The site monitoring process
Sites are normally monitored twice, usually one quarter and two thirds of the way through the registration, unless they are of short duration and will therefore receive only one visit.
At a previously agreed time, the Monitor will carry out the site visit. The time taken depends on the size and location of the project and the work stage and complexity. A visit time of between one hour and one and a half hours is normal for an average registration.
The Monitor is looking at how the site represents the company and the industry. During the visit, the Monitor will assess the perimeter of the site, the access to the site offices and the facilities provided for the operatives. The Monitor will also review whether the site’s procedures are in accordance with the Scheme’s Code.
A Monitor is permitted to inspect the working site, but this is not a requirement of the process and should not be expected. The Monitor will not assess the safety of the working site.
The Monitor will write a report for the site manager and this will include the score achieved against each of the five categories of the Scheme’s Code of Considerate Practice. The purpose of this score is to indicate how well the site is performing against the Code.
Additional visits will be made if a site fails to meet the expectations of the Scheme or if otherwise deemed necessary by the Scheme’s Monitor. Sites wishing to have additional visits for other reasons will be asked to pay an additional fee of £174 (+ VAT).
The Scheme also offers contractors who have registered for the first time the option of having a New Contractor Visit (NCV). NCVs are carried out by a Scheme Monitor who will visit the main office address provided upon application to help explain the Scheme’s aims and expectations, as well as answering any queries the site may have about registration. NCVs are offered to new contractors free of charge.
Projects with an annualised value of £75 million and over will be entitled to receive one Advisory Meeting prior to the first scored visit in each year of registration.
These Advisory Meetings are similar to the ones carried out under the Ultra Site initiative, where Monitors will meet with the site to discuss their considerate activities and suggest areas for improvement. Advisory Meetings will normally take place at least one month before the first scored visit to give the site the opportunity to act upon any advice or guidance given, or to address identified areas for development.
Following the meeting, the Monitor will prepare a report which includes the site details, the site description, an Executive Summary and a brief description of the discussion under each of the Code items, divided into ‘good practice’ and ‘areas for development’.
Due to the size and complexity of these larger sites, Monitor visits will often take longer than the usual time allocated to most registrations. This is so that a better overall understanding of the challenges and complexities of each project can be gained. These sites will also receive additional signage as part of the registration, which are listed here.
The Monitor’s report is a two page document with a high level summary on page 1 and detailed notes on page 2. The first page includes the site description, a summary of the scoring and an executive summary, as well as recording any innovative activities witnessed. Page 2 shows the Monitor’s notes against all five sections.
The executive summary will highlight those good things have been done to achieve the score as well as what needs to be addressed to achieve a higher score.
Within the second page of the report, bold italic comments will be used to identify any shortfalls or to identify potential areas for improvement. They may also highlight where more attention could be paid to achieve a higher score.
As a score of 8 or more indicates that the site has addressed all relevant questions on the Checklist but hasn’t done anything exceptional to warrant a score of 9, or anything innovative to warrant a 10, the Monitor’s report may not contain any bold italic comments. It is therefore the responsibility of the site manager to consider what needs to be done to achieve a higher score.
Monitor reports are a reflection of what was witnessed, and the information that was provided, in response to the Checklist questions at the time of the visit.