Ensuring contractor competency - 4.4.2 Training, awareness, and competency

[jmurph01]

Gusman - I read this the same way you do. For ALL contractors we ask for the sign-off sheet, and proof of insurance and WSIB (workplace safety insurance board) certificates. In addition, for those that can cause SIGNIFICANT impact, we ensure we have their permits/licenses/etc. on file.

Is this enough to satisfy 14001:2004? We have had this in place for over a year so our auditors have had a chance to see it. I know that previously thay had been quite pleased with it. we haven't yet been audited to the new standard.

 

[KReynolds]

Gusman - I am attaching a copy of my contractors manual. It is for our 3 canadian divisions, all of which are in ontario. I have removed references to the company or specific people.

if anyone has any constructive criticism I would love to hear it, especially in relation to 14001:2004.

hope this helps

I just came on this thread. Thanks for the manual and everyone else. I am helping a company to revise their EMS to accommodate the competency/training requirements (along with other QMS/EMS issues) in a sensible acheivable manner. This document and the other contributors to this thread have lead me in the right directions.

 

[kcoryell]

We have been ISO14001 for 3 years, and I have the joy of having been on the implementation as well as the auditor and the doc control and the Deputy EMR. For 4.4.2 we have identified these contractors as to what impact they may cause, then they read and sign a copy of the procedure. As to the competency, when I audit that part of the standard I actually do get ahold of selected contractors and have them present me with the latest copy of their license and insurance. If the person is licensed, that usually is a sign that they are competent to do their job. Every auditor that we have had find this to be acceptable.

Kevin

 

[SaintStan]

I think this example is relevant here:

An area of our operation is performed in a clean area.
We have specified that the cleanliness of the clean area is an environmental apsect.
The control of this is that the clean area is verified as such annually(calibrated) (also a customer specific requirement).
Calibration/verification records are all fine.
Calibration/verification provider is UKAS ISO 17025 certified.
Calibration is done by an outside contractor, therefore the person has gone through our contractor induction procedure. No problems yet.

However...

I've been asked how do I know that the person performing the work is competent (as per 4.4.2).
Now, the contractor who does the work is the company owner (very small company). I asked my calibration guy to get suitable evidence from this contractor, who is reluctant to offend the contractor by asking him "are you really capable of doing your job?"

I suppose if he wasn't competent, the clean area may not be properly verified thus creating a potential environmental impact.
However, does the fact that he's ISO17025 prove that he's competent to provide calibration services ?
Is my 14k auditor reasonable to question this ?

Thoughts please.
Thanks.

 

[Randy]

Reason may not be the issue here, the issue may be relevance.

Is this line of questioning relevant to the objectives, scope and criteria of the audit?

You could use the past history of the cleanup as evidence of "competence" that is recognized under its definition "demonstrated ability to apply knowledge and skill"

If thye auditor doesn't like that, then you may be correct to pursue his "competence".

 

[Paul Simpson]

An area of our operation is performed in a clean area.
We have specified that the cleanliness of the clean area is an environmental apsect.

Why? What is the significance of the cleanliness of this area on the environment?

The control of this is that the clean area is verified as such annually(calibrated) (also a customer specific requirement).
Calibration/verification records are all fine.
Calibration/verification provider is UKAS ISO 17025 certified.
Calibration is done by an outside contractor, therefore the person has gone through our contractor induction procedure. No problems yet.

However...

I've been asked how do I know that the person performing the work is competent (as per 4.4.2).
Now, the contractor who does the work is the company owner (very small company). I asked my calibration guy to get suitable evidence from this contractor, who is reluctant to offend the contractor by asking him "are you really capable of doing your job?"

I suppose if he wasn't competent, the clean area may not be properly verified thus creating a potential environmental impact.

Again not sure of the significance of the potential impact but I'll go with it and assume it is important.

However, does the fact that he's ISO17025 prove that he's competent to provide calibration services ?

As much as any form of system certification / accreditation can. Part of a 17025 accreditation assessment is a review of training and competence of any approved individual in the relevant testing methodology - far more specific than any 9001 / 14001 assessment.

Is my 14k auditor reasonable to question this ?

No. sounds like they are not aware of UKAS accreditation and what it means - a candidate for the pointy hat in the corner award.

Thoughts please.
Thanks.

End of thoughts.

 

[JadeS]

We evaluate all contractors through Supplier Evaluation. When approved, they are rated with an impact level of low - high for the process, product or service they provide. Their performance is tracked, measured and monitored the same as any other supplier. They are deemed competent based on their lack of issues or lack of nonconformity. This is written into the supplier evaluation procedure. As well, the contractors are responsible to provide competent sub-contractors for on-site work.

All legal and non-legal requirements applicable to their work with the company are provided to them, whiich they acknowledge in writing. This is part of the package they are provided, along with WSIB (worker comp, etc.) and any other such documents.

These are maintained as records in case the environmental or health and safety inspectors conduct scheduled or unscheduled visits.