Construction projects involve a myriad of specialty contractors working concurrently on a project site. On any given day, contractors are performing such varied tasks as excavation, laying foundation, scaffolding, welding/cutting, pipefitting, crane operations and more. All these activities require specialised co-ordination, programming and quality control. A main contractor provides the specialised site staff with the associated plant and equipment to achieve a quality product. With the industry in recession most of the main contractors will provide their plant and equipment at cost or below.

From an OHS perspective, all of these activities involve life-critical hazards that must be anticipated, recognised, assessed and controlled in order to prevent personal injuries and/or process events.

When safety due diligence is performed consistently and with management backing, the desired safety performance results can be attained. However, it may be that not all contractors share the same values and that safety knowledge, skill sets and abilities can vary widely among contractors. A poor organisational safety culture translates to less than satisfactory safety leadership and implementation at the field level. This in turn creates management challenges for other contractors as risks and liabilities could be introduced by an errant contractor via omission or commission but that must be dealt with in addition to the responsible contractor’s safety programs.

It is important to understand the construction industry’s safety and compliance record in order to better recognise the complexities and challenges associated with multi-contractor worksites. 
This article is not a comprehensive discussion of the topic but rather is intended to lead the construction project manager to explore further and devise company-specific measures to ensure that the work is conducted safely and to protect against liability on multi-contractor sites.

At multi-contractor worksites, the responsibility for hazard correction is often confusing and often unaddressed until after an incident has occurred. The blame game that follows such events does not augur well for cohesion among contractors and undermines the project success. 
Another interesting finding is that “contracted workers” (or subcontractor personnel), in the construction industry comprised the highest percentage of all workers who are fatally injured.

This highlights a significant gap in safety prequalification, selection and on-boarding by the prime or hiring contractor. It also reflects a failure of independent oversight mechanisms by all parties – employers and clients - with respect to oversight and supervision of subcontractor personnel. 
Project owners and contractors subcontract for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to:

• transfer of risk
• securing cost advantage
• acquiring services that require skills, expertise or equipment not available within the contractor’s own organisation
• personnel non-availability due to scheduling conflicts
• contractual stipulation
• hiring/staffing freeze or 
• other reasons.

It is not uncommon therefore, to observe a cascade of subcontractors (i.e. subcontractors to sub-subcontractors) working at construction worksites, which creates an unwieldy and complicated project organisation and blurs the lines of communication, responsibility, authority and accountability for safety. Under these circumstances, even a comprehensive and well-developed safety management system could become very difficult and hugely expensive to implement. Furthermore, a project owner or principal/managing contractor is hindered by the lack of authority and jurisdiction over subcontractors due to the absence of a contractual relationship. This severely restricts the exercise of influence or control over the subcontractor’s activities and places the onus on the hiring contractor for doing so. Contractors who recognise that responsibilities and authorities for safety can get muddied down a subcontracting chain are better positioned to address this issue.

The Occupational Health and Safety Act and its Regulation administrated by the Department of Labour will not hesitate to cite construction Employers or Clients. The Construction Regulations 2014 enforce duties on both the Client and Contractor to ensure health and safety are adequately addressed and managed during the construction.

Section 8 of the OHS Act: duties of the employer, states that employers are required to provide their employees with a place of employment that is “free from recognised hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious harm."

An example of a violation on a multi-contractor worksite is that of an improperly constructed scaffolding erected by Contractor A which collapses when used by Contractor B, thereby resulting in grievous injuries to Contractor B’s personnel.

In this case, the project manager is liable for the violation, along with Contractors A and B, as it had general supervisory authority over the site. If the project manager retained a third-party contractor to certify the scaffolding, that contractor would be liable as the “Correcting Employer.” The definition and roles of contractors working at multi-contractors’ worksites need to be addressed in more detail and all parties made aware of these roles and responsibilities. 

It is thus evident that lapses in communication, coordination and oversight among contractors at multi-contractors’ worksites can create hazardous conditions that could lead to accidents, losses and legal liability exposure.

In terms of building quality, it is often hard to determine where one sub-contractors’ scope of works starts or ends. A project manager will be involved in endless disputes on damage to completed work and the responsibility for patent and latent defects. There is a higher chance of a main contractor still being in business for five years after the completion of the project than a subcontractor who, for example, constructed the foundations.

In conclusion, on a very simple structure such as a warehouse, it may be slightly cheaper for the client to go the project-managed route, however it is very doubtful that this route would be successful for a complicated building such as a large office block.

Neil Enslin | OHS Manager

Ross Stembridge | Building Services Manager