The Case for Prequalifying Contractors and Suppliers

Jun 14, 2019

Prequalification is most commonly used for contractors, but there is an increasing demand to prequalify supply vendors as well. This article will focus primarily on the need to prequalify contractors.

Accidents happen every day and current statistics say that human error is the cause of over 85% of those accidents. For ever 300 near-miss incidents, there are an average of 29 minor injuries and one serious injury or fatality.

Many companies have implemented a strong internal safety program and some have even created a culture of safety. Their losses are lower than the average stated above which, of course, brings the averages down — a good thing.

The problem comes with the introduction of outside contractors. Since they are not part of your organization, the question becomes what additional risk, if any, do they introduce into your company’s work environment?

  • Smart risk and safety managers should be wondering about the consequences of:
  • Signficiant damage to the facility
  • Serious injuries, or worse, fatalities
  • The contractor at fault having no insurance coverage
  • Having to pay the price personally (loss of job or reputation)
  • Companies that aren’t prequalifying their contractors generally fall into one of two camps. The first group feels that safety is the responsibility of the contractor. This is most often the case when new construction is taking place. That approach doesn’t meet OSHA requirements.

One company we are aware of delegated all the responsibility for safety on the construction site to their general contractor. Unfortunately, there was a fatality and, when OSHA investigated, they fined not only the general contractor but also the owners who had hired him. They stated that is was the company’s project on company property and, as such, the company had a duty to ensure that everyone on the project followed proper safety protocols.

The second group feels that they “know” their contractors because they have worked with them before and there is no need to look any further. One ethanol producer we know felt the same way. Unfortunately, a contractor who worked for them sent a new employee to their facility with no safety training. He fell through a grate onto the conveyer that led to the hammer mill. Fortunately for him, he was overweight and got jammed in the system. During the rescue, the ethanol company’s employees pulled on both his arms, dislocating both shoulders and doing permanent damage. As the ambulance drove away, they called the contractor to suggest he get in touch with his insurance agent. That was when they discovered he had let his insurance lapse. As you might guess, the employee’s attorney sued everyone and it took three and a half years in court to resolve the case. The ethanol company’s insurance covered all but their deductible. However, the lost time, damage to their reputation, and increased insurance costs were significant.

Losses caused by outside contractors or suppliers are bound to happen. The real question is how can you minimize the impact to your organization?

Companies often set up standards that any contractor who is going to work at their facilities must meet. Those standards almost always include a given level of insurance coverage and some documentation of safety programs, policies and, most importantly, safety history. The problem is that the task of gathering that information is often disseminated among different departments and even different facilities. To compound the problem, the various tasks are typically a part-time job function of the individuals charged with gathering the information. Unfortunately, this is where the process breaks down. As a part-time task, gathering the appropriate information receives all the efficiency and accuracy of a part-time effort. Even worse, if the tasks are distributed among various departments and facilities, the usual result is disconnected siols of data with no central location for people to access the needed information.

The common belief is that the system is in place and that any contractor performing work has been vetted and meets all the standards. The reality is usually quite different. Audits of these systems typically find that a large percentage (sometimes as high as 70%) are out of compliance with one or more of the standards. Frequently, critical documents like certificates of insurance have expired or the minimum coverage and required endorsements aren’t in place.

If you want an internal system, it should be housed in one location and have a minimum of two employees trained to gather, update, and determine a status for each contractor. Ideally, the system will be online and available to employees when they need it.

Using a third-party company to prequalify contractors can solve many of the challenges associated with an internal system. Some examples are:

  • All contractors are vetted to the same standards
  • Automated notifications and changes of status based upon expiration dates
  • Electronic notifications sent to critical parties
  • All the data is in an online, easy-to-access database that is accessible whenever the information is needed
  • Your staff can focus on their core functions, making them more productive
  • There is no duplication of effort
  • The contractor has a single point of contact
  • Phone and online support for both the client and the contractor
  • System provides search capabilities, like who is prequalified and does the desired type of work
  • Reporting capabilities are built in
  • Often other services like background checks, score-carding, and online training are offered
  • Online management and access of critical documents like:
    • Certificates of Insurance
    • NCCI letters
    • OSHA 300 logs
    • General Conditions Agreements
    • Other critical documents
  • The cost is borne by the contractors and suppliers
  • Live customer support for both the client and the contractor

A third-party solution is often preferable sinc eprequalifying is typically not a core competency of most companies. Employees usually want relief from the nightmare of trying to obtain, update, and review all the information required.

Ready to simplify your safety program? Contact us today to learn more about smarter contractor/supplier management and how to close risk management gaps.

You might also like

28 Oct, 2021
When a subcontractor is having trouble completing its subcontract work, it is not uncommon for a contractor to assert itself more directly into the completion process to help expedite the work. What’s the harm you might ask? A recent Loudoun County, Virginia case answered that question: It could lead to tortious interference with contract and conspiracy claims by the subcontractor. That case was Evans Construction Services (the subcontractor) versus Ox Builders (the contractor), and it also included a claim by the subcontractor against the contractor’s site superintendent, Lawler, as a co-defendant in the case individually. Evans alleged that Ox and Lawler tortuously interfered with Evan’s subcontracts by dealing directly with the subcontractors and directing the subcontractors’ work, cutting Evans out of the picture. Evans sought to recover its lost profits. Ox and Lawler argued against liability because Evans’ claims sought redress outside of Evans’ subcontracts with Ox and because Evans had no contract with Lawler at all, moving to dismiss Evans’ lawsuit as a matter of law. The court denied that motion, holding that the facts as pled by Evans were legally sufficient if ultimately proven by Evans, to support a claim for breach of legal duties separate from duties arising contractually only; and specifically for wrongful interference with Evans’ subcontracts and Evans’ related conspiracy claim against the defendants. Although the court acknowledged that Evans’ claims were interrelated with the Ox – Evans subcontracts underlying the parties’ relationship, those common facts could support both contractual and non-contractual breach claims in certain circumstances. The court further determined that such circumstances, if ultimately proven, included Evans’ claims that Ox and Lawler violated their independent common law duties to not interfere with Evans’ lower tier subcontracts and not conspire together to injure Evans in its business. The court, therefore, allowed Evans’ claims to proceed to trial on their merits. The defendants apparently did not argue to dismiss the conspiracy claim on the basis Lawler, as an employee of Ox, could not conspire with Ox, his employer (referred to as the intercorporate immunity doctrine), or at least that defense was not discussed in the court’s decision. But, regardless, this decision reflects the necessity for caution “going around” subcontractors when subcontract disputes arise. Author: Neil S. Lowenstein Source: https://vanblacklaw.com/construction/contractor-takeover-leads-to-tortious-interference-with-contract-and-conspiracy-claims/
21 Oct, 2021
In the construction industry, where multiple companies working closely together abound and where it is more difficult to monitor employee behavior because many employees are in the field, more incidents of inappropriate behavior occur. Texas and California, two states opposite politically and in law making, have instituted legislation expanding sex harassment protections for employees in the workplace that go even further than federal protections. Indeed, both laws have similarities. Texas and California Similarities In Texas , as of September 1, 2021, under expanded protections against sexual harassment, individuals in management and companies that have even only one employee can be held liable. In the construction industry, this expansion could sweep many subcontractors and tradesmen under the new law. The new law will challenge the definition of who is a manager. In California, under the 2019 law, an employer may be liable for acts of nonemployees concerning any type of harassment (not just sex harassment) against employees and other nonemployees working as interns or volunteers and service contractors. In Texas, the new law increases the time limit to file a sex harassment charge from 180 days to 300 days, making it consistent with federal law. Similarly, in California, an employee has up to 10 years to file a civil action for sexual assault or attempted sexual assault, or within three years after an employee discovers an injury or illness as a result of the assault or attempted assault, whichever is later. In Texas, instead of requiring supervisors to “take prompt remedial measures,” individual liability will hang on whether supervisors “knew or should have known” about the sex harassment in the workplace. The new law also requires “immediate and appropriate corrective action.” Certainly, the standard of “knew or should have known” will be case-specific and fact-intensive, making it difficult to dismiss cases before they reach trial. In California, recent amendments to the Fair Employment and Housing Act have made it easier for employees to prevail in sex harassment actions. They also lowered the employee’s burden and standard of proof.  Implications What does this mean for employers of all sizes? More frequent training, updating sex harassment policies and employee handbooks, expansion of human resources departments to respond more quickly to complaints, and a closer evaluation of what constitutes a managerial position are required. In California, recent legislation requires training for even the smallest of employers (a minimum of five employees). As of January 2020, California imposed minimum time requirements for the length of such training for supervisors and other employees. To be sure, in the multi-employer setting, companies also may need to verify that other companies they work alongside have sex harassment policies, that they conduct periodic training, and that their employee handbooks have been updated to comply with the law. Author: Victor N. Corpuz Source: https://www.jacksonlewis.com/publication/new-sex-harassment-laws-making-strange-bedfellows-construction-industry
OSHA inspection, CONSTRUCTION Management
13 Oct, 2021
During an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspection, the OSHA official, escorted by management, will tour the facility or construction site to observe working conditions, identify violations, and so on.
More Posts

Book a Service Today

Share by: