Gå til hovedinnhold

Report: Follow-up of framework conditions

In April 2018, we held a series of meetings with selected participants to follow up framework conditions, especially within maintenance, modification and SIP (scaffolding, insulation and painting) work. The companies we followed up on were Point Resources and their suppliers Aker Solutions and Norisol.

In recent years, we have carried out a number of activities on the theme of the design of framework conditions in contracts. In this context, we define "framework conditions" as circumstances which impact on the practical opportunities open to an organisation, organisational unit, group or individual to keep major accident and working environment risks under control. We have observed that framework conditions linked to contracts and contract follow-up are especially significant

Allocation of responsibilities, manning/resources and KPIs are examples of important conditions specified in contracts that may have HSE consequences.

The objective of the series of meetings was to acquire knowledge and experience concerning potential HSE consequences of framework conditions. Contracts and contract follow-up are an important aspect of the framework conditions and were therefore given particular attention.

Topics discussed in the meetings included:

  • Review of contract strategy
  • The knowledge base for the tender specification for the contractors (e.g. knowledge of the facility’s technical condition or other factors affecting the tender)
  • Organisation of employee participation in the tendering process and in operations
  • Review of elements/requirements in the contracts and in the contract follow-up that may directly or indirectly affect the HSE level. Assessment of these HSE consequences. The review needs to cover, but not be limited to, the following topics:
    • Allocation of duties and responsibilities between Point, the M&M contractor and the SIP contractor (e.g. for planning and risk assessment, training, mapping and implementation of risk-reducing measures). How is it ensured that the M&M and SIP contractors have the resources and expertise to assume these responsibilities?
    • Are efficiency requirements defined? What is their potential effect?
    • Cost allocations for implementing risk-reducing measures – provide examples
    • KPIs/incentives applicable to the contract, their weighting and any link to bonuses
    • Compensation format (unit prices or hourly rates)
    • Manning level requirements in the contracts. Review of relevant decision support, including manning analyses. How is it ensured that manning is adapted to any operational changes?
  • To what extent are changes in contractual requirements possible during the contract term?
  • The safety delegate service’s assessment of the contracts

The results are summarised in the attached report.

Øyvind Midttun, press contact
Email: oyvind.midttun@ptil.no | +47 51 87 34 77