You often hear people say that having a contractor on-site is a disaster... Where do you start to turn a contractor into a reliable partner? This question has been raised many times by HSE professionals while exploring every possible measure of influence.
For our company, the key criteria were those outlined in the WANO document "Performance Objectives and Criteria (PO&C)," which is the safety standard for the operation of nuclear power plants.
The essence of the relationship with the contractor is stated as follows: "...contracted personnel must adhere to the same (or equivalent) industrial safety and HSE standards as the plant personnel..." and that service contracts must include requirements for ensuring safe work performance.
Guided by these criteria, we decided to inform all potential contractors about the working conditions and the core requirements for behavior and compliance as early as the procurement stage, including these requirements in the terms of reference and tender documentation.
At first glance, it seemed like everything was already there, but only in general terms. Now, the updated terms of reference include a section on risks at the work sites and measures for their management, as well as a list of documents whose requirements are mandatory while on the company's premises.
This is a very important point because work that is not at all difficult for professionals can, in challenging conditions — such as confined spaces, gas-hazardous environments, work in tanks, or at heights — trigger a whole set of measures to ensure safety, as well as several additional requirements for personnel qualification and health.
Since contracted personnel visit various facilities, it is obvious that they may not be familiar with the current requirements. This means that additional time will be needed for adaptation. To avoid these risks as well, we included the main documents on rules of conduct and safety in the updated terms of reference for review and study.
It seemed we had covered everything and warned them about all the nuances in advance, but observations showed that contracted personnel still arrived with absolutely no understanding of where they were or what was allowed and what wasn't. So, we tried testing contractors on their knowledge of these requirements before granting site access, immediately after the induction briefing.
The results did not meet our expectations; the level of knowledge was unacceptably low, with less than 40% correct answers on the test. Consequently, some workers were sent back to study the documents and were not allowed to perform work. However, it was this very action that prompted them to familiarize themselves with and study the core rules of conduct and safety when working at our facility.
Now, this form of control has taken root, causes no confusion, and forces contractors to study and familiarize themselves with our main documents in advance.
As a result, the level of knowledge reached our required standard: over 90%.
I believe everyone benefits from such decisions: the client gets competent, understanding workers, and the contractor avoids wasting time on personnel adaptation.
To be continued...