• John Frampton
    Pre-Qual yet again

    As a H&S advisor, I had an experience of a Sitewise prequal and the explanation of how to score more marks, was to watch their video tutorial – link attached.


    This is a huge conflict of interest advising you the best way you can achieve an increase in your marks and percentage is to purchase a Sitewise package. So now we have the Sitesafe Prequal system called Sitewise, Sitesafe also are involved in construction based training, and now they are marketing their own policies and procedures.

    There has been a lot of discussion in this forum of the need and effectiveness of a prequal system whatever name it goes under. Numerous comments have been made regarding Sitewise and the effectiveness of their prequal in the marketplace. In my view Sitewise only gets traction because of their lower cost structure than other systems.

    But bear in mind a well-managed workplace should not require any prequal system at all and the fact that prequal systems exist is a complete indictment on major players in the construction industry requiring a 3rd party assessment to supposedly make the workplace safe. All the prequal systems in the world didn’t stop the SkyCity Convention Centre fire. As has been previously mentioned, good documentation in the office is easy to produce, but doesn’t mean it crosses over to the actual workplace activities.

    Do others feel this is a conflict of interest setting up the assessment and then marketing their own products in order to assist the company to achieve a “green” pass mark. Surely feet on the ground working in the workplace to understand that not everyone has the same health and safety management plan and there are other ways to stay safe on a workplace without following Sitewise prescribed methodology of its their way or the highway.

    As an aside, when the marks in the result column were added up, Sitewise marker was wrong in both the assessment total and the % figure.
  • Don Ramsay
    Just want to put it out there how many individual prequals are you expected to de each year??

    As site-wise is just one of many

    I counted mine up and it is 4 individual prequals all asking the same questions
  • Steve H
    Just want to put it out there how many individual prequals are you expected to de each year??Don Ramsay

    Thanking God that I sold my business at the end of 2019, with the new owners taking over last Feb, I don't have to put up with that rort any longer. But I had much the same demands on my time and money Don when I did. I adopted the following SOP. If the company requesting I jump through hoops wasn't worth the effort required, I thanked them for the opportunity to participate, but politely declined. Fortunately, a few decided to hitch their wagon to SiteWise,,so that was cost effective, just required a bit of gaming as John noted at the top of the thread. I didn't use any SiteSafe material to go green, you get three attempts, so it was really just a matter of taking the feedback and using it, though I did get some conflicting assessments form the first to the second.
  • Don Ramsay

    I am with you on that Steve,

    We do Site Wise, SHE, IMPAC, and Eco Portal just to name the 4 that we are required to complete each year, these systems have been sold to customers as a way of ensuring contractors are doing the right thing and having another company take care of it for them. In most cases, we have to pay to do the prequal, and the customer pays to access the information therefore the prequal company is getting paid twice for the same information. A single prequal for all industries would be a great solution so the information is done once and everyone can access it, but so long as we have individual systems this will always be an issue and just duplicated information that has to be updated.
  • MattD2
    A single prequal for all industries would be a great solution so the information is done once and everyone can access it, but so long as we have individual systems this will always be an issue and just duplicated information that has to be updated.Don Ramsay

    I just think 3rd party pre-qualification is an poor answer to the wrong question!
    Realistically shouldn't pre-qualification be a one-time process for bringing on new contractors - once they "pass" the pre-qualification and are being engaged for work then evaluation of the contractor's performance for each contract become the more useful gauge rather than what some other company thinks of their paperwork?
  • Peter Bateman
    As someone who doesn't run a prequal scheme nor runs a small business which has to go through one, I don't have a dog in this fight.
    But wearing my sceptic's hat, H&S prequal as a concept appears fatally flawed as well as contrary to the spirit of the HSW Act.
    It almost seems as if prequal has become the defacto replacement for ACC's old WSMP audit.
    If I was putting out a tender, I'd be much more comfortable if companies seeking the work could show me they were going through a SafePlus on-site assessment or equivalent - that is, that they understood their H&S strengths and weaknesses, had identified their critical risks, and were engaged in an improvement process.
    I'm keen to know what people think about this: am I barking up the wrong tree?
  • Don Ramsay

    You are on track it is a system where a company can say that the contractor has done the prequal, on a recent quote they asked us to go to the site and do a full analysis of the job. In the tender documents, we had to demonstrate that we understood the full scope of the project and present the HSEQ plan for the job to be done. This is preferable for me as it is targeted to the project and not broad brush, I must also point out that we had done the annual prequal for that company.

    As for the replacement for WSMP, I am of the understanding that in place of that we would be required to hold ISO 45001.
  • MattD2

    Agree that that approach would get a better actual understanding of the ability for a contractor to do the job safely. Some complaints of the "provide a draft SSSP for the contract" tender requirement is that it is a lot of work to complete one, but the alternative is to ask for the final version of the SSSP for another similar contract as an example (should be able to get some good "metadata" insights out of that to like the frequency and total number of revisions of the plan, etc.).
    The other option I have seen requesting for the contractor to provide client feedback and reference contact details for past similar jobs (just like you would for a employee interview) - generally at least in large contracts these are asked for anyway, but not specifically evaluated for H&S performance.

    However the problem with these approaches though is you need someone to (fairly) evaluate the information provided and most likely would require a specific H&S resource to do it... which is why the 3rd party sales pitch of "don't worry about evaluating your contractor's H&S performance, well take care of it for you for just a small fee" looks so attractive to a lot of companies.
  • Jon Harper-Slade
    I appreciate everybody sharing their frank views and experiences of H&S pre-qualification. I empathise and hear the frustration out there and I am committed to help resolve some of this pain.

    CHASNZ has been working with construction contractors, clients, and pre-qualification providers over the last couple of years to develop a cross-recognition approach to this.

    Tōtika has now launched and provides an umbrella approach that will achieve the following objectives:

    • Removing the repetition and duplication of effort and cost associated with H&S pre-qualification
    • Providing a standard for commercial pre-qualification schemes to achieve consistency, competence and quality from those providers recognised by the scheme
    • A single, centralised supplier/contractor register that buyers/clients can use, so contractors only have to do this once for everybody
    • Recognition of external certification and assessment schemes (such as ISO 45001 and Safe Plus On-site Assessments) as an alternate choice to pre-qualification assessments for contractors and suppliers.

    Happy to share more information or answer any questions people might have. Please visit www.chansz.org/totika or drop me a line :smile:

    *Tōtika is not another PQ scheme - it is a cross-recognition approach. Tōtika does not levy fees on contractors/suppliers and only takes modest fees from buyers/clients and PQ providers to cover the costs of operating the platform.
  • MattD2
    Please visit www.chansz.org/totikaJon Harper-Slade

    Hey John - think there is a typo in that link :wink:
    I'm guessing you meant www.chasnz.org/totika
  • MattD2
    Somewhat related to the start of this thread, I am interested to see how the current pre-qualification schemes available in NZ stack up in regards to the Totika Bronze/Silver/Gold standards. However can you explain the difference between a Silver and Gold assessor as from the Assessment Scheme standard they seem to be identical (i.e. they require the same information/standard).
  • Jon Harper-Slade
    The standard does differentiate between G/S/B pre-qualification providers, however it is likely this differentiation will be removed. The three schemes (Qualify365, PREQUAL, and SHE Prequalification) have indicated (or have already achieved) Gold, so we think this differentiation is probably not necessary or desirable (A good example of design versus user experience). :smile:
  • Chrissy Hansen
    Totally a conflict of interest! Pre-Qualifications were initially a process for deciding which contractor was best suited for the job. It was an assurance that they had suitable procedures in place prior to a principle engaging them. I have found that Site Wise Pre-Quals, initially did not cater for everyone and the scoring system was not particularly consistent with top marks only given to those with a Site Safe Health and Safety system. Blatantly linking it to a sales pitch I think is in-appropriate. Also the name Pre-Qual. should be renamed "Re-Qual."for those contractors you want to retain and you have no intention of putting them through a tender process to re-engage them, completed every two years.
  • Jon Harper-Slade
    I totally agree that the current situation is a bit of a 'swamp'. The purpose of H&S PQ is to provide the buyer with assurance that the supplier has a H&S management programme that is suitable and sufficient for the type of business they are and the type of primary service they provide; it does little more than that. I describe it as 'the ticket to the dance'.

    'Securing a date' however, is a different stage of the procurement process and requires a buyer to procure the services of suppliers based on articulating reasonable H&S expectations aligned to the specific risks associated with each specific piece of procurement and awarding work based on how well the supplier demonstrates they can manage those specific risks effectively. It's worth noting the buyer is also seeking assurance on issues of quality, environmental management, financial/commercial considerations, sustainability etc.
  • Chrissy Hansen
    Yes I agree Jon you have provided additional detail and I like the comment it is (a ticket to the dance) :smile:
  • Denise
    I can understand why third party assessment is required for contractors/suppliers who cannot give evidence of this but why isn't meeting International standards sufficient?
    If your Company is independently audited to an Internationally recognised standard e.g. 45001 (which includes both regular site visits and documentation checks by JAS ANZ auditors) why is it necessary to then also be required to have a number of additional flavour of the month prequals thrown in. Why is this internationally recognised prequalification not sufficient evidence?
  • Dianne Campton
    Jumping in a bit late on this. Pre-qualification costs our company in excess of $30k per annum just in fees to various pre-qualification systems. We are asked to pre-qualify to at least 8 different systems. even though we have independent externally audited safety systems to international standards. The time it takes to complete these would be about a 40 hour week for one employee if we did them all at once. Does it make us any safer? Not really. Does it give our clients any level of comfort that we can manage safety well? It should at least prove we have a system. The proof is whether that system is fully implemented on our clients sites. How many of the companies signed up to these pre-qualification programs actually verifies whether or not those systems are implemented and working well on their sites? That would be much more valuable to both parties.
    CHASNZ is trying to align some of these pre-qualification systems into a database so that if you are qualified against one, you automatically qualify to all. Needless to say they are not getting the uptake necessary to implement this widely, and yes, there is a fee involved as well.
    Industry needs to push back on all these systems. If we get behind CHASNZ and support their initiative we all will benefit from having a similar pre-qualification process without having to spend copious amounts of wasted time answering the same questions over and over.
  • Jon Harper-Slade
    Great comment! The Tōtika Scheme recognises ISO 45001 certifications as an alternative to pre-qualification assessments.
    An issue that is arising is that not all auditors are the same, therefore not all certifications are the same. The Tōtika scheme will only recognise an ISO certification that is issued by an approved body of an IAF member/signatory organisation (i.e. JAS-ANZ). I'm seeing many organisations with ISO certifications from auditors who are not covered by the IAF structure and therefore there is no independent assurance around impartiality and competence.
Add a Comment

Welcome to the Safeguard forum!

If you are interested in workplace health & safety in New Zealand, then this is the discussion forum for you.