Not working safely? Go home!

Glenn Kmecz explains how Dupont has developed an approach to contractor safety management
which helped to ensure that a $200 million construction project was completed under budget, on time,
and without any recordable injuries in over one million man hours

Confluent factors such as
globalisation, the recession and
the integration of new
technologies and extraction techniques
have led to an increased use of
contractors across all sectors.

Nonetheless, it is still the operating
company that is responsible for
maintaining safety in the workplace.

With over 150 sites worldwide, large
capital projects involving significant
numbers of contractors and considerable
risk are relatively commonplace for
DuPont, a science-based products and
services company.

In the beginning, we had our own
construction organisation and was
therefore able to refine the capital project
management processes, both in terms of
safety and efficacy. But when DuPont
began to use contractors in ever greater
numbers, we confronted the same issues
that many companies using contractors
still face today: contractors do not share
the same safety culture as permanent
employees. The question was how to
adapt our existing capital project
management system to encompass
temporary workers that were unfamiliar
with the DuPont safety culture.

In 2007, DuPont expanded its Nomex
plant in Asturias, Spain and built a new
“greenfield” chemical ingredients facility
as part of a major capital project worth
US$ 200 million – one that involved
between 15 – 20 local contractors.

Numerous factors made these expansions
challenging: the presence of highly toxic
materials, a high ratio of contractors to
DuPont employees and an extremely tight
schedule. In order to ensure the safety of all
workers on site, we had to work closely with
each of the contracting companies to ensure
their employees knew the rules, were
committed to following them and
understood the consequences of not doing
so. All contractors bidding for the Asturias
project were invited to visit the site together,
to discuss the project and find out in situ
what was expected of them. In other words,
we created a level playing field. Even before
the project had got underway, all contractors
were fully aware of our safety standards and
working conditions. Once we had the
processes, procedures and commitment in
place, our system proved to be effective: the
project was completed under budget, on
time, and without any recordable injuries in
over one million man hours.

Working safely, or not working
at all
We have frequently sent contractors home
if they are not working safely, for example
if they violate a cardinal rule about fall
protection when working at heights. Of
course, this is always done in line with the
contract. If a contractor is sent home
because he was found to be working
unsafely, it sends a strong message to
others and reinforces our visible
commitment to safe. It is the owner who
sets the tone and the pace of a project. If
he is proactive and attentive to the needs
of contractors, there is a higher chance of
avoiding life-threatening situations.

Though it seems daunting to train and
monitor temporary workers, establish
safety as a condition of work, frame the
contract with this tenet in mind and
monitor behaviour, this is what makes it
possible to complete a large capital project
without injury.

The DuPont approach to
contractor safety management
DuPont has developed an approach to
contractor safety management that has
proved effective in decreasing the
frequency of injuries and accidents among
its contractors. The system consists of six
complementary processes:
(1) Contractor selection
While the owner firm plays an integral
role, it is the contractor who is ultimately
responsible for ensuring the safety of its
employees. Selecting a contractor with an
exemplary safety record makes it much
more likely that the work will be
performed safely.

An effective contractor selection
process involves evaluating the
contractors on their past safety
performance. The contracting
organisation must seek data like the LTI
rate or Total Recordable Frequency Rate
(TRR) or similar statistics from the
national regulatory body. The owner
company should also do a safety
competency assessment of the contractor.

Some common mistakes during this step
are placing more weight on past records
or written programmes than on current
safety competency; selecting the lowest
bid without examining what the
contractor will actually deliver for that
price; and using internal decision-makers
who do not have right skill sets to make
informed choices regarding safety.

(2) Contract preparation
When preparing the contract, all contract
terms and conditions must clearly
document safety parameters, such as
expectation for performance, behaviours,
standards and capabilities of key personnel.

The parameters should be targeted to the
scope of work and be clearly related to a
hazard analysis performed by the owner.

Furthermore, the contract must
specifically place responsibility and
accountability for contractor and subcontractor
safety with the main contracted
party. On a more practical level, the
contract should also define the
communication channels through which
the contractor will disseminate knowledge
relating to safety, and also stipulate that
sufficient resources be made available for
orientation and training.

(3) Contract Award/Establish
expectations and standards – On
awarding the contract, the owner
company must communicate and test
understanding of the safety expectations
defined in the contract. The owner cannot
assume contractors will read and
understand all safety requirements and
should walk supervisors through the
rules. Roles and responsibilities must be
communicated,.

(4) Orientation & Training
The owner should use his own
knowledgeable, experienced employees to
provide effective orientation and safety
training. Attributes of an effective
orientation include a qualified instructor,
proper explanation of the hazards and
specific work environment, as well as a
system that measures understanding of
safety requirements.

Common mistakes made by owner
companies during this step are the failure
to customize the orientation to suit the
audience; the treatment of orientations as
a trivial, and thus rushing through them; a
disconnected orientation not driven by
results; and operating under the
perception that orientations are single
events rather than an on-going effort.

(5) Managing Contractors and
Administering the Contract
In order to ensure compliance with safety
rules, the owner must develop a robust
system for daily monitoring work
activities. The main responsibility for
monitoring lies with the contracting party,
yet a robust enforcement system is also
necessary. Key elements of such a system
would be formal safety audits and
inspections, incident investigations,
continuous updating of job plans and
periodic review of safety systems. The
owner and contractor should jointly
develop safety meeting materials, conduct
periodic status review meetings, targeted
pre-job safety plan reviews and must
investigate any incident or accident for
potential learnings.

(6) Evaluate safety performance against
contractual expectations
The owner should critique contractor
performance against contractual
expectations, and also provide detailed,
constructive feedback to the contractor to
aid improvement. Where expectations
were not met, records must be updated to
reflect this. If the contractor has not
performed sufficiently as regards safety,
they should not be selected for further
contracts. Some of the review areas are:
injuries/incidents, workers compensation
and general liability claims, lost workday
cases, TRFR, property and vehicle damage
integration.

Glenn Kmecz is global practices leader
for Capital Effectiveness and Contractor
Safety Management at DuPont