&S performance data. Housing

Associations seemed to be the best at using KPIs;

c) Overall, clients gave a better rating of contractors’ health and safety awareness than did contractors of clients’ level of awareness;

d) Although a majority of clients had to take no action to improve health and safety performance on the project, a significant proportion (nearly one-third) did have to take action;

e) A low proportion of clients sent the data they collected to OGC;

f) More clients did not use client risk registers than did. But where they did it included health and safety risks. More detailed findings were that: • Central government and NDPBs were more likely to use risk registers but a lower

proportion of central government clients included health and safety risks; • The use of risk registers was less on smaller projects; and • A higher proportion of occasional clients used risk registers which included health and

safety risks;

8

g) A high proportion (45%) of clients did not undertake a post-completion review. But where such a review was carried out it was likely to include a review of health and safety performance. A more detailed finding on this was that: • Central government clients were most likely to carry out a post-completion review

(followed, in turn, by Housing Association, NDPBs and LAs); but • Where such reviews were carried out, Housing Associations were most likely to include a

review of health and safety performance followed by NDPBs, central government departments and LAs.

2.2.4 Other findings included:

a) Clients exhibited less confidence carrying out their responsibilities for health and safety risk management than their client duties;

b) But within each, different levels of confidence were shown. On client duties, clients were more confident “appointing a competent team” than “monitoring progress and outcomes”. Similarly, on H&S risk management, they were more confident appointing a “competent project team” than “monitoring contractors H&S performance”;

c) There were also differences between sub-samples of clients – repeat clients were more confident “setting H&S performance requirements to be adhered to by the contractor” than occasional clients. However, occasional clients seemed to be more confident than repeat clients when “monitoring H&S performance requirements”;

d) Clients seem to regard training as the most useful method of helping them come to terms with their duties – although the provision of expert advice (internal or external) was also helpful.

2.3 Recommendations from previous research

Although it was found that some public sector clients perform reasonably well in meeting their health and safety requirements during both procurement of construction and in monitoring health and safety performance, more could be done – more specifically to: • Provide feedback to all contractors on their tender evaluation; • Consider procurement routes other than the more traditional methods; • Appoint contractors earlier in the procurement process to allow them greater influence on

the design decisions that could impact on health and safety; • Set criteria or targets for health and safety performance during the construction phase of all

projects; • Undertake post-completion reviews of all projects and feed the results back to contractors to

allow continuous improvement in performance; • Produce a client risk register for every project and share this with the integrated project

team.

The research recommended that more needs to be done to: • embed current health and safety guidance across public sector clients. In particular, levels

of awareness of OGC guidance needed to be raised; • encourage clients to pass on information about health and safety performance to OGC; • help increase levels of confidence of public sector clients in developing their

responsibilities for monitoring project performance – this being most likely to be effectively delivered through training.

The research suggested further studies could be done:

9

• as part of a longitudinal survey of changes over time – this could be particularly useful following the introduction of CDM2007;

• to find out why public body clients are using traditional methods in preference to others and contrary to OGC guidance.

In the following sections we explore in more depth some of the key issues raised in the previous research. More specifically, the reasons for the choice of a traditional procurement route, when appointments are made by the client, the selection of a principal contractor, how the client assesses the competence of appointees, what information the client provides to appointees, whether the client monitors health and safety performance and the types of health and safety guidance used by the client to inform the procurement process.

10

SUMMARY OF RESULTS: CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS

3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS: CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS

The following sections provide a summary of the results of the research. The survey results are reported under the following headings in-line with the structure of the interview outline, namely: details of the projects surveyed; procurement of construction; appointments; selection of principal contractor; assessing the competence of appointees; providing information; monitoring of health and safety performance; and health and safety guidance.

Results are reported for the sample as a whole and then for the following sub-samples: type of client organisation (local authority, non-departmental public body, housing association); country (England, Wales, Scotland) project size (small = <£1million; medium £1-10 million), and client experience (occasional = procured less than 5 projects in the last five years; repeat = procured more than 5 projects in the last five years).

Sub-sample results are only reported where they differ substantially from the results reported for the sample as a whole. While commentary is made in the report regarding any sub-sample differences the sub-sample results are reported in Annex A. Generally, the results in the following sections are reported in terms of frequencies and proportions. First, we examine some characteristics of the respondents to the survey and provide summary details of the projects surveyed.

3.1 Characteristics of the respondents

The following section provides some details of the respondents to the survey, specifically their position within their organisation and their role on the project in question; as well as details on the responding organisation itself, namely the type of organisation and their experience with construction procurement.

Table 3.1 identifies the position of the respondent within their organisation. 32% of the respondents were “clients”, with 22% being project managers. However, the largest proportion is represented by “others” which included surveyors, development officers, estates managers, directors, CDM Coordinator (in all the “other” category includes 25 roles which are not summarised here).

Table 3.1 Respondent’s position organisation

Frequency Percent Client 32 31.7 Project manager 22 21.8 Architect 9 8.9 Other 38 37.6

70% of the respondents acted as clients for the projects reviewed, of the remaining 30% the majority acted as CDM Coordinators (Table 3.2). We believe that the CDMc is capable to act for the client and indeed this is fairly common practice.

11

Table 3.2 Did the respondent act as the "client" for the projects in question

Frequency Percent Yes 69 69.7 No 30 30.3

Note: Frequency does not sum to 101 due to missing responses

The respondent’s organisation is displayed in Table 3.3. As can be seen we have the greatest coverage in terms of Non-departmental public bodies, followed by those from Local Authorities and Housing Associations. It is worth noting here that we had no respondents from Central Government Departments.

Table 3.3 Respondents by type of client organisation

Frequency Percent Non-departmental public body 56 55.4 Local Authority 32 31.7 Housing Association 13 12.9

Table 3.4 exhibits the experience of the respondent in terms of the number of projects that they or their organisation have been involved with over the last five years. The majority of respondents are repeat clients (procured 5 or more projects over the last five years) although we do have responses from occasional and one-off clients.

Table 3.4 Respondent’s experience

Frequency Percent Repeat client 74 81.3 Occasional client 12 13.2 One-off client 5 5.5


3.2 Project details

This section provides details on the projects surveyed such as their location; size by contract sum; and the stage of the project at the time of the survey. Table 3.5 displays the location of the projects in question. The majority of projects surveyed were in England, although we do have reasonable coverage of projects in Scotland. However, it proved more difficult to obtain responses from projects in Wales and therefore the results for Wales may be misleading given the small sample size.

Table 3.5 Project location

Frequency Percent England 64 63.4 Scotland 28 27.7 Wales 9 8.9

12

Data concerning project size is reported in Table 3.6. As can be seen we have reasonable coverage of various project sizes (small = <£1million; medium = £1million - £10 million; large = >£10 million). The largest proportion is in the <£1million category. However, it is worth noting that we have responses from a considerable number of projects within the £1 million to £10 million category. Indeed, we have responses from a wide range of project sizes, more specifically from £26,300 to £41,100,000 in value, although in terms of public sector projects it should be noted that our coverage is restricted to smaller projects generally, we believe that this is a direct result of our focus on traditional procurement routes. Larger projects are less likely to be procured using traditional procurement methods.

Table 3.6 Size of projects by contract sum

Frequency Percent Small 58 58.6 Medium 39 39.4 Large 2 2.0


Table 3.7 displays the stage the project was at when our inquiry was conducted, as can be seen the majority of projects were complete although we have reasonable coverage of projects that were still on-site. The relatively high number of complete projects might have arisen as a result of the delay between the provision of contacts from the F10 database in July and the survey in October through to January.

Almost all (98%) of the projects reviewed were notifiable under CDM Regulations i.e. the construction phase was likely to last more than 30 working days or involve more than 500 person days (Table 3.8).

Table 3.7 Project stage at time of the survey

Frequency Percent Complete 62 62.0 On-site 34 34.0 Pre-contract 3 3.0 Design 1 1.0

Table 3.8 Was the project notifiable under CDM regulations?

Frequency Percent Yes 98 98.0 No 1 1.0 Don't Know 1 1.0

Respondents were asked if a CDM Coordinator (CDMc) had been appointed for the project in question, as can be seen in Table 3.9 all of the projects reviewed had a CDMc appointed. The results in Table 3.10 indicate that the majority of CDMc appointments were external to the respondent’s organisation. These findings are broadly similar to those in the earlier research.

13

Table 3.9 Has/was a CDMc appointed for the project?

Frequency Percent Yes 101 100.0 No 0 0.0 Don't know 0 0.0

Table 3.10 Was the CDMc an internal or external appointment?

Frequency Percent External appointment 72 71.3 Internal Appointment 29 28.7

14

SUMMARY OF RESULTS: PROCUREMENT OF CONSTRUCTION

4 SUMMARY OF RESULTS: PROCUREMENT OF CONSTRUCTION

The following section provides summary details of the results of the research concerning the procurement of the projects in question. Broadly speaking this section seeks to explore the reasons behind the choice of a traditional procurement route (where designers and contractors are appointed separately for design and construction respectively, usually through competitive tender) for the projects reviewed. Results are reported for the sample as a whole, sub-sample results are only reported where they differ substantially from the results reported for the sample as a whole.

4.1 Procurement of construction

Table 4.1 highlights that in 60% of the projects reviewed the method of procurement was predetermined by the client organisation or parent body (similar to findings of the previous research by Davis Langdon). In terms of sub-sample differences, for a higher proportion of Local Authorities (80%) the method of procurement was pre-determined (Table A.1). Respondents suggested that this was the result of LA Standing Orders specifying that a level of competitive tendering was required. Similarly, for 75% of projects procured in Scotland (Table A.2) the method of procurement was pre-determined (both of these results support findings in the earlier research).

However, for the majority of occasional clients (60%) the method of procurement was not pre-determined by their parent body (Table A.3). Similarly, on the majority of medium sized projects (Table A.4) the method of procurement was not pre-determined (again both of these results support findings in the earlier research).

Table 4.1 Was the method of procurement pre-determined by the respondent's parent body?


Respondents were asked to rank the top three criteria used by their organisation to select the procurement method used for the project in question. The results are presented as a combined score (where 1=top priority and scores 3; and third order priority scores 1).

Data in Table 4.2 identifies the criteria used by the client when selecting a traditional procurement route. The need for quality, cost and time certainty were ranked highly in the choice of a traditional procurement method (similar to findings of the previous research by Davis Langdon). Again, as in prior research, the requirement to manage health and safety risks is scored relatively low, suggesting that health and safety receives less consideration when selecting procurement routes than some other criteria, in particular quality, cost and time.

15

Table 4.2 Rank of criteria used by the client to select the procurement method for the projects in question

Rank Score Need for quality 1 105 Need for cost certainty 2 93 Need for time certainty 3 82 Project size and complexity 4 71 Always done this way 5 51 Availability of project funding 6 35 Need to allocate contract risk 7 30 Requirement to manage health & safety risks 8 24 Availability of key personnel 9 23

In terms of sub-sample differences, “always done this way” is the top ranked priority for Local Authority respondents followed by the “availability of key personnel” (Table A.5). Similarly, “always done this way” is the top ranked priority for respondents from Wales (Table A.6). These results are substantially different to those for the sample as a whole and the results from the other sub-samples, although it should be noted that because of the relatively small number of Welsh projects covered the results for Wales should be treated with caution.

4.2 Reasons for the selection of traditional procurement routes

It should be remembered that traditional procurement routes remain the main type of procurement route, by both share and value of project, used in the UK construction industry (Oyegoke et al, 2009). Given this finding it is therefore perhaps not surprising that traditional procurement routes continue to be used in public sector construction procurement. Indeed, during the last few years as the recession in the construction industry has become more severe single-stage competitive tendering has re-established itself as the procurement route of choice as building clients attempt to exploit the buyer’s market.

The RICS (2010) found that while smaller projects continue to be dominated by traditional forms of contract, larger projects show a preference for Construction Management or a version of Design and Build. The findings of our current and previous research tend to suggest that public sector procurement follows a similar path, with smaller projects procured using more traditional procurement routes while larger projects tend to be procured using more integrated approaches.

Indeed, anecdotally, many respondents regarded alternative procurement routes as inefficient for the types of projects reviewed (i.e. relatively small value projects). More specifically, our coverage was restricted to examining smaller projects generally, a factor of our focus on traditional procurement routes. It was found that larger value projects are less likely to be procured using traditional procurement methods. This finding suggests that traditional procurement routes are used predominantly on smaller value projects (i.e. those with a contact value less that £10 million) and highlights a potential area for intervention by the HSE.

A summary of the main reasons for selecting a traditional procurement route as highlighted by respondents, are as follows: • the traditional method allowed the use of a particular/preferred design team (often in-house

in the case of Local Authorities);

16

• respondents had extensive past experience of the traditional method; • there was often a requirement for competitive tender in LA Standing Orders; • the traditional method was easy to work with and understand; • traditional procurement was a familiar tried & tested method; • traditional procurement routes were viewed as the most suitable method for relatively small

value projects; • traditional procurement routes demonstrate better value for money when compared to

alternatives (via market testing).

The use of a particular or preferred design team (often in-house in the case of Local Authorities) is likely to be a significant barrier to the adoption of the more integrated procurement routes. More specifically, where a public client engages a particular designer and then looks to procure a separate contractor (usually via competitive tender) then the use of design and build (a contract where a single supplier is responsible for both design and construction); prime contracting (a contract generally involving in a main supplier, the prime contractor, with a well established supply chain); and PFI/PPP (where a contractor is appointed to design, build, finance and maintain a facility) is not feasible.

A further reason cited by respondents for the use of more traditional procurement routes was that it gave them more control over the construction process (in particular the design phase) than would otherwise be the case via the integrated procurement routes (i.e. design & build).

Past experience was also cited as a factor in determining the procurement route to be used. One respondent (an NHS Trust) cited poor performance on a previous design and build contract which informed their choice of a traditional procurement route on the project in question.

Traditional procurement approaches were also used where the project required specialist inputs (i.e. heritage work, asbestos removal) with limited suppliers available. Some respondents viewed traditional procurement routes as the best way of attracting competent contractors for this type of work.

In terms of selecting more integrated procurement routes one respondent commented that “the more educated clients were aware of the advantages of integrated procurement routes in terms of designing out health and safety risks”. However, they commented that “the advantages may not be clearly visible to some clients”. This finding suggests that an awareness raising campaign may be required to further embed current guidance and to extol the benefits of more integrated approaches to procurement.

A selection of the specific reasons cited by respondents for the use of a traditional procurement route, for the projects in question, are summarised in the text box below.

17

• “traditional procurement route was recommended by the Local Council, we wanted more control over the design” (client from a High School);

• “past experience with design and build was not successful” in addition they have an in-house design team that they prefer to use (client from a College);

• “better value for money” (client from an NHS Trust); • “positive experience of using traditional procurement routes”, which allowed them to

maintain control of the design process and use preferred designers (client from a University);

• “always do it this way” (client from a City Council); • “the fairest way of choosing contractors for specialist works”. They also suggested that

there was a limited pool of potential contractors to choose from and indicated that their choice was also a condition of the Grant funding (from the Local Council), which required “transparency” in the procurement process (client from a Heritage Trust);

• “had preferred designers and were proficient in administering traditional methods” (client from a Housing Association);

• “a limited number of contractors who could respond to this job” and they felt that the approach would “achieve the best value for public money” (client from the Police Authority);

• “always procure traditionally for small value, short duration projects” (client from a University);

• “competitive tender for contractors was required by the Councils Standing Orders” (client from a Town Council);

• “school policy” to use traditional procurement to “ensure that the product was exactly what was wanted” (client from a School);

• “complexity of stakeholder relationships, so a simple contract form was important”. They argued that the traditional approach provided “clarity for users and contractors” (client from a Local Council);

• “we wanted to use a preferred designer” (client from a University); • “ensure value for money” as they required “a fixed price so variations could be valued and

assessed” (client from a Local Council); • “comply with Council Standing Orders, which required going out to competitive tender”

(client from a Local Council); • “allow the use of in-house designers” (client from a City Council); • “we always do it this way for projects this size”, they further suggested that the approach

was dictated by Department Policy (client from an FE College); • “a relatively straightforward job, so there was no reason not to use traditional” (client from

a Local Council); • “the usual method”, that their “parent body preferred this approach” and that they viewed

traditional procurement as offering “best value for money” (client from a City Council); • “provides best value for the client, while the designer maintains control over the quality of

the works” (client from a Town Council); • “there was sufficient time before tender to allow a fully designed building including M&E

design – which in turn would allow the tendering contractors to price accurately and therefore give the University a true cost for the project. Also using the traditional route allowed any design issues/H&S issues to be identified at an early stage and resolved” (client from a University);

• “competitive tendering chosen to demonstrate best value” (client from a School); • “procurement rules for this type of project dictated route – size of project, site specific

issues, occupation of site, demolition, etc” (client from a County Council); • “design and build not suitable to project type, with traditional school retains control” (client

from a School); • “good working relationship with local contractor, already benchmarked against previous

schemes” (client from a Housing Association); • “alternative procurement routes would not have provided the necessary control” (client

from an FE College); • “ always done this way as specified in Procurement Rules, traditional is preferred as there

is an element of market testing” (client from a County Council); • “in-house design for cost, then tender” (client from an NHS Trust).

18

4.2.1 Case studies

The choice of a particular procurement route can be fairly arbitrary, as described in the case studies below:

Case 1: A County Council procuring school refurbishment works used traditional procurement approaches as their contract procedure rules specified that the work should be competitively tendered. The council had an in-house design team that they preferred to use on construction projects. Indeed, they had a multi-disciplinary team of consultants in-house (engineers, project managers, CDMc, health & safety advisers) and these were usually employed on the Council’s construction projects.

Indeed, all roles on the project, apart from the principal contractor were in-house appointments. The contractor that was ultimately selected was known to the Council and had demonstrable experience of working on occupied properties, this was a key requirement for the client.

The respondent confirmed that “health and safety issues were becoming more important” and they believed that these should be led through client influence, which they suggested was best brought to bear via the use of an in-house design team.

Case 2: An NHS Trust was procuring two construction projects simultaneously, one was being procured via Procure 21 and the other was being procured using a more traditional approach (traditional approaches had been used successfully on past projects undertaken by the Trust).

The Trust was relatively new to the Procure 21 approach and therefore decided to procure the other project traditionally to as they put it “avoid putting all their eggs in one basket”.

The Trust required a contractor with specific experience of similar work, and they weren’t convinced that they would get this from the P21 framework contractors. Indeed, reference was made to foreign contractors (in particular sub-contractors) with a view that they didn’t take health and safety issues as seriously as perhaps they should.

Operational issues were a significant factor in the Trust’s choice, they required a contractor who had demonstrable experience of working in a similar hospital environment and they felt they could only get this via a traditional procurement approach. Ultimately, a local SME won the project.

Case 3: A City Council procuring housing repairs regarded design and build procurement as having “control issues” (specifically they had no control over the design process), as a result they preferred traditional procurement routes as they allowed some client involvement. This was regarded as being particularly important where work was being undertaken on properties/facilities that were occupied by council tenants.

4.3 Discussion of alternative options

One way to address the requirement to use a preferred or in-house design team and to maintain “control” of the design phase may be to use the “develop and construct” procurement approach. This is a form of design and build where a client engages a design team to prepare early design work and then subsequently novates (i.e. contractually hands over) their team to a design and build contractor. The design and build contractor then assumes responsibility for the full development of the design as well as construction. However, while this approach allows the client greater control of the important elements of the design and specification, it should be noted that there are complex legal issues surrounding the novation of the design team.

19

One of the major drawbacks of using traditional procurement approaches is a result of the designers and contractors being appointed separately for design and construction respectively. We suggest that contractors should be appointed earlier in the procurement process to allow them greater influence on design decisions that may impact health and safety.



A further option is to enter a professional services contract with a contractor. A professional services contract can be used to procure a contractor specifically to use the contractor’s skills and experience in the design of the scheme. This should lead to improved health and safety, buildability, sustainability, risk management and programming, etc. The main construction works contract would then be procured as a separate exercise, based on quality and price, using the standard EU procedure.

20

SUMMARY OF RESULTS: APPOINTMENTS

5 SUMMARY OF RESULTS: APPOINTMENTS

The following section provides summary details of the results of the research regarding the appointments made by the client on the projects in question. First we examine at what stage of the procurement process various suppliers were appointed, then we examine any specific actions that the client undertook prior to the construction phase starting. Finally we review the use of pre-qualification schemes and approved supplier lists. Results are reported for the sample as a whole, sub-sample results are only reported where they differ substantially from the results reported for the sample as a whole.

5.1 Appointments

There was a lead designer and principal contractor appointed for all of the projects reviewed. Table 5.1 highlights at what stage of the procurement process that various suppliers were appointed. For the highest proportion of projects the CDMc was appointed at Outline design, although it should be noted that a sizeable proportion were also appointed at Outline specification. Generally, the results suggest that the CDMc is appointed relatively early in the project procurement process. Similarly the majority of lead designer appointments occurred relatively early in the procurement process (i.e. at outline specification stage). As would be expected, given the use of traditional procurement routes, the principal contractor is appointed relatively late in the procurement process (i.e. pre-construction contract). Similarly sub-contractors are appointed relatively late in the procurement process (i.e. pre-construction contract).

Table 5.1 At what stage of the procurement process were the following appointed? (%)

Outline Detailed Pre- Construction Outline Investment design design construction on-site specification decision contract

CDM co-ordinator 30 10 35 13 12 0 Lead designer 68 13 17 1 0 0 Principal contractor 2 0 17 15 58 7 Specialist sub-contractors 3 0 8 0 53 35 Other sub-contractors 2 0 0 0 23 75

In terms of both the principal contractor and the sub-contractors the results suggest that their appointment is too late in the procurement process to take advantage of their expertise (in terms of buildability and health and safety issues) this is largely a function of the traditional procurement route used.

However, regarding any sub-sample differences, Housing Association respondents tended to appoint the principal contractor rather earlier in the procurement process (Table A.7). Indeed, a greater proportion were appointed at outline design stage when compared to other organisations.

In addition, according to respondents from Housing Associations, specialist sub-contractors were appointed earlier with a greater proportion appointed at detailed design than was the case for other respondents or the sample as a whole (Table A.7).

21

Furthermore, occasional clients tended to appoint the principal contractor earlier in the procurement process, with a higher proportion appointed at the outline design stage (Table A.36). This finding suggests that repeat clients appoint principal contractors relatively late in the procurement process (i.e. with the majority appointed at pre-construction contract following the design phases) and therefore the ability of the contractor to inform design decisions that may impact health and safety risks is significantly constrained (Table A.37).

Similarly a greater proportion of respondents from Wales tended to appoint the principal contractor at detailed design stage when compared to the sample as a whole and respondents from other countries, although it should be noted that because of the relatively small number of Welsh projects covered the results for Wales should be treated with caution.

Respondents were asked to describe any specific actions that they undertook as a client prior to the construction phase starting. This should include ensuring that the principal contractor prepared a construction phase plan that complied with ACoP guidance; client should be satisfied that adequate welfare facilities (i.e. sanitary conveniences; washing facilities; drinking water; changing room & lockers; facilities for rest) were/are to be provided during the construction phase). The responses to this question are summarised below: • hazard surveys (including asbestos); • site surveys; • services mapping; • liaison with occupiers; • provided information & attended meetings; • reviewed management documentation from contractors; • development of pre-construction phase plan (including risk assessments).

The research was also concerned with establishing if the principal contractor had sufficient time for planning and preparation before construction work began. The results in Table 5.2 suggest that this might not have been the case in the majority of projects reviewed, indeed on two-thirds of projects the contractor had 4 weeks or less for planning and preparation. However, on a more positive note, it should be noted that a relatively high proportion had over 2 months.

Table 5.2 How long was the principal contractor allowed for planning and preparation before construction work began?

Frequency Percent 2 weeks 13 15.5 3 weeks 18 21.4 4 weeks 24 28.6 5 weeks 2 2.4 6 weeks 6 7.1 7 weeks 1 1.2 >2 months 20 23.8

In terms of project size (small = <£1million; medium = £1million - £10 million; large = >£10 million) there was no substantial difference between small (62%) and medium (51%) sized projects with the largest proportion of projects allowing the contractor 4 weeks or less for planning and preparation (Table A.38). However, on the largest project reviewed (>£10 million) the principal contractor was allowed 7 months for planning and preparation, suggesting that

22

there might be a relationship between time allowed for planning and preparation and project size.

In terms of further sub-sample differences, the results from Housing Association (Table A.10) respondents suggest that generally they allowed a longer time for planning and preparation than the sample as a whole or respondents from other organisations. Indeed, on 62% of the projects procured by Housing Associations the principal contractor was allowed 2 months or more for planning and preparation before construction work began on-site. Similarly, a longer time for planning and preparation was allowed by respondents from Wales when compared to the sample as a whole or respondents from other countries (Table A.11) although it should be noted that because of the relatively small number of Welsh projects covered the results for Wales should be treated with caution.

Respondents were asked for examples of any management arrangements that the principal contractor was required to provide to the client to demonstrate how they would manage health and safety standards on site. This should include checking that there is adequate protection for the client’s workers and members of the public; checking to ensure that adequate welfare facilities have been provided by the contractor; checking that there is good co-operation and communication between designers and contractors; asking for confirmation that the agreed arrangements have been implemented. The following were the most frequently occurring examples cited by respondents: • construction phase plan; • construction H&S plan; • risk assessment and method statements; • evidence of site specific arrangements (including provision of welfare facilities); • staff induction records, management CVs.

Any management arrangements were most frequently reviewed monthly at site meetings to ensure that they were being maintained (Table 5.3).

Table 5.3 How often were management arrangements reviewed to ensure they were being maintained?

Frequency Percent Monthly 42 45.7 Weekly 25 27.1 Bi-weekly 11 12.0 Other 14 15.2

In terms of sub-sample differences, a higher proportion of Housing Association (70%) projects were reviewed on a monthly basis, this might be a factor of larger projects (Table A.12). Conversely, a higher proportion of projects in Wales (44%) were reviewed on a weekly basis, this might be factor of smaller projects (Table A.13), although again it should be noted that because of the relatively small number of Welsh projects covered the results for Wales should be treated with caution.

According to the “Common Minimum Standards” it is a requirement that the contractors used by public clients are registered with the Considerate Constructor’s Scheme (or some other suitable scheme) and comply with the scheme’s practice. In addition, all members of the client’s supply team are required to be registered with the Construction Skills Certification Scheme (or

23

are able to prove competence in some other appropriate way). Table 5.4 displays the results concerning whether it was a contractual requirement that the principal contractor was registered with the Considerate Constructors Scheme (or some other suitable scheme).

Table 5.4 Was it a contractual requirement that the principal contractor was registered with the Considerate Constructor's scheme (or some other suitable scheme)?


In the majority of the projects surveyed it was not a contractual requirement for the principal contractor to be registered with the Considerate Constructor’s Scheme (or some other suitable scheme). In terms of sub-sample differences, virtually all (91%) occasional clients did not make it a contractual requirement (Table A.39). This finding suggests a possible lack of awareness of the relevant guidance.

In the 30% of projects where it was a contractual requirement, respondents answered that the client checked that contractors followed the code of practice by: • requiring/reviewing Certificates of registration; • site visits; • checking accreditation; • checking at monthly site meetings; • monitoring procedures/processes.

Similarly in only 29% of the projects reviewed was it a contractual requirement for the principal contractor’s workforce to be registered with the Construction Skills Certification Scheme (or some other suitable scheme) [Table 5.5]. Compliance was checked by respondents in the following ways: • documentary evidence required (CSCS cards checked/reviewed); • random inspections; • CDMc spot checks on-site; • reviewed evidence in tender return.

Table 5.5 Was it a contractual requirement that the principal contractors workforce was registered with CSCS (or some other suitable scheme)?


In the case of other on-site participants, namely sub-contractors (major & specialist), requirements of registration with the Considerate Constructor’s scheme or CSCS (or other suitable schemes) was only a contractual requirement in 32% of projects surveyed [Table 5.6].

Table 5.6 Were the same principles followed for other on-site participants?

24


5.2 Selection of principal contractor

Tables 5.7 and 5.8 displays the results concerning whether clients used a recognised pre-qualification scheme, or approved list of suppliers, to help identify potential contractors for the projects in question. The results in Table 5.7 indicate that the majority of clients did use a recognised pre-qualification scheme. These findings are broadly similar to the findings in the previous research. An in-house list, OJEU and ConstructionLine were the most frequently cited schemes used.

In terms of sub-sample differences, a higher proportion of respondents in Wales (78%) used a pre-qualification scheme on the projects in question when compared to the sample as a whole and respondents from other countries (Table A.14). However, the vast majority (75%) of occasional clients did not use a pre-qualification scheme (Table A.15). This finding is perhaps surprising given the relative lack of experience of occasional clients and suggests a possible lack of awareness of the pre-qualification schemes available.

Respondents were asked to rate the perceived usefulness of the pre-qualification scheme and approved list of suppliers on a five point rating scale (with 1= very useful and 5=not useful). The results, in Table 5.8, suggest that the in-house lists were regarded as very useful, ConstructionLine was perceived as being useful as a pre-qualification scheme, while OJEU was regarded as not useful.

Table 5.7 Was a recognised pre-qualification scheme used to help identify potential contractors?


Table 5.8 How useful was the pre-qualification scheme? (%)

Very Not useful Neutral useful

In-house list 52.0 32.0 16.0 0.0 0.0

OJEU 0.0 8.3 16.7 16.7 58.3

ConstructionLine 14.3 85.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Similar results were provided regarding the use of an approved list of suppliers (Table 5.9). A recognised approved list of suppliers was used to identify potential suppliers in 62% of the projects surveyed. The approved lists most often used were either an in-house suppliers list or ConstructionLine.

25

Table 5.9 Was a recognised approved list of suppliers used to help identify potential suppliers?


The results in Table 5.10 suggest that the majority of respondents found the in-house list very useful. However, interestingly respondents were largely neutral towards the usefulness of ConstructionLine as an approved list of suppliers (Table 5.10), although it should be noted that 50% (16.7% + 33.3%) of respondents found ConstructionLine useful.

In terms of sub-sample differences, the majority of Housing Association respondents (64%) did not use an approved suppliers list (Table A.18). Similarly, the majority of occasional clients (58%) did not use an approved list of suppliers (Table A.17), again a surprising finding given their relative lack of experience.

In contrast, on projects in Wales a higher proportion of respondents (89%) did use an approved list of suppliers when compared to the sample as a whole and those from other countries (Table A.16), although again it should be noted that because of the relatively small number of Welsh projects covered the results for Wales should be treated with caution.

Table 5.10 How useful was the approved suppliers list? (%)

Very Not useful Neutral useful

In-house list 75.0 17.9 3.6 3.6 0.0 ConstructionLine 16.7 33.3 50.0 0.0 0.0

5.3 Assessing competence of appointees

Table 5.11 displays the results concerning whether clients required the lead designer to provide information to demonstrate their health and safety capability. As can be seen the majority of respondents did require the lead designer to provide information, however it is worth noting that a sizeable minority (45%) did not. For some of those respondents that did not require the lead designer to provide information this was largely a function of the lead designer being pre-qualified on an approved suppliers list, consequently information was provided/reviewed during pre-qualification.

Table 5.11 Did the respondent require the lead designer to provide information to demonstrate their health & safety capability?


26

Furthermore, in terms of sub-sample differences, the majority of respondents from Wales (Table A.19) and those from Housing Associations (Table A.20) did not require the lead designer to provide information. While a higher proportion of occasional clients did require the lead designer to provide information to demonstrate their health and safety capability (Table A.21).

Table 5.12 highlights the type of information respondents required the lead designer to provide. The most frequently cited response was “evidence of experience on similar projects”.

Table 5.12 What information was the lead designer required to provide?

Yes (%) No (%) NEBOSH Construction certificate 12.9 87.1 Membership of the health and safety register administered by the ICE (Institution of Civil Engineers) 12.9 87.1 Inclusion on the design register operated by the APS (Association for Project Safety) 6.5 93.5 Details of the proportion of people engaged in the project who have passed a construction health and safety assessment 25.8 74.2 Evidence of hazard elimination and risk control 29.0 71.0 Evidence showing how the organisation ensures co-operation and co-ordination of design work within the design team and with others 41.9 58.1 Details showing how hazards are eliminated and any remaining risks controlled 41.9 58.1 Evidence showing how risk has been reduced through design 46.8 53.2 Details of how design changes will be managed 41.9 58.1 Evidence of experience on similar projects 59.7 40.3

Other information reviewed as part of the lead designer appointment were professional qualifications in 61% of projects; chartered membership of a recognised construction related institution in 44% of projects, and RIBA membership (Table 5.13).

Table 5.13 What other information related to the lead designer appointment was reviewed?

Yes (%) No (%) Professional qualifications 61.3 38.7 Chartered membership of a recognised construction-related institution 43.5 56.5 Membership of a relevant construction institution: CIBSE 9.7 90.3 ICE 14.5 85.5 IEE 14.5 85.5 IMechE 14.5 85.5 IStructE 14.5 85.5 RIBA 45.2 54.8 CIAT 6.5 93.5 CIOB 8.1 91.9

Table 5.14 displays the results regarding whether respondents required the principal contractor to provide information to demonstrate their health and safety record. As can be seen, the majority (85%) of respondents required the principal contractor to provide information.

27

Table 5.14 Did the respondent require the principal contractor to provide information to demonstrate their health & safety record?


Table 5.15 lists the information the respondents required the principal contractor to provide. The principal contractor’s health and safety policy was the most frequently cited response (a similar finding was reported in the previous research), followed by evidence of arrangements having been made for the management of health and safety (i.e. CDM 2007); evidence of the availability of health and safety information and advice; and evidence of a system for monitoring, auditing and reviewing procedures (i.e. site inspection reports).

Table 5.15 What information was the principal contractor required to provide

Yes (%) No (%) Organisations health and safety policy 78.9 21.1 Evidence of arrangements having been made for the management of health and safety (i.e. CDM 2007) 67.4 32.6 Evidence of the availability of health and safety information and advice 58.4 41.6 Evidence of a health and safety training culture (including: headline training records; induction training records; CPD; etc) 56.2 43.8 Details of qualifications and/or experience of specific corporate post holders (i.e. health and safety advisor) 47.2 52.8 Identification of other key roles on the project including details of relevant qualifications and experience 40.4 59.6 Details of the number of people who are to be engaged on the project who have passed a construction health and safety assessment (i.e. ConstructionSkills; CCNSG) 19.1 80.9 Details of any specific training for site managers (i.e. ConstructionSkills "Site management safety training scheme") 31.5 68.5 Details of qualifications and/or professional membership for professionals 24.7 75.3 Details of any relevant qualifications or training (S/NVQ certificates) for site workers 22.5 77.5 Evidence/details of a company based training programme suitable for the work to be carried out 31.8 68.2 Evidence of a system for monitoring, auditing and reviewing procedures (i.e. site inspection reports) 59.6 40.4 Details of workforce involvement and consultation on health and safety matters (i.e. records of health and safety committees; names of appointed safety reps) 41.6 58.4

Other information reviewed as part of the principal contractor selection is provided in Table 5.16. The most frequently reviewed information (by 65% of respondents) was evidence of the way accidents/incidents are recorded and investigated, followed by evidence of relevant experience of similar projects (i.e. record of recent projects with referees who can provide verification of health and safety compliance).

28

Table 5.16 What other information related to the principal contractor appointment was reviewed?

Yes (%) No (%) Evidence of the way accidents/incidents are recorded and investigated 65.1 34.9 Records of any enforcement action taken over the last five years and appropriate remedies 54.8 45.2 Evidence showing arrangements are in place for appointing competent sub-contractors (i.e. sub-contractor assessment showing how sub-contractor performance is monitored) 41.7 58.3 Details of risk assessment methodology (i.e. sample risk assessments; method statements etc) 61.9 38.1 Evidence of experience of co-operating and coordinating work with that of other contractors (i.e. risk assessment; project team meeting notes; etc) 33.3 66.7 Evidence that appropriate welfare provision will be made available (i.e. contracts with welfare facility providers; details of welfare facilities provided on previous projects) 63.1 36.9 Evidence of relevant experience of similar projects (i.e. record of recent projects with referees who can provide verification of health and safety compliance) 64.3 35.7

Table 5.17 displays the results concerning whether the CDMc was required to provide information to demonstrate their competence prior to their appointment. The results indicate that the majority of respondents required the CDMc to provide information prior to their appointment, although again it should be noted that a sizeable minority (32%) did not. For some of those respondents that did not require the CDMc to provide information this was largely a function of the CDMc being pre-qualified on an approved suppliers list, consequently information was provided/reviewed at pre-qualification.

In terms of sub-sample differences, the majority of respondents from Wales (66%) did not require the CDMc to provide information to demonstrate their competence prior to appointment (Table A.22), in contrast to the results for the sample as a whole and respondents from other countries. However, all occasional clients required the CDMc to provide information prior to their appointment (Table A.23).

Table 5.17 Did the respondent require the CDMc to provide information to demonstrate their competence prior to appointment?


Table 5.18 lists the information the respondents required the CDMc to provide. The NEBOSH Construction certificate is the most frequently cited response followed by a validated Continuing Professional Development (CPD) course in the health and safety field. However, it is worth noting that the results in Tables 5.17 and 5.18 are slightly contradictory as according to the data in Table 5.18 the majority of respondents didn’t require any of the information listed to be provided, although they were unable to specify exactly what information they did require.

29

Table 5.18 What information was the CDMc required to provide

Yes (%) No (%) Validated CPD in health and safety field 34.2 65.8 NEBOSH Construction certificate 39.7 60.3 Member of the health and safety register administered by ICE 8.2 91.8 Membership of Association for Project Safety 28.8 71.2 Membership of Institution of Construction Safety (formerly the Institution of Planning Supervisors) 26.0 74.0

In terms of other information reviewed by clients prior to CDMc appointment (Table 5.19), the results indicate chartered membership of a recognised construction-related institution was the most frequent information reviewed, followed by professional qualifications, although again it is worth noting that the results indicate that the majority of respondents didn’t require any further information to be provided.

Table 5.19 What other information related to the CDMc appointment was reviewed?

Yes (%) No (%) Professional qualifications 41.7 58.3 Chartered membership of a recognised construction-related institution 43.7 56.3 Membership of a relevant construction institution: CIBSE 11.6 88.4 ICE 10.1 89.9 IEE 5.8 94.2 IMechE 2.9 97.1 IStructE 2.9 97.1 RIBA 5.8 94.2 CIAT 2.9 97.1 CIOB 11.6 88.4

In summary, while the vast majority of clients required the principal contractor to provide information to demonstrate their health and safety record prior to appointment a lower proportion required information from the lead designer and CDMc.

Indeed, respondents suggested anecdotally that generally consultants (i.e. designers, engineers, CDMc, etc) were pre-qualified but that contractors were not. This seems to be a shortcoming and we believe that public sector clients should make more use of pre-qualification schemes when attempting to identify potential contractors for projects.

30

SUMMARY OF RESULTS: PROVIDING INFORMATION

6 SUMMARY OF RESULTS: PROVIDING INFORMATION

The following section provides summary details of the results of the research regarding the provision of information. First we examine what information the client provided to the various parties during the procurement process. Second we review what information the client received from the principal contractor, including the health and safety file. Results are reported for the sample as a whole, sub-sample results are only reported where they differ substantially from the results reported for the sample as a whole.

6.1 Providing information

In terms of providing information, Table 6.1 displays the results concerning whether clients provided all relevant health and safety information to the CDMc following their appointment. As can be seen the vast majority of respondents provided all relevant information that they held. This information included: • all historic site records; • all drawings & specifications; • site investigation/surveys; • hazard surveys, asbestos register/surveys; • services maps; • H&S files

Table 6.1 Did the respondent ensure that the CDMc was provided with all health & safety information related to the project?


In addition, 95% of respondents indicated that they provided pre-construction information to the project designers and contractors (Table 6.2).

Table 6.2 Did the respondent provide pre-construction information to the designers and contractors?


Table 6.3 summarises the type of information provided, with “description of the project” being the most frequent response. However, what’s interesting in Table 6.3 is that only 64% of respondents provided the health and safety file for designers and contractors.

Table 6.4 highlights that in the majority of the projects reviewed the information was provided to designers and contractors at the Invitation to Tender (ITT) stage and following contractor appointment. It is our view that this is perhaps too late in the procurement process and pre-construction information should be provided as early as possible in the project life cycle.

31

Table 6.3 What information did this include?

Yes (%) No (%) Description of the project 94.8 5.2 Client's considerations and management requirements 84.5 15.5 Environmental restrictions 75.3 24.7 Existing on-site risks 86.6 13.4 Significant design and construction hazards 70.1 29.9 The health and safety file 63.9 36.1

Table 6.4 When was the information provided?

Frequency Percent ITT stage 43 51.8 Following contractor appointment 20 24.1 Outline design 20 24.1

In terms of receiving information, almost all respondents received a construction phase plan from the principal contractor before work began on-site (Table 6.5). Table 6.6 indicates the type of information that was included in the phase plan. Arrangements for managing the works was the most frequently cited response. Again the health and safety file received a relatively low response rate.

Table 6.5 Was a construction phase plan received from the principal contractor before work began on-site?


Table 6.6 What information did this include?

Yes (%) No (%) Description of the project 89.6 10.4 Management of the work 97.9 2.1 Arrangements for controlling significant site risks 90.6 9.4 The health and safety file 69.8 30.2

The research was also concerned with ascertaining what the respondents intended to do with the health and safety file following the construction phase. The most frequent responses were: • kept at client office; • kept on site at facility; • copy kept at facility & copy kept at client office; • incorporated into building manual - for ongoing maintenance of building and to inform

future works

32

The greatest proportion of respondents received the health and safety file some five weeks after the construction phase finished (Table 6.7). However, a significant number hadn’t received the file two months after completion, indeed we were informed that on some projects there were significant delays in receiving the health and safety file and often it was necessary to withhold practical completion certificates and final payment to encourage the contractor to complete the file.

Table 6.7 How long after the construction phase finished did the respondent receive the health & safety file?

Frequency Percent 1 week 1 2.2 2 weeks 8 17.4 3 weeks 3 6.5 4 weeks 6 13.0 5 weeks 13 28.3 6 weeks 3 6.5 >2 months 12 26.1

33

SUMMARY OF RESULTS: MONITORING OF HEALTH AND SAFETY PERFORMANCE

7 SUMMARY OF RESULTS: MONITORING OF HEALTH AND SAFETY PERFORMANCE

The following section provides summary details of the results of the research regarding monitoring of health and safety performance. Results are reported for the sample as a whole, sub-sample results are only reported where they differ substantially from the results reported for the sample as a whole.

7.1 Monitoring of health and safety performance

Table 7.1 displays the results concerning whether the respondent collected data on health and safety performance during the build/construction phase of the project in question. The majority of respondents collected data on health and safety performance, however it should be noted that a relatively large proportion (21%) did not.

The results are broadly similar to the findings of the previous research, although it should be noted that in the current research a slightly higher proportion of respondents collect data on health and safety performance - 76% compared to 65% (however, it should be noted that this finding is indicative only as strictly speaking the results from this research and the previous research are not directly comparable – due to different surveying approaches and research focus).

In terms of sub-sample differences, a higher proportion of occasional clients (Table A.24) and respondents from medium sized projects (Table A.25) collect data on health and safety performance. Interestingly, a lower proportion (70%) of respondents on smaller projects collect data on health and safety performance (Table A.25).

Table 7.1 Did/does the respondent collect data on health and safety performance during the build/construction phase of the project?


When data is collected, respondents make the following use of it: • informs H&S audit reports; • informs H&S KPIs; • informs post project reviews; • informs review at site meetings; • informs future tender lists.

Interestingly, in terms of reporting the data collected, none of the respondents report any data collected on health and safety performance to the OGC despite a requirement to do so specified in the CMS.

34

SUMMARY OF RESULTS: HEALTH AND SAFETY GUIDANCE

8 SUMMARY OF RESULTS: HEALTH AND SAFETY GUIDANCE

The following section provides summary details of the results of the research regarding the use of health and safety guidance by the respondents. First we examine any specific guidance used to inform the selection of the procurement route for the projects in question. Second we review what more general guidance the respondents were aware of. Finally, we ascertain the respondents view of the CDM 2007 Regulations, more specifically how they compare with the CDM 1994 Regulations. Results are reported for the sample as a whole, sub-sample results are only reported where they differ substantially from the results reported for the sample as a whole.

8.1 Health and safety guidance

Data in Table 8.1 highlights that the majority of respondents (63%) used specific health and safety guidance when procuring the project in question. However, it is worth noting that a relatively large proportion of respondents did not use any guidance. When specific health and safety guidance was used it was primarily: • CDM 2007 Regulations; and • Approved Code of Practice (ACoP)

These findings are broadly similar to the earlier research. In terms of sub-sample differences, on medium sized projects a lower proportion (53%) of respondents used specific health and safety guidance while on smaller projects a higher proportion (71%) used specific guidance (Table A.26). Interestingly, a slightly lower proportion of occasional clients (Table A.27) used health and safety guidance when compared to repeat clients. This is perhaps a surprising finding given their relative lack of procurement experience although this could be the result of their relative lack of awareness of specific health and safety guidance.

Table 8.1 Did the respondent use any specific health and safety guidance when procuring this project?


The research was also concerned with ascertaining what guidance respondents were aware of more generally. Data in Table 8.2 suggests that virtually all respondents were aware of the CDM 2007 Regulations, with a relatively high proportion aware of HSE publications (i.e. Managing Construction for Health and Safety and ACoP).

While the results regarding CDM 2007 and HSE publications are an improvement on those from the previous research, awareness of both the OGC Achieving Excellence Guidance (specifically AE 10) and OGC Common Minimum Standards was very low (these results are broadly similar to the findings in the previous research). Indeed, no occasional clients were aware of the OGC guidance at all (Table A.35).

This finding perhaps goes some way to explaining the use of traditional procurement routes as respondents are clearly not aware that the use of more integrated procurement methods (i.e. design and build, prime contracting, PFI/PPP) is mandatory as spelled out in the OGC

35

guidance. Furthermore, although there appears to be a greater awareness of CDM 2007 and ACoP, when compared to the previous research, this awareness doesn’t appear to have contributed to the use of more integrated procurement methods.

Table 8.2 What guidance are respondents aware of more generally?

Yes (%) No (%) CDM 2007 97.9 2.1 HSE publications (Managing Construction for Health and Safety) 83.2 16.8 OGC Achieving Excellence 10 15.8 84.2 OGC Common Minimum Standards 9.5 90.5 HSE guidance e.g. Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) 64.2 35.8 Scottish Executive's Construction Procurement Manual 7.4 92.6 Scottish Executive's Procurement Policy Handbook 3.2 96.8 Welsh Assembly Government's Procurement Route Planner 9.5 90.5

In terms of sub-sample differences, the majority of Housing Association respondents (Table A.30) were not aware of ACoP. Furthermore, as would be expected, respondents from Scotland and Wales were more aware of their own national guidance when compared to the results for the sample as a whole. Indeed, all respondents in Wales were aware of the Welsh Assembly Government's Procurement Route Planner (Table A.33). However, only a relatively small proportion of respondents in Scotland were aware of the Scottish Executive’s guidance (Table A.32). Interestingly, a greater proportion of respondents from Wales were aware of OGC guidance, specifically AE-10.

The research was also concerned with ascertaining respondent’s views regarding the usefulness of the revisions to the CDM 2007 Regulations. Data in Table 8.3 suggests that the majority of respondents believe that the 2007 Regulations are an improvement over the 1994 Regulations, although it is worth noting that a relatively high proportion of respondents “don’t know”.

The most frequently cited response regarding why the 2007 Regulations were regarded as an improvement was that they provided greater clarity on the role of the client and clearer lines of responsibility.

Table 8.3 In the respondents opinion are the CDM 2007 regulations an improvement over the CDM 1994 regulations?


Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed with a series of statements that described the changes to the CDM 2007 Regulations on a five point scale, from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The analysis is concerned with comparing responses for each variable to see whether there are any differences in the respondents’ preferences. Given that the data collected is ordinal and the samples are not independent the Friedman Test is used to compare the distribution of the variables.

36

The Friedman Test is the related samples non-parametric equivalent of the repeated measures ANOVA. The calculation of the Friedman Test is based on ranks in each case, the scores for each variable are ranked and the mean ranks for each variable are compared.

The results of the analysis can be seen in Table 8.4. The significant Chi-square of the Friedman Test (N=80; Chi-sq=93.14; df= 8; Sig:0.000) suggests that there is a significant difference between the mean ranks. Respondents agreed most with the assertion that the changes to the CDM Regulations made them more focused on process improvements and easier to understand, but disagreed with the assertion that the changes involved additional cost and resulted in a significant reduction in bureaucracy.

Table 8.4 Extent clients agree with descriptions that describe the changes to the CDM 2007 regulations (Friedman Test)

Mean rank Rank More focused on process improvement 4.16 1 Easier to understand 4.24 2 Increased influence over project planning and management 4.33 3= Encourages greater integration of project teams 4.33 3= Increased legal responsibilities 4.91 5 Increased flexibility to better fit with existing contract arrangements 4.97 6 Reduction in the paper burden 5.49 7 Significant reductions in bureaucracy 5.61 8 Additional cost 6.97 9

Finally, respondents were asked to rate the perceived usefulness of the CDM 2007 Regulations on a five point scale (with 1=very useful and 5=not useful). The results in Table 8.5 suggest that the majority of respondents find the new Regulations useful.

Table 8.5 How useful do clients find the CDM 2007 regulations (%)

Very useful Neutral Not useful CDM 2007 34.5 47.1 13.8 2.3 2.3

37

9

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter one stated that the aim of the research was to provide a sound evidence base on which the HSE can design targeted interventions to improve construction health and safety though improved public sector procurement practices. The following section presents a summary of the research and draws conclusions from the findings presented in the earlier chapters.

9.1 Summary and main findings

The main findings of the research indicate that there are areas where the public client performed reasonably well in terms of discharging their health and safety obligations on the projects in question.

More specifically, in terms of appointments made by the client the results indicate that: • All projects had a CDM Coordinator appointed; • Management arrangements were generally reviewed monthly; • On the majority of projects reviewed a recognised pre-qualification scheme was used to

help to identify potential contractors; • On the majority of projects reviewed a recognised approved list of suppliers was used to

help to identify potential suppliers; • The majority of clients required the CDMc, lead designer and principal contractor to

provide health and safety related information prior to their appointment; and • The majority of clients provided the CDMc with all the health and safety information that

they held.

In terms of providing information the results indicate that: • The majority of clients provided pre-construction information to the designers and

contractors; and • The majority of clients received a construction phase plan prior to work commencing on-

site.

Regarding the monitoring of health and safety performance the results suggest that: • The majority of clients collected data on health and safety performance during the build

phase of the projects in question, although it should be noted that a sizeable proportion did not.

In terms of health and safety guidance the research results indicate that: • The majority of clients used specific health and safety guidance when procuring the projects

in question, although again it should be noted that a sizeable proportion did not; and • Respondents were aware of CDM 2007 and HSE guidance.

However, the research also highlighted some particular shortcomings of the public client during the various stages of project development.

More specifically, in terms of procurement methods the results indicate: • The continued use of traditional approaches to construction procurement despite guidance

to the contrary and their undoubted adversarial nature; • The method of procurement was generally pre-determined by the clients parent body; and • The requirement to manage health and safety risks scored relatively low when selecting the

procurement method.

38

In terms of appointments the results indicate that: • Generally, clients appointed contractors too late in the procurement process to have much

influence on design decisions that may have impacted on health and safety; • Generally, the principal contractor was not allowed sufficient time for planning and

preparation prior to construction work starting; • On the majority of projects reviewed it was not a contractual requirement that the principal

contractor was registered with the Considerate Constructors Scheme (or some other suitable scheme);

• On the majority of projects reviewed it was not a contractual requirement that the principal contractors workforce was registered with the Construction Skills Certification Scheme (or some other suitable scheme);

• While the vast majority of clients required the Principal Contractor to provide information to demonstrate their health and safety record a lower proportion required information from the Lead Designer and CDMc

Regarding providing information the results indicate that: • Pre-construction and health and safety information was generally provided too late in the

procurement process to make a significant impact on designing out health and safety hazards

In terms of monitoring of health and safety performance the results suggest that: • Data collected on health and safety performance was not reported to the OGC.

Finally, regarding health and safety guidance the results indicate that: • The vast majority of respondents were unaware of OGC guidance (specifically AE-

10 and Common Minimum Standards).

Generally, in terms of broad sub-sample differences the results suggest that there is a relationship between project size and the seriousness to which respondents take their duties in terms of construction procurement and health and safety in particular. It appears that smaller projects (with a value below £1 million) are not treated in the same way, in terms of addressing health and safety issues, as larger projects. This is perhaps not a surprising finding although the results highlight potential areas for intervention by HSE.

Furthermore, the findings of the research suggest that occasional clients may be more conscientious when it comes to addressing health and safety issues than repeat clients. Repeat clients, because of their greater levels of experience and tendency to proceed based on that experience, may not follow the guidance as fully as perhaps they should.

There are no substantive differences between the results for the different countries, although some of the results from respondents in Wales suggest a slightly different approach to those in England and Scotland, however it should be noted that because of the relatively small number of Welsh projects covered the results for Wales may be misleading.

In terms of broad differences between client organisations, the results of the research suggest Housing Association respondents behave slightly more conscientiously compared to other public clients when considering health and safety issues during procurement. In contrast, the results from Local Authority respondents regarding procurement in particular, i.e. the pre-determined approach and the assertion that “always done this way” is the most important criteria when selecting a procurement method highlight potential areas for intervention by HSE. In addition, the use of preferred or in-house design teams (in LAs) as a primary driver for the

39

use of traditional procurement approaches is an issue that needs to be addressed as soon as is practicable.

9.2 Conclusions

In the intervening years between the initial survey (2006), concerning health and safety in public sector construction procurement, and the current research there appears to be have been no significant improvement in terms of public sector client’s discharging their health and safety obligations during the procurement of construction projects.


More specifically, public clients could do more during the procurement of construction, to: • Consider procurement routes other than the more traditional approaches; • Appoint contractors earlier in the procurement process to allow them greater influence on

design decisions that may impact health and safety, this is likely to be a function of the procurement method used;

• Consider the management of health and safety risks more highly when selecting the procurement method;

• Allow the principal contractor more time for planning and preparation prior to construction work starting on-site;

• Make more use of pre-qualification schemes when attempting to identify potential contractors for projects;

• Make it a contractual requirement that that the principal contractor was registered with the Considerate Constructors Scheme (or some other suitable scheme);

• Make it a contractual requirement that the principal contractors workforce was registered with the Construction Skills Certification Scheme (or some other suitable scheme);

• Require the lead designer and CDMc to provide information to demonstrate their health and safety record;

• Provide pre-construction health and safety information earlier in the procurement process to make a significant impact on designing out health and safety hazards;

• Report data collected on health and safety performance to OGC; and • Become more aware of OGC guidance (specifically AE-10 and Common Minimum

Standards).

On a more positive note, the research indicates that the revised CDM Regulations (2007) have generally been well received by clients, although it remains to be seen if the revised guidance has a significant impact on health and safety in public sector construction procurement.

In the following section we highlight some recommendations for improving both the approach to procurement and the awareness of relevant guidance.

9.3 Recommendations

9.3.1 Approach to procurement

In terms of procurement methods, clients should consider procurement routes other than the more traditional approaches. However, the use of in-house or other preferred design teams is a primary driver for some respondents (particularly LAs) using traditional procurement routes.

40

One way to address the requirement to use a preferred or in-house design team and to maintain “control” of the design phase may be to use the “develop and construct” procurement approach. This is a form of design and build where a client engages a design team to prepare early design work and then subsequently novates (i.e. contractually hands over) their team to a design and build contractor. The design and build contractor then assumes responsibility for the full development of the design as well as construction. However, while this approach allows the client greater control of the important elements of the design and specification, it should be noted that there are complex legal issues surrounding the novation of the design team that may not be appropriate for smaller value projects. This would need to be reviewed on a project by project basis.

Regarding appointments, it is our view that clients should appoint contractors much earlier in the procurement process to allow them greater influence on design decisions that may impact health and safety. Indeed, this is one of the benefits of using more integrated procurement approaches as outlined in the OGC guidance. However, this is likely to be a function of the continued use of traditional procurement routes and until this area is addressed it’s likely that contractors will continue to be appointed too late in the project life-cycle to make valuable contributions to issues such as buildability. In our opinion this makes addressing the issues surrounding the adoption of the OGC guidance all the more important (see Section 9.3.2).



Indeed, a recent review by Lancashire County Council (http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/council/meetings/displayFile.asp?FTYPE=A&FILEID=35965) highlighted the potential benefits of ECI to Local Authorities and provides commentary on whether the approach would fit within current LA Standing Orders. While the review concentrated on transport infrastructure schemes, we see no reason why the approach could not be used on more general building projects. However, it should be noted that there is currently limited experience of this method of procurement within the public sector.

A further option is to enter a professional services contract with a contractor. A professional services contract can be used to procure a contractor specifically to use the contractor’s skills and experience in the design of the scheme. This should lead to improved health and safety, buildability, sustainability, risk management and programming, etc. The main construction

41

http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/council/meetings/displayFile.asp?FTYPE=A&FILEID=35965

works contract would then be procured as a separate exercise, based on quality and price, using the standard EU procedure.

However, it could be argued that any contractor, who is employed under the professional services contract, should be barred from the works tender because of an unfair advantage gained from knowledge acquired during the former contract. Suitable contractors are likely to be reluctant to tender for the professional services contract, if that were the case.

9.3.2 Awareness of guidance

In terms of recommendations going forward, many of the deficiencies highlighted in Section 9.2 stem from a lack of awareness of OGC guidance. The evidence of the research suggests that more be done to embed current health and safety guidance across the public client. Following the results of this research and previous work it appears that there is a distinct lack of awareness regarding the OGC publications (AE-10 and Common Minimum Standards) amongst the public clients that were the focus of this research.

The findings suggest that a campaign is needed to raise awareness of the OGC guidance with a view to embedding this throughout the public client. While we don’t believe that there are any particular barriers to compliance, it is our view that this is more the result of a systemic lack of awareness regarding the OGC guidance that would need to be overcome.

This could be addressed in a number of ways, for instance via improved marketing of the OGC guidance. Given the recent announcement that the OGC is to be subsumed within the Cabinet Office perhaps this presents an opportunity for the re-launching of the guidance if this is deemed to be an appropriate response. An alternative approach could be to provide guidance within publications that according to the results of our research are already widely used, for instance ACoP. Indeed, it might be that public clients would be better served if all guidance related to the procurement of construction were published within a single definitive document or manual.

If an awareness raising campaign is deemed to be the most appropriate response it is our view, given the results of this research, that this should focus specifically on construction clients within Local Authorities primarily and to a lesser extent Non-departmental public bodies.

9.4 Potential interventions

In terms of potential interventions for practical steps that HSE and others could take to secure improved procurement practices and health and safety benefits, we outline below a number of actions that we believe should be undertaken as soon as is practicable.

Generally, smaller public sector projects are procured using traditional approaches. HSE should target awareness raising to public clients that tend to procure smaller projects i.e. LAs and NDPBs.

Indeed, the results from Local Authority (LA) respondents regarding procurement in particular, i.e. the pre-determined approach and the assertion that “always done this way” is the most important criteria when selecting a procurement method highlight potential areas for intervention by HSE. In addition, the use of preferred or in-house design teams (in LAs) as a primary driver for the use of traditional procurement approaches is an issue that needs to be addressed as soon as is practicable.

42

HSE should make public clients more aware, or champion the use, of alternative procurement approaches that facilitate the early appointment of the contractor (i.e. develop & construct; ECI; professional service contracts), this will allow the contractor to impart their skills and expertise during the design phase.

Improved marketing of OGC guidance is needed to overcome the lack of awareness – given that the OGC has recently been subsumed within the Cabinet Office perhaps this represents an opportunity for the re-launching/branding of the OGC guidance.

Alternatively, HSE/OGC could provide relevant guidance within publications that according to our research are already widely used, for instance ACoP, or consolidate all public sector construction procurement advice into a single document, manual, or electronic portal (web based) to address the current situation of disparate multiple information sources.

9.5 Limitations of the research

The research is deficient in some respects, suggesting the need for further research. Coverage from projects in England and Scotland far exceeds that from Wales and while it may be possible to generalise about results from England and Scotland, the extent to which the findings for Wales can be generalised is in some doubt.

If more robust results are required for Wales then it might be appropriate to undertake a separate research exercise covering a larger sample of projects in Wales.

In addition, given the results of this research (and previous work) concerning the lack of awareness of the OGC AE-10 guide we believe that it would be useful to assess the level of awareness amongst public sector clients of the whole suite of OGC AE guidance.

43

REFERENCES

10 REFERENCES

BOMEL (2007) Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2007: Baseline study, Health & Safety Executive, RR555

CDM (2007) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations, HMSO

Constructing Excellence (2006) Common Minimum Standards: For the procurement of works in the built environment by Local Authorities in England, Local Government Task Force

Davis Langdon (2007) Health and Safety in Public Sector Construction Procurement, Health and Safety Executive, RR556

HSE (2007) Managing Health and Safety in Construction (ACoP), Health and Safety Executive

OGC (2004) Achieving Excellence in Construction, Procurement Guide 10 – Health and Safety, Office of Government Commerce

OGC (2005) Common Minimum Standards: For the procurement of built environments in the public sector, Office of Government Commerce

Oyegoke, A., & M. Dickinson , M. Khalfan, P. McDermott, S. Rowlinson (2009) Construction project procurement routes: an in-depth critique, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2 (3), pp338-354

RICS (2010) Contracts in use survey: A survey of building contracts in use during 2007, Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, London.

44

ANNEX A SUB-SAMPLE DIFFERENCES

Table A1 Was the method of procurement pre-determined, by type of client Non

Local departmental Housing Percent Authority body Association Yes 80 49 58 No 20 47 41 Don't know 0 4 1

Table A2 Was the method of procurement pre-determined, by country Percent England Scotland Wales Yes 57 75 44 No 43 25 33 Don't know 0 0 22

Table A3 Was the method of procurement pre-determined, by client experience Percent Repeat Occasional Yes 57 40 No 40 60 Don't know 3 0

Table A4 Was the method of procurement pre-determined, by project size Percent Small Medium Yes 71 40 No 27 57 Don't know 2 3

Table A5 Rank of criteria used by the client to select the procurement method for the projects in question, by type of client

Non Local departmental Housing

Rank Authority body Association Need for quality 4 1 1 Need for cost certainty 3 2 4 Need for time certainty 6= 3 2 Project size and complexity 5 4 3 Always done this way 1 5 8 Availability of project funding 7 6 9 Need to allocate contract risk 6= 7 5 Requirement to manage health & safety risks 8 8 7 Availability of key personnel 2 9 6

45

Table A6 Rank of criteria used by the client to select the procurement method for the projects in question, by country Rank England Scotland Wales Need for quality 1 1 7 Need for cost certainty 3 2 6 Need for time certainty 2 4 8 Project size and complexity 4 3 4= Always done this way 5 5 1 Availability of project funding 7 6= 4= Need to allocate contract risk 6 8 3 Requirement to manage health & safety risks 8 6= 9 Availability of key personnel 9 9 2

Table A7 At what stage of the procurement process were the following appointed, Housing Associations

Pre-Outline Investment Outline Detailed construction Construction

Percent specification decision design design contract on-site CDM co-ordinator 41 16 25 0 16 0 Lead designer 72 27 0 0 0 Principal contractor 0 0 55 9 36 0 Specialist sub-contractors 0 0 0 25 75 0 Other sub-contractors 0 0 0 0 0 100

Table A8 At what stage of the procurement process were the following appointed, Local Authorities


Percent specification decision design design contract on-site CDM co-ordinator 22 6 50 6 16 0 Lead designer 66 3 31 0 0 0 Principal contractor 13 0 13 0 67 7 Specialist sub-contractors 5 0 5 0 50 40 Other sub-contractors 0 0 0 0 19 81

Table A9 At what stage of the procurement process were the following appointed, Non departmental bodies



46

Table A10 How long was the principal contractor allowed for planning and preparation, by client type


Percent Authority body Association 2 weeks 19 13 0 3 weeks 9 27 0 4 weeks 9 18 23 5 weeks 19 2 0 6 weeks 9 2 15 7 weeks 0 2 0 >2 months 35 36 62

Table A11 How long was the principal contractor allowed for planning and preparation, by country Percent England Scotland Wales 2 weeks 11 21 0 3 weeks 20 18 0 4 weeks 19 25 0 5 weeks 3 0 22 6 weeks 5 4 22 7 weeks 2 0 0 >2 months 40 32 56

Table A12 How often were management arrangements reviewed, by client type Non

Local departmental Housing Percent Authority body Association Monthly 45 30 70 Weekly 27 25 0 Bi-weekly 0 0 0 Other 28 45 30

Table A13 How often were management arrangements reviewed, by country Percent England Scotland Wales Monthly 40 54 11 Weekly 27 19 44 Bi-weekly 11 15 11 Other 22 12 34

Table A14 Was a recognised pre-qualification scheme used, by country Percent England Scotland Wales Yes 61 50 78 No 36 46 22 Don't know 3 4 0

47

Table A15 Was a recognised pre-qualification scheme used, by client experience Percent Repeat Occasional Yes 67 17 No 31 75 Don't know 2 8

Table A16 Was a recognised approved list of suppliers used, by country Percent England Scotland Wales Yes 58 57 89 No 36 39 11 Don't know 4 4 0

Table A17 Was a recognised approved list of suppliers used, by client experience Percent Repeat Occasional Yes 63 33 No 33 58 Don't know 2 8

Table A18 Was a recognised approved list of suppliers used, by client type Non

Local departmental Housing Percent Authority body Association Yes 62 65 36 No 35 28 64 Don't know 3 6 0

Table A19 Did the respondent require the lead designer to provide information to demonstrate their health & safety capability, by country Percent England Scotland Wales Yes 52 52 43 No 45 40 57 Don't know 3 8 0

Table A20 Did the respondent require the lead designer to provide information to demonstrate their health & safety capability, by client type


Percent Authority body Association Yes 55 50 46 No 45 43 54 Don't know 0 7 0

48

Table A21 Did the respondent require the lead designer to provide information to demonstrate their health & safety capability, by client experience Percent Repeat Occasional Yes 47 75 No 49 17 Don't know 4 8

Table A22 Did the respondent require the CDMc to provide information to demonstrate their competence prior to appointment, by country Percent England Scotland Wales Yes 64 79 33 No 34 14 67 Don't know 2 7 0

Table A23 Did the respondent require the CDMc to provide information to demonstrate their competence prior to appointment, by client experience Percent Repeat Occasional Yes 63 100 No 33 0 Don't know 4 0

Table A24 Did/does the respondent collect data on health and safety performance during the build/construction phase of the project, by client experience Percent Repeat Occasional Yes 73 92 No 26 8 Don't know 1 0

Table A25 Did/does the respondent collect data on health and safety performance during the build/construction phase of the project, by size of project Percent Small Medium Yes 70 85 No 27 15 Don't know 3 0

Table A26 Did the respondent use any specific health and safety guidance when procuring this project, by size of project Percent Small Medium Yes 71 53 No 26 42 Don't know 3 6

49

Table A27 Did the respondent use any specific health and safety guidance when procuring this project, by client experience Percent Repeat Occasional Yes 65 58 No 32 25 Don't know 3 17

Table A28 What guidance are respondents aware of more generally, Local Authorities Yes (%) No (%)

CDM 2007 100 0 HSE publications (Managing Construction for Health and Safety) 77 23 OGC Achieving Excellence 10 10 90 OGC Common Minimum Standards 13 87 HSE guidance e.g. Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) 74 26 Scottish Executive's Construction Procurement Manual 10 90 Scottish Executive's Procurement Policy Handbook 3 97 Welsh Assembly Government's Procurement Route Planner 16 84

Table A29 What guidance are respondents aware of more generally, Non departmental bodies

Yes (%) No (%) CDM 2007 96 4 HSE publications (Managing Construction for Health and Safety) 83 17 OGC Achieving Excellence 10 19 81 OGC Common Minimum Standards 8 92 HSE guidance e.g. Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) 62 38 Scottish Executive's Construction Procurement Manual 4 96 Scottish Executive's Procurement Policy Handbook 2 98 Welsh Assembly Government's Procurement Route Planner 8 93

Table A30 What guidance are respondents aware of more generally, Housing Associations

Yes (%) No (%) CDM 2007 100 0 HSE publications (Managing Construction for Health and Safety) 100 0 OGC Achieving Excellence 10 18 82 OGC Common Minimum Standards 9 91 HSE guidance e.g. Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) 45 55 Scottish Executive's Construction Procurement Manual 18 82 Scottish Executive's Procurement Policy Handbook 9 91 Welsh Assembly Government's Procurement Route Planner 0 100

50

Table A31 What guidance are respondents aware of more generally, England Yes (%) No (%)


Table A32 What guidance are respondents aware of more generally, Scotland Yes (%) No (%)


Table A33 What guidance are respondents aware of more generally, Wales Yes (%) No (%)


Table A34 What guidance are respondents aware of more generally, Repeat client Yes (%) No (%)


51

Table A35 What guidance are respondents aware of more generally, Occasional client Yes (%) No (%)


Table A36 At what stage of the procurement process were the following appointed, Occasional client



Table A37 At what stage of the procurement process were the following appointed, Repeat client



Table A38 How long was the principal contractor allowed for planning and preparation, by project size Percent Small Medium 2 weeks 21 5 3 weeks 19 23 4 weeks 22 23 5 weeks 10 13 6 weeks 7 8 7 weeks 0 5 >2 months 17 23

52

Table A39 Was it a contractual requirement that the principal contractor was registered with the Considerate Constructors Scheme, by client experience Percent Repeat Occasional Yes 34 9 No 62 91 Don't know 4 0

53

ANNEX B INTERVIEW OUTLINE

Respondent name: ………………………………………………………………………………………..

Position: …………………………………………………………………………………………..………..

Organisation: ……...……………………………………………………………………………...............

Parent body: ………...…………………………………………………………………………….…….…

Tel no: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………

E-mail: ……………….………………………………………………………………………..……………

Interviewer: …………………………………………………………………………………………………

Project identifier: …………………...…………………………………………………………….………..

RESPONDENT DETAILS

1. Did you act as the “Client” for the project in question?

1 Yes [go to Q2] 2 No 3 Don’t know

1a. If answered no in Q1: What role did you perform on the project in question?

Please specify: …..………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

1b. If answered no in Q1: Who acted as the client for the project?

Please provide details: ……………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

2. Which of these best describes your experience as a construction client?

1 2 3

Repeat client (procured more than five projects in the last five years) Occasional client (procured less than five projects in the last five years) One-off (this is the only project procured in the last five years)

Other (please describe)

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

54

1

PROJECT DETAILS

3. Was the project in question notifiable under CDM Regulations? [Note: a project is notifiable if the construction phase is likely to last more than 30 working days or involve more than 500 person days i.e. 50 people working for over ten days]

1 2 3

Yes No Don’t Know

4. What stage is the project at now? (Please select one which best describes current stage)

1 2 3 4 5

Design Pre-contract On-site – construction/build phase Complete – construction phase completed Don’t know

5. What was the total agreed contract sum for the project? [Note: For projects that have passed the contract award stage]

£ ………………………………………………….

PROCUREMENT OF CONSTRUCTION

6. Was the method of procuring this project pre-determined by your parent body?

Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know

7. What method of procurement was adopted for the project under review? (please select one)

1

2

3

4

5

Design and build (a contract where a single supplier is responsible for both design and construction) Prime contracting (a contract generally involving a main supplier, the prime contractor, with a well established supply chain) Traditional (designers and contractors are appointed separately for design and construction respectively, usually through competitive tender) PFI/PPP (contractor appointed to design, build, finance, and maintain a facility. In some cases, the contractor will also assume responsibility for operating the facility and providing services Don’t know

Other (please specify)

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

55

1

8. Please rank the three most important criteria you believe were used by your organisation to select the procurement method used for this project (where 1 = top priority)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Project size and complexity The need to allocate contract risk The need for time certainty (certainty about delivery date/date of availability) The need for cost certainty (certainty about outturn cost) The need for quality The availability of project funding The availability of key personnel from your organisation or parent body to oversee the project Requirements to manage Health and Safety risk Always done this way

Other (provide brief details)

….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

9. If a traditional procurement route was selected in Q7, please explain in detail the reason for this selection

……………………………………………………………………………………….………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………….………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………….………………………

APPOINTMENTS

10. Has/was a CDM coordinator appointed for the project?

Yes 2 No [go to Q11] 3 Don’t know [go to Q11]

10a. If yes, was this an external (from outside your organisation) appointment or an in-house appointment?

1 2 3

External appointment Internal appointment Don’t Know

11. Was there a lead designer appointed for the project?

1 2 3

Yes No Don’t Know

12. Was there a principal contractor appointed for the project?

1 2 3

Yes No Don’t Know

56

13. At what stage of the project procurement process were the following appointed?

Outline Investment Outline Detailed Pre- Construction specification decision design design construction on site

contract Don’t Know

CDM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Co-ordinator

Lead Designer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Principal Contractor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Specialist Sub- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 contractors

Other Sub- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 contractors

Other (please specify) …...………………………………………………………………………………..

14. Please outline any specific actions that you undertook as a client prior to the construction phase starting. …………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………….………………

[Note: Client should ensure that the principal contractor prepared a construction phase plan that complied with ACoP guidance; client should be satisfied that adequate welfare facilities (i.e. sanitary conveniences; washing facilities; drinking water; changing room & lockers; facilities for rest) were/are to be provided during the construction phase]

15. Following principal contractor appointment, how long did you allow the principal contractor for planning and preparation before construction work began on site?

Please specify: …………………………………………………………………………………………….

16. What specific examples of any management arrangements did you require the principal contractor to provide to demonstrate how they would manage health and safety standards on site?

Please specify: .……………………………………………………………………………………………

[Note: should include checking that there is adequate protection for the client’s workers and members of the public; checking to ensure that adequate welfare facilities have been provided by the contractor; checking that there is good co-operation and communication between designers and contractors; asking for confirmation that the agreed arrangements have been implemented]

57

17. How often did/do you review any management arrangements to ensure that they were being maintained?

Please specify: …………………………………………………………………………………………….

18. On this project did you make it a contractual requirement that the principal contractor was registered with the Considerate Constructors Scheme (or some other suitable scheme) and that they would comply with the Scheme’s Code of Considerate Practice?

1 2 3

Yes

No [go to Q19] Don’t Know [go to Q19]

18a. If yes, how did you check that they followed the code of practice?

Please specify: .……………………………………………………………………………………………

19. On this project did you make it a contractual requirement that the principal contractor’s workforce was registered with the Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS) or an equivalent?

1 2 3

Yes


19a. If yes, how did you check compliance?

Please specify: ...…………………………………………………………………………………………..

20. Did you follow the same principles for any other on-site participants in the construction process (i.e. sub-contractors; professionals)?

1 2 3

Yes


20a. If yes, which on-site participants?

Please specify: …………………………………………………………………………………………….

SELECTION OF PRINCIPAL CONTRACTOR

21. Did you use a recognised pre-qualification scheme to help identify potential contractors for this project?

1 Yes 2 No [go to Q22] 3 Don’t know [go to Q22]

21a. Which pre-qualification scheme did you use?

Please specify: ………………………………………………………………………………...................

58

21b. How useful did you find the pre-qualification scheme?

5 point rating scale – very useful to not useful 1 Very useful 2 3 Neutral 4 5 Not useful

22. Did you use a recognised approved list of suppliers to help identify potential contractors for this project?

Yes No [go to Q23] Don’t know [go to Q23] Not applicable [go to Q23]

1 2 3 4

22a. Which approved list of suppliers did you use?

Please specify: …………………………………………………………….………………………………

22b. How useful did you find the approved list of suppliers?


ASSESSING COMPETENCE OF APPOINTEES

23. Did you require the lead designer to provide information to demonstrate their health and safety capability?

1 2 3

Yes


23a. If yes, what information did you require the lead designer to provide?

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8 9 10

NEBOSH Construction certificate

Membership of the health and safety register administered by the ICE (Institution of Civil Engineers) Inclusion on the design register operated by the APS (Association for Project Safety) Details of the proportion of people engaged in the project who have passed a construction health and safety assessment Evidence of hazard elimination and risk control Evidence showing how the organisation ensures co-operation and co-ordination of design work within the design team and with others Details showing how hazards are eliminated and any remaining risks controlled

Evidence showing how risk has been reduced through design

Details of how design changes will be managed

Evidence of experience on similar projects

59

23b. What other information did you review?

1 2

Professional qualifications Chartered membership of a recognised construction-related institution

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Membership of a relevant construction institution: CIBSE ICE IEE IMechE IStructE RIBA CIAT CIOB

Other (please specify): …..………………………………………………………………………………..

24. Did you require the principal contractor to provide information to demonstrate their health and safety record?

1 2 3

Yes

No [ go to Q25] Don’t Know [go to Q25]

24a. If yes, what information did you require the principal contractor to provide?

1 2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11

12

13

Organisations health and safety policy Evidence of arrangements having been made for the management of health and safety (i.e. CDM 2007) Evidence of the availability of health and safety information and advice Evidence of a health and safety training culture (including: headline training records; induction training records; CPD; etc) Details of qualifications and/or experience of specific corporate post holders (i.e. health and safety advisor) Identification of other key roles on the project including details of relevant qualifications and experience Details of the number of people who are to be engaged on the project who have passed a construction health and safety assessment (i.e. ConstructionSkills; CCNSG) Details of any specific training for site managers (i.e. ConstructionSkills “Site management safety training scheme”) Details of qualifications and/or professional membership for professionals Details of any relevant qualifications or training (S/NVQ certificates) for site workers Evidence/details of a company based training programme suitable for the work to be carried out Evidence of a system for monitoring, auditing and reviewing procedures (i.e. site inspection reports) Details of workforce involvement and consultation on health and safety matters (i.e. records of health and safety committees; names of appointed safety reps)

60


1 2

3

4

5

6

7

Evidence of the way accidents/incidents are recorded and investigated Records of any enforcement action taken over the last five years and appropriate remedies Evidence showing arrangements are in place for appointing competent sub-contractors (i.e. sub-contractor assessment showing how sub-contractor performance is monitored) Details of risk assessment methodology (i.e. sample risk assessments; method statements etc) Evidence of experience of co-operating and coordinating work with that of other contractors (i.e. risk assessment; project team meeting notes; etc) Evidence that appropriate welfare provision will be made available (i.e. contracts with welfare facility providers; details of welfare facilities provided on previous projects) Evidence of relevant experience of similar projects (i.e. record of recent projects with referees who can provide verification of health and safety compliance)

25. Did you require the CDM coordinator to provide information to demonstrate their competence prior to their appointment?

1 2 3

Yes


25a. If yes, what health and safety specific information did you require the CDM coordinator to provide?

1 2 3 4 5

Validated CPD in health and safety field NEBOSH Construction certificate Member of the health and safety register administered by ICE Membership of Association for Project Safety Membership of Institution of Construction Safety (formerly the Institution of Planning Supervisors)

Other (please specify): ………………………………………………………………………..................


1 2

Professional qualifications Chartered membership of a recognised construction-related institution

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Membership of a relevant construction institution: CIBSE ICE IEE IMechE IStructE RIBA CIAT CIOB

Other (please specify): .....………………………………………………………………………………..

61

PROVIDING INFORMATION

26. Following their appointment did you ensure that the CDM coordinator was provided with all the health and safety information that you held relating to the project?

1 2 3

Yes


26a. If yes, what information did this include?

Please specify: ….…………………………………………………………………………………………

27. Did you provide pre-construction information to the designers and contractors?

1 2 3

Yes



1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Description of the project Client’s considerations and management requirements Environmental restrictions Existing on-site risks Significant design and construction hazards The health and safety file Other (please specify)

27b. At what stage was the information provided?

Please specify: …………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

[Note: should be provided as part of the early procurement process or at tendering]

28. Did you receive a construction phase plan from the principal contractor before work began on site?

1 2 3

Yes



1 2 3 4 5

Description of the project Management of the work Arrangements for controlling significant site risks The health and safety file Other (please specify)

62

29. What do you intend to do with the health and safety file after the construction phase?

Please specify: …………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

[Note: should include, revised as often as necessary to incorporate relevant new information; kept available for inspection by interested parties]

29a. On projects that are complete, how long after the construction phase finished did you receive the health and safety file?

Please specify: …………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

MONITORING OF HEALTH AND SAFETY PERFORMANCE

30. Did/do you collect data on health and safety performance during the build/construction phase of this project?

1 2 3

Yes No [go to Q31] Don’t know [go to Q31]

30a. If yes, what do you do with the data collected on health and safety performance?

Please state: ……………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

HEALTH AND SAFETY GUIDANCE

31. Did you use any specific health and safety guidance when procuring this construction project?

1 Yes 2 No [go to Q32] 3 Don’t know [go to Q32]

31a. What guidance did you use to inform the selection of the procurement route for this project?

Please state : …………………………………………………………………………...………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

63

32. What other guidance are you aware of more generally?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

CDM 2007 HSE publications (Managing Construction for Health and Safety) OGC Achieving Excellence 10 OGC Common Minimum Standards HSE guidance e.g. Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) Scottish Executive’s Construction Procurement Manual Scottish Executive’s Procurement Policy Handbook Welsh Assembly Government’s Procurement Route Planner None

Other specific H&S guidance (please specify)

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

33. In your opinion are the CDM 2007 regulations an improvement over the CDM 1994 regulations?

1 2 3

Yes [go to Q33a] No [go to Q33b] Don’t know

33a. If yes, why?

........................................................................................................................................................

33b. If no, why?

........................................................................................................................................................

34. Which of the following do you believe best describes the changes to the new CDM 2007 regulations? (5 point rating scale – strongly agree to strongly disagree)

Strongly agree

Easier to understand

Strongly disagree

1 2 3 4 5

Increased flexibility to better fit with existing contract arrangements

1 2 3 4 5

64

More focused on process improvement

1 2 3 4 5

Reduction in the paper burden

1 2 3 4 5

Significant reductions in bureaucracy

1 2 3 4 5

Increased influence over project planning and management

1 2 3 4 5

Encourages greater integration of project teams

1 2 3 4 5

Additional cost

1 2 3 4 5

Increased legal responsibilities

1 2 3 4 5

Other (provide brief details) ........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

35. As a client, how useful do you find the CDM 2007 regulations?


65

GENERALLY

36. What do you think have been the main advantages and/or disadvantages arising from considering health and safety:

When considering design options:

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

During design development:

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

During contract procurement:

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

During construction on-site:

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

During commissioning and use:

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION

If you have any questions about this review, please do not hesitate to contact Geoff Lloyd at the HSE on 020 7556 2241 ([email protected]) or alternatively if you wish to speak directly to someone at Davis Langdon, the contact for this review is David Crosthwaite on 020 7061 7840 ([email protected]).

66

mailto:[email protected]

Published by the Health and Safety Executive 05/11



This study was concerned with examining health and safety issues in public sector construction procurement. The broad aim of this research is to build on earlier research undertaken by Davis Langdon (2007), to provide a sound evidence base on which HSE can design targeted interventions to improve construction health and safety through improved public sector procurement practices.

The main data collection instrument was an interview questionnaire to allow issues to be explored qualitatively. Interviews were undertaken during the winter of 2009 with public sector construction clients both face-to-face and by telephone using a structured interview outline. Out of 411 potential respondents that were contacted 101 interviews were completed.

The results indicate that, in the intervening years between the initial survey and the current research there appears to be have been little significant improvement in terms of how public sector client’s discharge their health and safety obligations during the procurement of construction projects.


This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.

RR848

www.hse.gov.uk

www.hse.gov.uk

Health and safety in public sector construction procurement · 2019-12-05 · construction...

Documents

Transcript of Health and safety in public sector construction procurement · 2019-12-05 · construction...