Electrical Testing Case Study

Project summary:

We were approached by a contractor to deliver fixed wire testing services for Stockport Council and their housing partnerships, and to collaborate with the contractor during mobilisation but to take complete ownership of the service delivery. As the contractor had a branch in Stockport, close to our headquarters in Warrington, we were able to meet monthly with them to discuss project advancement. The value of the works was £30,000, with the project running from September 2018 and handed over on February 2019. The project is notable for its challenges relating to meeting the resource needs of a set of works with such a varied property portfolio, and challenging site pre-consultation demands.

Aims and objectives: In scoping the provision of fixed wire testing services to Stockport Council, we developed an understanding of the primary contractor’s resource constraints and how this led to concern from the Council that works may not proceed to schedule. To provide assurance, we recognised the need to devise a project framework approach which would evidence our event continuity planning (e.g. in the case of no-access, tenant complaints or supply chain issues), and effective resource management. 

To drive success, the project required an understanding each asset’s requirements to mitigate disruption and risk caused by our working, and use of effective client relationship management skills to satisfy a range of stakeholders each with unique needs. 

Implementation

Pre-project: A significant point of focus for the contractor (for which we were completing works on their behalf) was our relationship management abilities with the end-client, Stockport Council. During the pre-project stage, Contract Manager, Thomas Bradford, and Director, Lisa Webster, liaised to agree:

• A contract-specific feedback and complaints/queries escalation process, including daily operative feedback collection via job-sheet sign-off, and regular structured relationship meetings

• Our proposed work-order booking procedure with the Council

• Thomas’ role as the Council’s single point of contact on-site

This not only assured the contractor, but further informed our understanding of Stockport Council and established and effective base for collaboration with them in the mobilisation stage. 

The Council is responsible for a range of different property types, such as:

• Blocks of high- and low-rise flats with large communal areas

• Residential housing

• Leisure and community centres

• Offices and schools

• Village halls and other heritage buildings

Following property identification, we conducted an internal review to assess our ability to provide services to this range of properties. A key area of focus were the heritage properties, such as churches, religious commune centres and village meeting centres. These property types pose additional challenges, such as:

• Potential for incomplete or outdated electrical system documentation leading to more complex access to distribution boards and thus slower service delivery

• Increased remedial repair costs (e.g. to half-timbering, aged window glazing bars, terracotta etc) in the event of accidental operative damage to a property

• Working with stakeholders who have a heightened emotional attachment to the property as a result of religious, cultural or historical interest

• Greater difficulty of “like-for-like” electrical system remedial repair following a C1, C2 or C3 issue

We identified the need for site-specific pre-scoping visits on a number of properties, and refresher training for our staff, e.g. carrying out dynamic risk assessments and mitigating risk following an encounter with an unexpected hazard, such as an undocumented ACM. 

Council region indicated in grey, council properties in green.

Mobilisation: Effective resourcing and sequence pre-planning during mobilisation was critical due to the geographical distribution of the Council’s assets. The majority of the Council assets were located in the north west of the region, but fixed wire testing was also required on some properties over an hour’s drive to the east, such as in Mellor. The contract manager and contract coordinator reviewed asset documentation, and consulted with the Council to assess and confirm:

• Circuit count per building and access requirements

• Working schedules of facilities staff at the properties

• Operational hours of the property e.g. working hours of a call centre

• Any other unique requirements, e.g. charity event dates at community centres which would complicate testing procedure

As not all properties required a site-specific induction/visit, this allowed us to devise a work schedule which would maximise instances where our teams could conduct testing on multiple sites/properties in the same day. For example, one team could conduct testing on one property in the morning and one in the afternoon or late-evening, or the contract manager, or another team, could scope another site as works were ongoing elsewhere etc. This was possible because of the properties’ proximity with each other. Our approach significantly reduced time wasted through operative travel time throughout the project, with the saved time assuring the Council of an additional time-buffer in the event of project slowdowns, for example following no-accesses or inclement weather. It was also key to communicate our process for monitoring progression of works as part of this plan, due to the potential for e.g. a slowed morning project resulting in operatives being incapable of attending their afternoon works at another site; contingency resource was allocated in critical cases to prevent disruption following events like this.

Following meetings with the Council, we developed a project communications framework, agreeing:

• Procedure for interacting with various stakeholders, e.g. which forms of communication (phone call, letter drop, SMS, email etc.) would be the responsibility of the Council and which would be ours. This was as a result of data protection and privacy considerations for different groups.

• Post-works reporting process, including assuring the Council on our business continuity with regards to procedure for providing electrical testing documentation following site-visits.

• Communication channels with the Council both on-site and via our administrative team from our headquarters, including developing an on-rota out-of-hours communication procedure.

Key site-specific health and safety planning and disruption mitigation needs were identified. This was as a result of site-scoping visits conducted by our contract manager in partnership with the council, e.g.:

• Conducting electrical testing in unique/challenging environments – For example the Council’s leisure centres which contained swimming pools. In response to this, we co-developed with HS Direct, area-specific RAMS and operative induction sessions. Considerations included:

o Planning to select operatives based on their ability to swim/tread water

o Documenting pool exit paths (e.g. ladders, ramps etc.) and mapping locations of health and safety equipment, e.g. rescue buoys, head-restraint aquaboards, rescue reach poles etc.

o Procuring equipment such as footwear with anti-slip soles, quick-disconnect tool lanyards etc. to mitigate against risk of an operative falling into water and minimising the potential for harm were this to occur

o Framework for safe working procedures, e.g. ensuring teams were aware of tripping hazards, unannounced spot-checks, emergency response procedure if an operative fell into a pool, operatives maintaining line of site with each other at all times etc.

• Residents in communal properties – A number of risks to residents had to be mitigated by pre-planning with the council, with a key consideration being that some works were due to be conducted in the evening where ambient lighting levels would be lower than usual. Planning included:

o Agreeing a set communication strategy between all stakeholders to ensure residents would be aware of works, e.g. by conducting letter drops, placing reminders on communal notice boards, contacting residents via telephone etc., not only for safety but to prevent alarm

o Establishing effective barrier methods to prevent unauthorised access to workspaces 

o Agreeing risk and disruption mitigation methods for conduct on-site, e.g. operatives not using work telephones on loud-speaker, reducing footstep noise in communal staircases by using lifts where possible, establishing one rest-break/welfare area (rather than e.g. using whichever is nearest)

o Installing temporary battery powered lighting during dead-testing of circuits powering fixed-light installations where access was critical or there was a trip-hazard, e.g. near fire exits or in the area surrounding staircases

Working in schools – A number of measures were identified regarding risk mitigation techniques to facilitate safe working around pupils. Key considerations were:

• Issuing safeguarding refresher training to operatives scheduled to work on school sites

• Scheduling works where possible to occur outside of school hours

• Agreeing site-access requirements, including parking, to minimise disruption

• Enforcing work-area exclusion-zones via barriers and signage where appropriate

• Developing a site-rule compliance check procedure, ensuring operatives worked in accordance with agreed risk mitigation measures, e.g. ID badge checks and numbered/uniquely identifiable PPE

These procedures were to be enforced in-line with our quality policy and zero-harm culture, with daily, informal feedback (e.g. following end-of-day handover) used to refine and improve working practices in-line with PDCA. For works on sites which were to last more than a week, structured 360-review meetings were to be held regularly by our contracts manager to ensure safe working practice methods were operating to the client’s satisfaction, and that internal audits indicated 100% compliance. 

Works: Allocation of works resource was effectively managed by our Contract Coordinator, Kelly Bradford. Acting as the Council’s primary point of off-site contact, and managing the inflow of communications from HS Direct to Thomas, a cohesive communications framework was maintained, using our Zoho contract management software to collect and collate all site-specific information, e.g.:

• Appointment times, sign-in procedures and the facilities/property contact’s communications details

• All job-file related information, such as site-plans of distribution boards, RAMS, reporting info etc.

• Equipment, fleet and operative resource allocation and scheduling

This information was continually accessible to operatives while on-site, using work smartphones to upload milestone reporting data as tasks progressed, key to ensuring works were delivered to schedule.

The decision to work late evenings or nights on some properties was as a result of disruption mitigation requests from the client. For example: 

• In a call centre, dead-testing would result in site-staff being unable to make phone calls, disrupting the Council’s service delivery and inconveniencing locals

• Working-hour testing in a leisure centre would prove more costly to the Council, due to partial site-shutdown leading to reduced ability to recoup costs through customer fees

As a result of these factors, effective management of out-of-hours works was essential. Contract Manager, Thomas Taylor, was responsible for overseeing on-site resource allocation levels, including monitoring working hours on elements of the project which included working evenings or nights to manage operative fatigue. Successful liaison with the Council was central to works progression, as some sites did not have out-of-hours facilities staff, leading to the necessity to make alternate access arrangements such as collecting master key sets prior to works.

Quality, specification compliant and safe works were maintained as a result of ongoing checks and audits of working procedures. Unannounced spot checks of working practices were conducted regularly by Thomas, and because of the scale of some of the works it was necessary to conduct audits on a percentage of the works prior to hand-off. This process involved:

• Consulting Clik automated electrical testing reports to understand testing scope

• Depending on property type, using either stratified or systematic sampling to select distribution boards for retesting and confirmation of results

• Reconducting testing on the sampled distribution boards, and checking subsequent results are within the acceptable margin of error relative to the original test result

This process increased precision of testing results and ensured their validity, assuring the Council by providing post-audit reporting confirming what percentage of the works had been rechecked. As part of this process, Thomas would also audit ancillary testing procedures, such as checking operatives had correctly updated and affixed Electrical Installations periodic inspection labels. Additionally, ticksheets of multifunction testing equipment calibration checks, a process conducted annually via the manufacturer, and internally every two weeks, were regularly audited to further ensure testing validity.

Handover: Considering the scale of the works, phased handovers were key to this contract. Contract Manager Thomas Bradford managed this process, acting as the single point of contact to each property facilities manager, confirming details such as reporting information, any remedials, etc. On tasks that were of sufficient scale to warrant using two or three teams of operatives, and thus required coordination between the teams, quick, internal pre-handover meetings were held with all operatives involved so that Thomas could fully understand key details and collect feedback, providing the best communications to the Council during handover and informing our internal PDCA process.

Outcomes: Upon project completion, the Council expressed their confidence in our ability to deliver to timescales and the perceived strong work ethic of our operatives. Despite significant contingency methods being in place, such as service level agreements with additional contractors to conduct testing if resource demands unexpectedly increased, our efficient resource management rendered them unnecessary.

Key successes:

• Effectively coordinating multiple teams to deliver fixed wire testing programmes of significant scale

• Dynamically adjusting resource levels in response to changing demands and operative needs, all while staying to project timescales and delivering a quality service to the expected costs

• Reducing disruption to all stakeholders as a result of effective pre-planning of works

• Working safely in a variety of challenging and unique environments

Lessons learned included:

• Due to working on properties out of hours, improved procedure for planning welfare facilities for our operatives (e.g. confirming with the client where bathrooms close in the evening), reducing the chance of operative fatigue and thus bettering service

• Refining our internal communications procedures (e.g. which information for a contact we maintain in the site job file) to improve stakeholder relations and increase satisfaction

We strengthened our relationship with the primary contractor in delivering the contract successfully and delivering works with no variations. The quality of our service and works led to very positive feedback from the council, and we are currently seeking to increase our levels of work for them in the future.